BIBLES NET. COM

Matthew Henry’s Commentary – Luke, Introduction

Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary

on the Whole Bible

Back to Biblesnet.com Home Page


[Table of Contents]

[Previous]

[Next]

Matthew Henry
Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721)



Luke

 

  • Chapter 1
  • Chapter 2
  • Chapter 3
  • Chapter 4
  • Chapter 5
  • Chapter 6
  • Chapter 7
  • Chapter 8
  • Chapter 9
  • Chapter 10
  • Chapter 11
  • Chapter 12
  • Chapter 13
  • Chapter 14
  • Chapter 15
  • Chapter 16
  • Chapter 17
  • Chapter 18
  • Chapter 19
  • Chapter 20
  • Chapter 21
  • Chapter 22
  • Chapter 23
  • Chapter 24



  • AN

    EXPOSITION,

    W I T H   P R A C T I C A L   O B S E R V A T I O N S,

    OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

    S T.   L U K E.


         

    WE

    are now entering into the labours of another evangelist; his name

    Luke, which some take to be a contraction of Lucilius;

    born at Antioch, so St. Jerome. Some think that he was the only one of

    all the penmen of the scripture that was not of the seed of Israel. He

    was a Jewish proselyte, and, as some conjecture, converted to

    Christianity by the ministry of St. Paul at Antioch; and after his

    coming into Macedonia

    (Acts xvi. 10)

    he was his constant companion. He had employed himself in the study and

    practice of physic; hence, Paul calls him Luke the beloved

    Physician,
    Col. iv. 14.

    Some of the pretended ancients tell you that he was a painter, and drew

    a picture of the virgin Mary. But Dr. Whitby thinks that there is

    nothing certain to the contrary, and that therefore it is probable that

    he was one of the seventy disciples, and a follower of Christ when he

    was here upon earth; and, if so, he was a native Israelite. I see not

    what can be objected against this, except some uncertain traditions of

    the ancients, which we can build nothing upon, and against which may be

    opposed the testimonies of Origen and Epiphanius, who both say that he

    was one of the seventy disciples. He is supposed to have written this

    gospel when he was associated with St. Paul in his travels, and by

    direction from him: and some think that this is the brother whom

    Paul speaks of

    (2 Cor. viii. 18),

    whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches of

    Christ; as if the meaning of it were, that he was celebrated in

    all the churches for writing this gospel; and that St. Paul

    means this when he speaks sometimes of his gospel, as

    Rom. ii. 16.

    But there is no ground at all for this. Dr. Cave observes that his way

    and manner of writing are accurate and exact, his style polite and

    elegant, sublime and lofty, yet perspicuous; and that he expresses

    himself in a vein of purer Greek than is to be found in the other

    writers of the holy story. Thus he relates divers things more copiously

    than the other evangelists; and thus he especially treats of those

    things which relate to the priestly office of Christ. It is uncertain

    when, or about what time, this gospel was written. Some think that it

    was written in Achaia, during his travels with Paul, seventeen years

    (twenty-two years, say others) after Christ’s ascension; others, that

    it was written at Rome, a little before he wrote his history of the

    Acts of the Apostles (which is a continuation of this), when he

    was there with Paul, while he was a prisoner, and preaching in his own

    hired house, with which the history of the Acts concludes; and then

    Paul saith that only Luke was with him,
    2 Tim. iv. 11.

    When he was under that voluntary confinement with Paul, he had leisure

    to compile these two histories (and many excellent writings the church

    has been indebted to a prison for): if so, it was written about

    twenty-seven years after Christ’s ascension, and about the fourth year

    of Nero. Jerome says, He died when he was eighty-four years of age,

    and was never married. Some write that he suffered martyrdom; but, if

    he did, where and when is uncertain. Nor indeed is there much more

    credit to be given to the Christian traditions concerning the writers

    of the New Testament than to the Jewish traditions concerning those of

    the Old Testament.


    [Table of Contents]

    [Previous]

    [Next]

    Matthew Henry
    Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721)


    Back to Bibles Net . Com – Online Christian Library

    Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary – Free Download

    Contact Us


    Top