《Coke’s Commentary on the Holy Bible – Luke (Vol. 1)》(Thomas Coke)
Commentator
Thomas Coke (9 September 1747 - 2 May 1814) was the first Methodist Bishop and is known as the Father of Methodist Missions.
Born in Brecon, south Wales, his father was a well-to-do apothecary. Coke, who was only 5 foot and 1 inch tall and prone to being overweight, read Jurisprudence at Jesus College, Oxford, which has a strong Welsh tradition, graduating Bachelor of Arts, then Master of Arts in 1770, and Doctor of Civil Law in 1775. On returning to Brecon he served as Mayor in 1772.
A Commentary on the Holy Bible, six complete volumes (1801-1803), is an indepth look at the Old and New Testaments, with the following print volumes combined into the commentary here:
- Volume 1, Genesis to Deuteronomy, 1801.
- Volume 2, Joshua to Job, 1801.
- Volume 3, Psalms to Isaiah, 1802.
- Volume 4, Jeremiah to Malachi, 1803.
- Volume 5, Matthew to Acts, 1803.
- Volume 6, Romans to Revelation, 1803.
His numerous publications included Extracts of the Journals of the Rev. Dr. Coke's Five Visits to America (London, 1793); a life of John Wesley (1792), prepared in collaboration with Henry Mooro; A History of the West Indies (3 vols., Liverpool, 1808-11).
Introduction
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT LUKE.
SAINT LUKE is generally thought to have been a physician by profession, Colossians 4:14and is supposed to have been one of the seventy disciples. He was the constant companion of St. Paul in his travels, and assisted him at Rome for some time, as appears from Acts 28:13-16. Colossians 4:14and Philippians 1:24. From thence he is said to have travelled into Africa, and to have preached the Gospel at Thebes in Egypt. The ancients in general agree, that Saint Luke wrote his gospel later than Saint Matthew and Saint Mark, though they assign different years; but the most current opinion is, that he wrote it about the year 63; and according to the subscription of the Syriac version, it was published at Alexandria in Egypt. Dr. Owen, however, is of opinion, that Saint Luke wrote his gospel at Corinth, about the year of our Lord 53, for the use of the Gentile converts. And Dr. Macknight conjectures, that it may be fairly inferred from Saint Luke's preface, that he published his gospel before either Saint Matthew or Saint Mark wrote theirs.
01 Chapter 1
Introduction
CHAP. I.
The preface of St. Luke to his whole gospel. The conception of John the Baptist, and of Christ. The prophesy of Elisabeth, and of Mary concerning Christ. The nativity and circumcision of John. The prophesy of Zacharias concerning both Christ and John.
Year of the world 4004.
Verses 1-3
Luke 1:1-3. Forasmuch, &c.—Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of those things which have been accomplished amongst us, Luke 1:2as they who were from the beginning eye witnesses, and afterwards ministers of the word, delivered them to us; Luke 1:3. I have also determined, having exactly traced every thing from the first, to write, &c. "This must refer," says Dr.
Doddridge, "to some histories of the life of Christ which are now lost; for Matthew and Mark, the only evangelists who can be supposed to have written before Luke, could not with any propriety be called many; and of these two, Matthew at least wrote from personal knowledge, not the testimony of others. One must readily conclude, that the books referred to are lost, as none of the apocryphal gospels now extant, published either by Fabricius, in his Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Test. or by Mr. Jones in his History of the Canon, can with any shew of reason pretend to equal antiquity with this of St. Luke; but I cannot suppose with some of the ancient fathers, that the evangelist here intends the gospels of Basilides, Cerinthus, and some other early heretics, since he seems to allow these histories, whatever they were, to have been at least honestly written, according to information received from the most capable judges; and it is strange that Eusebius should imagine the words to be intended as a severe censure on the now-unknown compilers of these histories, whoever they were." This appears to be a fair and candid state of the case: Dr. Macknight however observes upon this preface, that, at first sight of it, one would be apt to think, that Luke speaks here of the other gospels, and their authors; yet the character which he gives of the writers whom he had in view, makes it evident that they were historians of a different kind from the evangelists, properly so called; for theywrote according to the information they had received from the eye-witnesses and ministersoftheword;whereastheevangelists,being eye-witnesses themselves, wrote from their own personal knowledge, improved by inspiration; at least Matthew and John were in both these respects writers of this character; and as for Mark, though he was not an apostle, he was most probably an early disciple, and consequently an eye-witness of the greatest part of the things which he has related. Epiphanius affirms, that he was one of the seventy. But, to set the matter in another light, if we interpret St. Luke's preface of the evangelists, we must allow, that he had none but Matthew and Mark in view, since, by the acknowledgment of all, John did not write his gospel till long after Luke's was published;—but that he should call two historians many, is hard to be conceived. Further, if the gospels of Matthew and Mark were abroad when Luke was writing, we may be assured that he would peruse them; and as he speaks of persons who had composed histories of Christ's life, he could not by any means overlook authors of their character. On this supposition, can it be imagined, that while his own gospel was penned under the direction of the Spirit, according to the information that he had received from those who were eye-witnesses, he would only say, of an eye-witness, and an apostle, on whom the Spirit hath descended, or even of an apostle's companion, that they had taken in hand to give the history of Christ's life, and not rather have mentioned both them and their works with particular approbation. The probability of this opinion is heightened by the following consideration: It makes the gospels appear with a noble and beautiful propriety; for, on a supposition that St. Luke wrote before the rest, we conceive the reason why theyhave passed over in silence the many miraculous circumstances with which the conception, birth, and circumcision both of the Messiah's forerunner, and of the Messiah himself were honoured, together with the prophesies of Simeon and Anna uttered at our Lord's presentation in the temple, as also the history of his childhood and private life: Luke had accurately, and at great length related all these things, without omitting any particular that deserved to be mentioned. On the other hand, if we think that Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke, their gospels will appear defective in these important points, and no reason will offer itself to justify such material omission. Instead of have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration, Heylin, Doddridge, &c. read, have undertaken to compose a history. The word πεπληροφορημενων,Dr. Doddridge renders, confirmed with the fullest evidence: it implies both that fulness of evidence by which any fact is supported, and likewise that confidence, or fulness of assent, by which facts so supported are believed. Compare 2 Timothy 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:7 in the Greek.
Verse 2
Luke 1:2. Ministers of the word;— Some have supposed, that by the word, St. Luke meant Christ himself. See John 1:1. Others however underhand by the word, the transactions of our Lord's public life or the gospel; called the word, as being the great subject of the preaching of the apostles, who were eye and ear witnesses of these things. It seems as plain as possible, from this verse, that they could not be false or heretical gospels to which St. Luke alludes.
See commentary on Luke 1:1
Verse 3
Luke 1:3. Having had perfect understanding—from the very first, &c.—By tracing them from their first rise. Παρηκολουθηκοτι πασιν ακριβως,plainly signifies that accuracy of investigation, on which the perfect understanding of his subject was built. To write in order, may signify to give a particular detail, in opposition to an abridgement, or a concise account; and the evangelist may, with great propriety, be said to have given an orderly account of the history of Christ, as the leading facts are in their due series, though some particulars are transposed. The title of most excellent, Κρατιστε,was commonly given to persons in the highest stations of life. Accordingly St. Paul, speaking to the governors Felix and Festus, uses it in his addresses to them; wherefore their opinion seems to be groundless, who, attending to the signification of the Greek wordTheophilus, "beloved of God," imagine that the evangelist does not mean any particular person, but all true Christians, and lovers of God. Theophilus seems to have been a Greek, and a person of high rank. Probably Luke, while in Greece with St. Paul, had received particular civilities from him, and in testimony of his respect, inscribedhis two books to him, bestowing on him thereby a fame which will last while Christianity subsists. St. Luke might have a thorough knowledge of the facts which he here refers to, by intimate conversation with the apostles, and particularly St. Paul; or, he might have been present himself ata number of the transactions which he has recorded. The assurance with which he speaks of his own knowledge of these things, leads us to think that he was an eye-witness of some of them. On this supposition, his reasoning in the preface to his history, will be more conclusive than on any other, and will stand thus: "Seeing many have written from the information of eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, I, who from the very first have had perfect knowledge of all things, both by conversing with the eye-witnesses, and by being present myself at many of the transactions of Jesus, thought it incumbent on me to write his history, for the more certain information of mankind."
See commentary on Luke 1:1
Verse 4
Luke 1:4. Wherein thou hast been instructed.—Κατηχηθης,the original word, expresses with great accuracy the instructions given to those whowere training up for admission into the Christian church, whose name ofcatechumens was derived hence, and applied without any particular regard to the age of the persons concerned. See Acts 18:25. Romans 2:18 and Doddridge.
Verse 5
Luke 1:5. In the days of Herod, &c.— See on Matthew 2:1. The descendants of Aaron multiplied to such a degree, that they could not all do duty in the temple at once; David therefore divided them into twenty-four courses, who ministered weekly in their turns. The time of their ministration was, called εφημερια,as was likewise the course itself; but the name belonged originally to the Athenian magistrates, called Prytaneis, who, being fifty men chosen by lot out of a tribe, and each man governing the city a single day, the days which any tribe governed, as well as its fifty Prytaneis succeeding one another, were called εφημερια. Hence, because the Jewish courses of priests resembled the Athenian Prytaneis in several respects, they had their name applied to them by those who wrote in Greek. The course ofAbia, to which Zacharias belonged, was the eighth in David's regulation; but whether the courses were the same now as at the first institution, it is impossible to determine. Comp. 1 Chronicles 23:6; 1 Chronicles 24:10 and see Potter's Antiquities.
Verse 6
Luke 1:6. In all the commandments and ordinances— The critics are generally agreed that these words signify, the one the moral, the other the ceremonial precepts of the law; butthey are greatly divided in fixing the particular sense of each. The truth is, undoubted examples may be produced, to prove that both words were used promiscuously in both senses; for which reason, to dispute nicely about them is needless. The plain meaning is, that this exemplary couple were faithfully observant both of the moral and ceremonial institutions of the law; so that they were not only of a fair character in their dealings with men, but likewise illustrious for their piety, and sincere in their worship of God. This appears to be St. Luke's meaning. See Bell's Inquiry into the Missions of St. John, &c. p. 46.
Verse 9
Luke 1:9. His lot— Because some parts of the sacred service were more honourable than others, both the priests and Levites divided the whole among them by lot. The Jews tell us, that there were three priests employed about the service of the incense; one carried away the ashes left on the altar at the preceding service; another brought a pan of burning coals from the altar of sacrifice, and, having placed it on the golden altar, departed; a thirdwent in with the incense, sprinkled it on the burning coals, and, while the smoke ascended, made intercession for the people. This was the part that fell to Zacharias, and the most honourable in the whole service. Dr. Heylin renders this verse, According to the custom of distributing the sacerdotal functions, the lot fell upon him to enter into the sanctuary, and offer incense.
Verse 10
Luke 1:10. The whole multitude, &c.— Because it sometimes happened, that, on ordinary week-days, few or none of the people attended the morning and evening sacrifices, there were four and twenty men employed to attend this service, as representatives of the people of Israel, to lay their hands on the heads of the sacrifice, to pray, and to receive the blessing. These were called, from their office, stationary men. Wherefore the manner in which the evangelist has expressed himself on this occasion—the whole multitude of the people, shews that an unusual concourse was in the temple when Zacharias had this vision. Probably the day on which he burned this incense was a sabbath, or some high festival, when there was always a great multitudeassembled.Zacharias'sremaininginthe temple beyond the usual time, must thus have been taken notice of by many. See Luke 1:21. There were likewise many, who, upon his coming out dumb, conjectured that he had seen a vision, Luke 1:22. Matters of so public a nature, the truth or falsehood whereof so many must have known, would never have been thus openly appealed to by St. Luke, if they had been false. The evangelist adds, that the people were praying without at the time of incense.—As the daily sacrifice represented the sacrifice of Christ, and the incense the prayers of the saints, Revelation 8:1-4 the incense was ordered to be burned while the sacrifice was offering, to teach mankind that it was through the sacrifice of Christ they had access to God. Accordingly, the sacrifices and incense both morning and evening were fitly accompanied with the prayers of the people; and that not in the temple only, but every where else; pious men choosing to put up their supplications particularly at the hours of sacrifice, while the ministers of religion interceded for the nation. Hence these hours were called hours of prayer, Acts 3:1. What is above-mentioned was the foundation of that elegant figure by which prayer is so often compared in scripture to incense: perhaps one reason of ordaining incense might be to intimate the acceptableness of those pious prayers which were to accompany it; and indeed burning fragrant perfumes was, and in Eastern nations still is, so important a part of the entertainment of illustrious families, that one might well expect it in the house of God, where so great a part of the worship was of the ceremonial kind. It is so plain that this was only an office of daily ministration, and that Zacharias was one of theordinary priests, that one cannot but be surprised that any should conclude from this circumstance, that Zacharias was sagan, or assistant to the high-priest, and was now performing his grand office on the day of atonement, and so on this foundation should calculate the birth of John the Baptist and of Christ, and all the other feasts which depend upon them; yet this is done in the calendars both of the Roman and Greek churches. See Doddridge and Hammond.
Verse 11
Luke 1:11. There appeared unto him an angel— It is altogether uncertain whether this happened at the morning or evening sacrifice. Grotius thinks it was in the morning; others fancy it was in the evening; but neither opinion is properly supported. It is observable from the rabbinical writings, that these divine appearances used generally to be made at the time of burning incense.
Verse 12
Luke 1:12. He was troubled, &c.— That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, he was exceedingly afraid. The angel's form was such, as shewed him plainly to be a being of a superior nature. See Judges 13:6. But Zacharias knew not on what errand he was come: no wonder then that he was exceedingly terrified.
Verse 13
Luke 1:13. Thy prayer is heard;— We cannot imagine that this holy man, at so advanced an age, and on such an occasion, would pray for the pregnancy of his wife, who was very old. The priests in this office considered themselves as the mouth of the people, and made the welfare of the nation the subject of their prayers. Wherefore, since it is reasonable to suppose that Zacharias now interceded for the coming of the Messiah, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, we may consider the angel's words as having a reference to such a prayer, thus: "The Messiah, for whose coming thou prayedst, is about to be born; for thy wife shall bring forth his forerunner." Some indeed are of opinion, that those prayers are meant which Zacharias may have put up for offspring when he and his wife were young; yet the time and place of the vision give reason to believe that the object of it was a matter of more general concernment. It was the office of the father to name the child, as appears from Luke 1:62. John, in the Hebrew tongue, signifies The grace of God. Hence it was fitly given to the Messiah's forerunner, who was sent to proclaim the immediateaccomplishmentofGod'smercifulintentionstowardsmen,theexpectation of which had been raised in them by all the preceding dispensations of religion. Αγαλλιασις,which we render gladness, in the next verse, properly answers to the word exultation or leaping for joy. See 1 Peter 1:8; 1 Peter 4:13 and Matthew 5:12.