Gospel of Luke, Chapter 13
The personality of the Gospel writer. Evangelist Luke, according to legends preserved by some ancient church writers (Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabene, etc.), was born in Antioch. His name, in all likelihood, is a contraction of the Roman name Lucilius. Was he a Jew or a pagan by birth? This question is answered by the passage from the Epistle to the Colossians, where St. Paul distinguishes Luke from the circumcision (Luke 4:11-14) and therefore testifies that Luke was a Gentile by birth. It is safe to assume that before joining the Church of Christ, Luke was a Jewish proselyte, since he is very familiar with Jewish customs. By his civilian profession, Luke was a doctor (Col. 4:14), and church tradition, although rather later, says that he was also engaged in painting (Nicephorus Callistus. Church history. II, 43). When and how he turned to Christ is unknown. The tradition that he belonged to the 70 apostles of Christ (Epiphanius. Panarius, haer. LI, 12, etc.) cannot be considered credible in view of the clear statement of Luke himself, who does not include himself among the witnesses of the life of Christ (Luke 1:1ff.). He acts for the first time as a companion and assistant to the ap. Paul during Paul's second missionary journey. This took place in Troas, where Luke may have lived before (Acts 16:10 et seq.). Then he was with Paul in Macedonia (Acts 16:11ff.) and, during the third journey, in Troas, Miletus and other places (Acts 24:23; Col. 4:14; Phil. 1:24). He accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1-28; cf. 2 Tim 4:11). Then information about him ceases in the writings of the New Testament, and only a relatively later tradition (Gregory the Theologian) reports his martyrdom; his relics, according to Jerome (de vir. ill. VII), under the emperor. Constantia was transferred from Achaia to Constantinople.
Origin of the Gospel of Luke. According to the evangelist himself (Luke 1:1-4), he compiled his Gospel on the basis of the tradition of eyewitnesses and the study of written experiences in presenting this tradition, trying to give a relatively detailed and correct, ordered account of the events of the gospel history. And those works that Ev. used. Luke, were compiled on the basis of the apostolic tradition, but nevertheless, they seemed to be true. Luke insufficient for the purpose that he had when composing his Gospel. One of these sources, maybe even the main source, was for Ev. Luke Gospel Mark. They even say that a huge part of Luke's Gospel is literary dependent on Ev. Mark (this is precisely what Weiss proved in his work on St. Mark by comparing the texts of these two Gospels).
Some critics also tried to make the Gospel of Luke dependent on the Gospel of Matthew, but these attempts were extremely unsuccessful and are now almost never repeated. If anything can be said with certainty, it is that in some places Ev. Luke uses a source that agrees with the Gospel of Matthew. This must be said primarily about the history of the childhood of Jesus Christ. The nature of the presentation of this story, the very speech of the Gospel in this section, which is very reminiscent of the works of Jewish writing, suggests that Luke here used a Jewish source, which was quite close to the story of the childhood of Jesus Christ as set out in the Gospel of Matthew.
Finally, even in ancient times it was suggested that Ev. Luke as a companion. Paul, expounded the “Gospel” of this particular apostle (Irenaeus. Against heresy. III, 1; in Eusebius of Caesarea, V, 8). Although this assumption is very likely and agrees with the nature of Luke's Gospel, which, apparently, deliberately chose such narratives as could prove the general and main idea of Paul's Gospel about the salvation of the Gentiles, nevertheless, the evangelist's own statement (1:1 et seq.) does not indicate this source.
The reason and purpose, place and time of writing the Gospel. The Gospel of Luke (and the book of Acts) was written for a certain Theophilus to enable him to ensure that the Christian teaching he was taught rested on solid foundations. There are many assumptions about the origin, profession and place of residence of this Theophilus, but all these assumptions do not have sufficient grounds. One can only say that Theophilus was a noble man, since Luke calls him “venerable” (κράτ ιστε 1:3), and from the nature of the Gospel, which is close to the nature of the teaching of the apostle. Paul naturally draws the conclusion that Theophilus was converted to Christianity by the Apostle Paul and was probably previously a pagan. One can also accept the testimony of the Meetings (a work attributed to Clement of Rome, X, 71) that Theophilus was a resident of Antioch. Finally, from the fact that in the book of Acts, written for the same Theophilus, Luke does not explain the apostles mentioned in the history of the journey. Paul to Rome of the localities (Acts 28:12.13.15), we can conclude that Theophilus was well acquainted with the named localities and probably traveled to Rome himself several times. But there is no doubt that the Gospel is its own. Luke wrote not for Theophilus alone, but for all Christians, for whom it was important to become acquainted with the history of the life of Christ in such a systematic and verified form as this story is in the Gospel of Luke.
That the Gospel of Luke was in any case written for a Christian or, more correctly, for pagan Christians, this is clearly evident from the fact that the evangelist nowhere presents Jesus Christ as primarily the Messiah expected by the Jews and does not strive to indicate in his activity and teaching Christ fulfillment of messianic prophecies. Instead, we find in the third Gospel repeated indications that Christ is the Redeemer of the entire human race and that the Gospel is intended for all nations. This idea was already expressed by the righteous elder Simeon (Luke 2:31 et seq.), and then passes through the genealogy of Christ, which is given by Heb. Luke is brought down to Adam, the ancestor of all mankind and which, therefore, shows that Christ does not belong to the Jewish people alone, but to all mankind. Then, beginning to depict the Galilean activity of Christ, Ev. Luke puts in the foreground the rejection of Christ by His fellow citizens - the inhabitants of Nazareth, in which the Lord indicated a feature that characterizes the attitude of the Jews towards the prophets in general - an attitude due to which the prophets left the Jewish land for the pagans or showed their favor to the pagans (Elijah and Elisha Luke 4 :25-27). In the Nagornoy conversation, Ev. Luke does not cite Christ’s sayings about His attitude to the law (Luke 1:20-49) and Pharisaic righteousness, and in his instructions to the apostles he omits the prohibition for the apostles to preach to the pagans and Samaritans (Luke 9:1-6). On the contrary, he alone talks about the grateful Samaritan, about the merciful Samaritan, about Christ’s disapproval of the immoderate irritation of the disciples against the Samaritans who did not accept Christ. This should also include various parables and sayings of Christ, in which there is great similarity with the teaching about righteousness from faith, which the apostle. Paul proclaimed in his letters written to churches made up primarily of Gentiles.
The influence of ap. Paul and the desire to explain the universality of salvation brought by Christ undoubtedly had a great influence on the choice of material for composing the Gospel of Luke. However, there is not the slightest reason to assume that the writer pursued purely subjective views in his work and deviated from historical truth. On the contrary, we see that he gives place in his Gospel to such narratives that undoubtedly developed in the Judeo-Christian circle (the story of Christ’s childhood). It is in vain, therefore, that they attribute to him the desire to adapt Jewish ideas about the Messiah to the views of the apostle. Paul (Zeller) or another desire to elevate Paul above the twelve apostles and Paul's teaching before Judeo-Christianity (Baur, Hilgenfeld). This assumption is contradicted by the content of the Gospel, in which there are many sections that run counter to this supposed desire of Luke (this is, firstly, the story of the birth of Christ and His childhood, and then the following parts: Luke 4:16-30; Luke 5:39; Luke 10:22; Luke 12:6 et seq.; Luke 13:1-5; Luke 16:17; Luke 19:18-46, etc. (To reconcile his assumption with the existence of such sections in the Gospel of Luke, Baur had to resort to a new assumption that in its present form the Gospel of Luke is the work of some later person (editor).Golsten, who sees in the Gospel of Luke a combination of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, believes that Luke intended to unite the Judeo-Christian and Paul's views, distinguishing from them the Judaistic and extreme Pauline. The same view of the Gospel of Luke, as a work pursuing purely conciliatory goals of two directions that fought in the primal Church, continues to exist in the newest criticism of the apostolic writings. Johann Weiss in his preface to the interpretation of Ev. Luke (2nd ed. 1907) come to the conclusion that this Gospel cannot in any way be recognized as pursuing the task of exalting Paulinism. Luke shows his complete “non-partisanship”, and if he has frequent coincidences in thoughts and expressions with the messages of the Apostle Paul, this can only be explained by the fact that by the time Luke wrote his Gospel, these messages were already widespread in all churches . The love of Christ for sinners, the manifestations of which he so often dwells on. Luke, there is nothing particularly characterizing Paul’s idea of Christ: on the contrary, the entire Christian tradition presented Christ precisely as loving sinners...
The time when the Gospel of Luke was written by some ancient writers belonged to a very early period in the history of Christianity - even to the time of the activity of the apostle. Paul, and the newest interpreters in most cases claim that the Gospel of Luke was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem: at the time when the two-year stay of the ap. Paul in Roman imprisonment. There is, however, an opinion, supported by fairly authoritative scholars (for example, B. Weiss), that the Gospel of Luke was written after the 70th year, i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem. This opinion seeks to find its basis mainly in Chapter 21. The Gospel of Luke (v. 24 et seq.), where the destruction of Jerusalem is supposed to be an already accomplished fact. With this, it seems, the idea that Luke has about the position of the Christian Church, as being in a very oppressed state, also agrees (cf. Luke 6:20 et seq.). However, according to the conviction of the same Weiss, it is impossible to date the origin of the Gospel further than the 70s (as, for example, Baur and Zeller do, putting the origin of the Gospel of Luke in 110-130, or as Hilgenfeld, Keim, Volkmar - in 100-100). m g.). Regarding this opinion of Weiss, we can say that it does not contain anything incredible and even, perhaps, can find a basis for itself in the testimony of St. Irenaeus, who says that the Gospel of Luke was written after the death of the apostles Peter and Paul (Against Heresies III, 1).
Where the Gospel of Luke is written - nothing definite is known about this from tradition. According to some, the place of writing was Achaia, according to others, Alexandria or Caesarea. Some point to Corinth, others to Rome as the place where the Gospel was written; but all this is just speculation.
On the authenticity and integrity of the Gospel of Luke. The writer of the Gospel does not call himself by name, but the ancient tradition of the Church unanimously calls the apostle the writer of the third Gospel. Luke (Irenaeus. Against heresy. III, 1, 1; Origen in Eusebius, Church history VI, 25, etc. See also the canon of Muratorium). There is nothing in the Gospel itself that would prevent us from accepting this testimony of tradition. If opponents of authenticity point out that the apostolic men do not cite passages from it at all, then this circumstance can be explained by the fact that under the apostolic men it was customary to be guided more by the oral tradition about the life of Christ than by the records about Him; In addition, the Gospel of Luke, as having, judging by its writing, a private purpose first of all, could be considered by the apostolic men as a private document. Only later did it acquire the significance of a generally binding guide for the study of Gospel history.
Modern criticism still does not agree with the testimony of tradition and does not recognize Luke as the writer of the Gospel. The basis for doubting the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke for critics (for example, for Johann Weiss) is the fact that the author of the Gospel must be recognized as the one who compiled the book of the Acts of the Apostles: this is evidenced not only by the inscription of the book. Acts (Acts 1:1), but also the style of both books. Meanwhile, criticism claims that the book of Acts was not written by Luke himself or even by his companion. Paul, and a person who lived much later, who only in the second part of the book uses the notes that remained from the companion of the ap. Paul (see, for example, Luke 16:10: we...). Obviously, this assumption expressed by Weiss stands and falls with the question of the authenticity of the book of the Acts of the Apostles and therefore cannot be discussed here.
As for the integrity of the Gospel of Luke, critics have long expressed the idea that not all of the Gospel of Luke originated from this writer, but that there are sections inserted into it by a later hand. Therefore, they tried to highlight the so-called “first-Luke” (Scholten). But most new interpreters defend the position that the Gospel of Luke, in its entirety, is the work of Luke. Those objections that, for example, he expresses in his commentary on Ev. Luke Yog. Weiss, a sane person can hardly shake the confidence that the Gospel of Luke in all its sections is a completely integral work of one author. (Some of these objections will be dealt with in the interpretation of Luke's Gospel.)
Contents of the Gospel. In relation to the choice and order of the Gospel events, Ev. Luke, like Matthew and Mark, divides these events into two groups, one of which embraces the Galilean activity of Christ, and the other His activity in Jerusalem. At the same time, Luke greatly abridges some of the stories contained in the first two Gospels, but gives many stories that are not at all found in those Gospels. Finally, those stories that in his Gospel represent a reproduction of what is in the first two Gospels, he groups and modifies in his own way.
Like Ev. Matthew, Luke begins his Gospel with the very first moments of New Testament revelation. In the first three chapters he depicts: a) the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist and the circumstances surrounding them (chapter 1), b) the history of the birth, circumcision and bringing of Christ to the temple , and then the appearance of Christ in the temple when He was a 12-year-old boy (chapter 11), c) the appearance of John the Baptist as the Forerunner of the Messiah, the descent of the Spirit of God on Christ during His baptism, the age of Christ, at what He was at that time, and His genealogy (chapter 3).
The depiction of Christ's messianic activity in the Gospel of Luke is also quite clearly divided into three parts. The first part covers the work of Christ in Galilee (Luke 4:1-9:50), the second contains the speeches and miracles of Christ during His long journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-19:27) and the third contains the story of the completion of the messianic ministry Christ in Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-24:53).
In the first part, where the Evangelist Luke apparently follows St. Mark, both in the choice and in the sequence of events, several releases are made from Mark's narrative. Omitted specifically: Mark 3:20-30 - the malicious judgments of the Pharisees about the expulsion of demons by Christ, Mark 6:17-29 - the news of the capture and killing of the Baptist, and then everything that is given in Mark (as well as in Matthew) from history the activities of Christ in northern Galilee and Perea (Mark 6:44-8:27 et seq.). The miracle of the feeding of the people (Luke 9:10-17) is directly joined by the story of Peter’s confession and the Lord’s first prediction about His suffering (Luke 9:18 et seq.). On the other hand, ev. Luke, instead of the section on the recognition of Simon and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee to follow Christ (Mark 6:16-20; cf. Matthew 4:18-22), reports the story of a miraculous fishing event, as a result of which Peter and his comrades abandoned their occupation in order to constantly follow Christ (Luke 5:1-11), and instead of the story of the rejection of Christ in Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6; cf. Matthew 13:54-58), he places a story of the same content when describing the first visit of Christ as Messiah of His father city (Luke 4:16-30). Further, after the calling of the 12 apostles, Luke places in his Gospel the following sections, not found in the Gospel of Mark: Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20-49, but in a more concise form than it is set out in St. Matthew), the question of the Baptist to the Lord about His Messiahship (Luke 7:18-35), and inserted between these two parts is the story of the resurrection of the Nain youth (Luke 7:11-17), then the story of the anointing of Christ at a dinner in the house of the Pharisee Simon (Luke 7:36-50) and the names of the Galilean women who served Christ with their property (Luke 8:1-3).
This closeness of Luke's Gospel to Mark's Gospel is undoubtedly explained by the fact that both evangelists wrote their Gospels for pagan Christians. Both evangelists also show a desire to depict the gospel events not in their exact chronological sequence, but to give as complete and clear an idea as possible of Christ as the founder of the Messianic kingdom. Luke’s deviations from Mark can be explained by his desire to give more space to those stories that Luke borrows from tradition, as well as the desire to group the facts reported to Luke by eyewitnesses, so that his Gospel would represent not only the image of Christ, His life and works, but also His teaching about the Kingdom of God, expressed in His speeches and conversations with both His disciples and His opponents.
In order to systematically implement this intention of his. Luke places between both, predominantly historical, parts of his Gospel - the first and third - the middle part (Luke 9:51-19:27), in which conversations and speeches predominate, and in this part he cites such speeches and events that according to others The Gospels took place at a different time. Some interpreters (for example, Meyer, Godet) see in this section an accurate chronological presentation of events, based on the words of Ev. himself. Luke, who promised to present “everything in order” (καθ ' ε ̔ ξη ̃ ς - 1:3). But such an assumption is hardly valid. Although ev. Luke says that he wants to write “in order,” but this does not mean at all that he wants to give only a chronicle of the life of Christ in his Gospel. On the contrary, he set out to give Theophilus, through an accurate presentation of the Gospel story, complete confidence in the truth of those teachings in which he was instructed. General sequential order of events. Luke preserved it: his gospel story begins with the birth of Christ and even with the birth of His Forerunner, then there is a depiction of the public ministry of Christ, and the moments of the revelation of Christ’s teaching about Himself as the Messiah are indicated, and finally, the whole story ends with a statement of the events of the last days of Christ’s presence on the ground. There was no need to list in sequential order everything that was accomplished by Christ from baptism to ascension - it was enough for the purpose that Luke had, to convey the events of the gospel history in a certain group. About this intention ev. Luke also says that most of the sections of the second part are connected not by exact chronological indications, but by simple transitional formulas: and it was (Luke 11:1; Luke 14:1), and it was (Luke 10:38; Luke 11:27 ), and behold (Luke 10:25), he said (Luke 12:54), etc. or in simple connectives: a, and (δε ̀ - Luke 11:29; Luke 12:10). These transitions were made, obviously, not in order to determine the time of events, but only their setting. It is also impossible not to point out that the evangelist here describes events that took place either in Samaria (Luke 9:52), then in Bethany, not far from Jerusalem (Luke 10:38), then again somewhere far from Jerusalem (Luke 13 :31), in Galilee - in a word, these are events of different times, and not just those that happened during the last journey of Christ to Jerusalem on the Passover of Passion 1 Some interpreters, in order to maintain chronological order in this section, tried to find in it indications of two journeys of Christ to Jerusalem - for the feast of renewal and the feast of the last Easter (Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander) or even the three mentioned by John in his Gospel (Wieseler). But, not to mention the fact that there is no definite allusion to various journeys, the passage in Luke’s Gospel clearly speaks against such an assumption, where it is definitely said that the evangelist wants to describe in this section only the last journey of the Lord to Jerusalem - on the Passover of Passion. In the 9th chapter. 51st art. It is said: “When the days of His taking from the world drew near, He wanted to go to Jerusalem.” Explanation see clearly. Chapter 9 .
Finally, in the third section (Luke 19:28-24:53) Hev. Luke sometimes deviates from the chronological order of events in the interests of his grouping of facts (for example, he places the denial of Peter before the trial of Christ before the high priest). Here again ev. Luke adheres to the Gospel of Mark as the source of his stories, supplementing his story with information drawn from another, unknown to us, source. 2 Thus, Luke alone has stories about the publican Zacchaeus (Luke 19: 1-10), about the dispute between the disciples during the celebration of the Eucharist ( Luke 22:24-30), about the trial of Christ by Herod (Luke 23:4-12), about the women who mourned Christ during His procession to Calvary (Luke 23:27-31), conversation with the thief on the cross (Luke 23 :39-43), the appearance to Emmaus travelers (Luke 24:13-35) and some other messages that represent a supplement to the stories of Hev. Brand. .
Gospel Plan. In accordance with his intended goal - to provide a basis for faith in the teaching that had already been taught to Theophilus, Hev. Luke planned the entire content of his Gospel in such a way that it really leads the reader to the conviction that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of all mankind, that He fulfilled all the promises of the Old Testament about the Messiah as the Savior of not just the Jewish people, but of all nations. Naturally, in order to achieve his goal, the Evangelist Luke did not need to give his Gospel the appearance of a chronicle of Gospel events, but rather needed to group all the events so that his narrative would make the impression he desired on the reader.
The evangelist's plan is already evident in the introduction to the history of the messianic ministry of Christ (chapters 1-3). In the story of the conception and birth of Christ, it is mentioned that an angel announced to the Blessed Virgin the birth of a Son, whom she would conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit and who would therefore be the Son of God, and in the flesh - the Son of David, who would forever occupy the throne of his father, David. The birth of Christ, as the birth of the promised Redeemer, is announced through an angel to the shepherds. When the Infant Christ was brought to the temple, the inspired elder Simeon and the prophetess Anna testified to His high dignity. Jesus Himself, still a 12-year-old boy, already declares that He should be in the temple as in the house of His Father. At the baptism of Christ in the Jordan, He receives heavenly testimony that He is the beloved Son of God, who received all the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit for His messianic ministry. Finally, His genealogy given in Chapter 3, going back to Adam and God, testifies that He is the founder of a new humanity, born of God through the Holy Spirit.
Then, in the first part of the Gospel, an image is given of the messianic ministry of Christ, which is accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling Christ (4:1). By the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ defeats the devil in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13), and then appears in to this “power of the Spirit” in Galilee, and in Nazareth, His own city, He declares Himself the Anointed One and the Redeemer, about whom the prophets of the Old Testament predicted. Not finding faith in Himself here, He reminds His unbelieving fellow citizens that God, even in the Old Testament, prepared acceptance for the prophets among the pagans (Luke 4:14-30).
After this, which had a predictive significance for the future attitude towards Christ on the part of the Jews, the event was followed by a series of deeds performed by Christ in Capernaum and its environs: the healing of a demoniac by the power of the word of Christ in the synagogue, the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law and other sick and demoniacs who were brought and brought to Christ (Luke 4:31-44), miraculous fishing, healing of the leper. All this is depicted as events that entailed the spread of the rumor about Christ and the arrival to Christ of entire masses of people who came to listen to the teachings of Christ and brought with them their sick in the hope that Christ would heal them (Luke 5:1-16).
Then follows a group of incidents that aroused opposition to Christ on the part of the Pharisees and scribes: the forgiveness of the sins of the healed paralytic (Luke 5:17-26), the announcement at the publican’s dinner that Christ came to save not the righteous, but sinners (Luke 5:27-32 ), justification of Christ's disciples for non-observance of fasts, based on the fact that the Bridegroom-Messiah is with them (Luke 5:33-39), and in breaking the Sabbath, based on the fact that Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, and, moreover, confirmed by a miracle, which Christ did this on the Sabbath with the withered hand (Luke 6:1-11). But while these deeds and statements of Christ irritated his opponents to the point that they began to think about how to take Him, He chose 12 from among His disciples as apostles (Luke 6:12-16), proclaimed from the mountain in the hearing of all the people who followed Him, the main provisions on which the Kingdom of God, which He founded, should be built (Luke 6:17-49), and, after descending from the mountain, not only fulfilled the request of the pagan centurion for the healing of his servant, because the centurion showed such faith in Christ, which Christ did not find in Israel (Luke 7:1-10), but also raised the son of the widow of Nain, after which he was glorified by all the people accompanying the funeral procession as a prophet sent by God to the chosen people (Luke 7:11-17 ).
The embassy from John the Baptist to Christ with the question whether He is the Messiah prompted Christ to point to His deeds as evidence of His Messianic dignity and at the same time reproach the people for their lack of trust in John the Baptist and in Him, Christ. At the same time, Christ makes a distinction between those listeners who long to hear from Him an indication of the path to salvation, and between those, of whom there are a huge mass and who do not believe in Him (Luke 7:18-35). The subsequent sections, in accordance with this intention of the evangelist to show the difference between the Jews who listened to Christ, report a number of facts that illustrate such a division among the people and at the same time the relationship of Christ to the people, to its different parts, consistent with their relationship to Christ, namely: the anointing of Christ a repentant sinner and the behavior of a Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), a mention of the Galilean women who served Christ with their property (Luke 8:1-3), a parable about the various qualities of a field in which sowing is done, indicating the bitterness of the people (Luke 8: 4-18), the attitude of Christ towards His relatives (Luke 8:19-21), the crossing into the country of the Gadarenes, during which the lack of faith of the disciples was revealed, and the healing of a demoniac, and the contrast between the stupid indifference that the Gadarenes showed to the miracle performed by Christ is noted, and by the gratitude of the healed (Luke 8:22-39), the healing of the bleeding woman and the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter, because both the woman and Jairus showed their faith in Christ (Luke 8:40-56). What follows are the events related in chapter 9, which were intended to strengthen the disciples of Christ in the faith: equipping the disciples with power to cast out and heal the sick, together with instructions on how they should act during their preaching journey (Luke 9:1- 6), and it is indicated, as the tetrarch Herod understood the activity of Jesus (Luke 9:7-9), the feeding of five thousand, with which Christ showed the apostles returning from the journey His power to provide help in every need (Luke 9:10-17), the question of Christ , for whom the people consider Him to be and for whom the disciples, and the confession of Peter on behalf of all the apostles is given: “You are the Christ of God,” and then Christ’s prediction of His rejection by the representatives of the people and His death and resurrection, as well as the admonition addressed to the disciples so that they imitated Him in self-sacrifice, for which He will reward them at His second glorious coming (Luke 9:18-27), the transfiguration of Christ, which allowed His disciples to penetrate with their gaze into His future glorification (Luke 9:28-36), the healing of the demoniac a sleepwalking youth - whom Christ's disciples could not heal due to the weakness of their faith - which resulted in the enthusiastic glorification of God by the people. At the same time, however, Christ once again pointed out to His disciples the fate awaiting Him, and they turned out to be incomprehensible in relation to such a clear statement made by Christ (Luke 9:37-45).
This inability of the disciples, despite their confession of the Messiahship of Christ, to understand His prophecy about His death and resurrection, had its basis in the fact that they were still in those ideas about the Kingdom of the Messiah that had developed among the Jewish scribes, who understood the Messianic Kingdom as an earthly kingdom, political, and at the same time testified to how weak their knowledge was still about the nature of the Kingdom of God and its spiritual benefits. Therefore, according to Ev. Luke, Christ devoted the rest of the time before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem to teaching His disciples precisely these most important truths about the nature of the Kingdom of God, about its form and spread (second part), about what is needed to achieve eternal life, and warnings not to get carried away the teachings of the Pharisees and the views of His enemies, whom He will eventually come to judge as the King of this Kingdom of God (Luke 9:51-19:27).
Finally, in the third part, the evangelist shows how Christ, by His suffering, death and resurrection, proved that He is truly the promised Savior and the King of the Kingdom of God anointed by the Holy Spirit. Depicting the solemn entry of the Lord into Jerusalem, the evangelist Luke speaks not only about the rapture of the people - which is also reported by other evangelists, but also about the fact that Christ announced His judgment over the city that disobeyed Him (Luke 19:28-44) and then, according to with Mark and Matthew, about how He put His enemies to shame in the temple (Luke 20:1-47), and then, pointing out the superiority of the poor widow's alms for the temple compared to the contributions of the rich, He foretold to His disciples the fate of Jerusalem and His followers ( Luke 21:1-36).
In the description of the suffering and death of Christ (chapters 22 and 23), it is exposed that Satan prompted Judas to betray Christ (Luke 22:3), and then Christ’s confidence is put forward that He will eat supper with His disciples in the Kingdom of God and that the Old Testament Passover must henceforth be replaced by the Eucharist established by Him (Luke 22:15-23). The evangelist also mentions that Christ at the Last Supper, calling his disciples to service, and not to domination, nevertheless promised them dominion in His Kingdom (Luke 22:24-30). Then follows the story of three moments of Christ's last hours: Christ's promise to pray for Peter, given in view of his imminent fall (Luke 22:31-34), the call of the disciples in the fight against temptations (Luke 22:35-38), and Christ's prayer in Gethsemane, in which He was strengthened by an angel from heaven (Luke 22:39-46). Then the evangelist speaks about the capture of Christ and Christ’s healing of the servant wounded by Peter (51) and about His denunciation of the high priests who came with the soldiers (53). All these particulars clearly show that Christ went to suffering and death voluntarily, in the consciousness of their necessity so that the salvation of mankind could be accomplished.
In the depiction of the very suffering of Christ, Peter’s denial is presented by the Evangelist Luke as evidence that even during His own suffering, Christ had compassion on His weak disciple (Luke 22:54-62). Then follows a description of the great sufferings of Christ in the following three features: 1) the denial of the high dignity of Christ, partly by the soldiers who mocked Christ in the court of the high priest (Luke 22:63-65), and mainly by the members of the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71), 2 ) recognition of Christ as a dreamer at the trial of Pilate and Herod (Luke 23:1-12) and 3) the people’s preference for Barabbas the thief over Christ and the sentencing of Christ to death by crucifixion (Luke 23:13-25).
After depicting the depth of Christ’s suffering, the evangelist notes such features from the circumstances of this suffering that clearly testified that Christ, even in His suffering, remained the King of the Kingdom of God. The Evangelist reports that the Convict 1) as a judge addressed the women who wept for Him (Luke 23:26-31) and asked the Father for his enemies who were committing a crime against Him unconsciously (Luke 23:32-34), 2) gave a place in paradise to the repentant thief, as having the right to do so (Luke 23:35-43), 3) realized that, dying, He betrayed His very spirit to the Father (Luke 23:44-46), 4) was recognized as righteous by the centurion and By His death he aroused repentance among the people (Luke 23:47-48) and 5) was honored with a particularly solemn burial (Luke 23:49-56). Finally, in the history of the resurrection of Christ, the evangelist highlights such events that clearly proved the greatness of Christ and served to clarify the work of salvation accomplished by Him. This is precisely: the testimony of the angels that Christ conquered death, according to His prophecies about this (Luke 24: 1-12), then the appearance of Christ himself to the Emmaus travelers, to whom Christ showed from Scripture the necessity of His suffering in order for Him to enter into glory His (Luke 24:13-35), the appearance of Christ to all the apostles, to whom He also explained the prophecies that spoke about Him, and commissioned in His name to preach the message of forgiveness of sins to all the nations of the earth, promising at the same time to the apostles to send down the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:36-49). Finally, having briefly depicted the ascension of Christ into heaven (Luke 24:50-53), Hev. Luke ended his Gospel with this, which really was a confirmation of everything taught to Theophilus and other pagan Christians, Christian teaching: Christ is truly depicted here as the promised Messiah, as the Son of God and the King of the Kingdom of God.
Sources and aids for studying the Gospel of Luke. Of the patristic interpretations of the Gospel of Luke, the most thorough are the works of Blessed. Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabena. Of our Russian commentators, in the first place we must put Bishop Michael (Explanatory Gospel), then who compiled a textbook for reading the Four Gospels by D.P. Bogolepov, B.I. Gladkov, who wrote the “Explanatory Gospel,” and Prof. Kaz. spirit. Academy of M. Theologian, who compiled the books: 1) The Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Forerunner, according to the Gospels of St. apostles Matthew and Luke. Kazan, 1893; and 2) The public ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the stories of the holy evangelists. Vol. first. Kazan, 1908.
Of the works on the Gospel of Luke, we have only the dissertation of Fr. Polotebnova: The Holy Gospel of Luke. Orthodox critical-exegetical study against F. H. Baur. Moscow, 1873.
From foreign comments we mention interpretations: Keil K. Fr. 1879 (in German), Meyer as revised by B. Weiss 1885 (in German), Jog. Weiss "Writings of N. Zav." 2nd ed. 1907 (in German); Trench coat. Interpretation of the parables of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1888 (in Russian) and Miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1883 in Russian, language); and Merckx. The four canonical Gospels according to their oldest known text. Part 2, 2nd half of 1905 (in German).
The following works are also quoted: Geiki. Life and teachings of Christ. Per. St. M. Fiveysky, 1894; Edersheim. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. Per. St. M. Fiveysky. T. 1. 1900. Reville A. Jesus of Nazareth. Per. Zelinsky, vol. 1-2, 1909; and some articles from spiritual magazines.
At this time several people came up and told Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with the blood of the sacrifices they had made.
And Jesus said, turning to them: Do you think these Galileans suffered so much because they were more sinners than all the Galileans?
No, I assure you; therefore, unless you repent, you will all perish in the same way.
Or maybe you think that those eighteen people on whom the Tower of Siloam fell and killed them were more guilty than anyone living in Jerusalem?
No, I assure you; therefore, if you do not repent, you will all perish in the same way.
And he told this parable: a certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and so he came to see if there were fruits on it, but he did not find them.
Then he said to the vinedresser: This is the third year since I have come in the hope of seeing fruit on this fig tree, but I do not find it; cut it down, why is it wasting land?
But he answered him: sir, let her stay for this year, and in the meantime I will dig up the earth around her and tidy it up; maybe next year it will bear fruit. If not, then we’ll cut it down.
One Saturday He was preaching in one of the synagogues.
And there was a woman who had suffered from an illness for eighteen years: she was bent over and could not fully straighten up.
When Jesus saw her, he called her and said, “Woman, you have been delivered from your illness.”
At the same time, He laid His hands on her, and she immediately straightened up and began to praise God.
the elder of the synagogue, indignant that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, said, addressing the people: there are six days on which something must be done; come and be healed on these days, not on Saturday.
The Lord answered him: hypocrite! On the Sabbath, does not each of you untie his ox or donkey and lead him out of the stall to drink?
And this daughter Avrala, who has been bound by Satan for eighteen years now, should not have been freed from these bonds on Saturday?
And after these words, those who opposed Him were ashamed, and all the people praised Him for all the miracles He had performed.
And He said: What is the Kingdom of God like? To what will I liken him?
It is like a mustard seed that a man planted in his garden; it grew and rose up like a great tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.
And again he said: What will I liken the Kingdom of God to?
It is like leaven, with which a woman kneaded three measures of flour until it was all leavened.
So, on his way to Jerusalem, He walked and preached in cities and villages.
And then one asked Him: Lord, aren’t there a few who are being saved? He answered them: try to pass through the narrow gate, for many, I assure you, will want to enter, but will not be able to.
Otherwise, when the Lord rises and closes these gates, and you, standing outside, begin to knock and ask: Lord! God! Open to us, - He will answer you: I don’t know you or where you come from.
Then you will begin to say: we ate and drank with You, and You preached in our streets; but He will answer: I assure you, I know neither you nor where you come from; Depart from Me, all you who do injustice.
And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, and yourselves being cast out.
And they will come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and will sit in the kingdom of God.
Now, here are the last who will be first, and there are the first who will be last.
Meanwhile, several Pharisees came up to Him and said: Hasten to leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.
He said to them: go and tell this fox: today and tomorrow I will cast out demons and perform healings, and on the third day I will stop.
However, I have to continue the path today, and tomorrow, and in the days that follow, for it is impossible for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you! How many times have I wanted to gather your children together, just as a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, but you did not want this.
So let your house remain empty! Behold, I say to you: you will not see Me until you exclaim: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!
