described by St. John. And the unique section in St. Luke12 supplies the record of what
took place before, during, and after those journeys, of which the upshot is told by St.
John. This much seems certain; the exact chronological succession must be, in part,
matter of suggestion. But we have now some insight into the plan of St. Luke's Gospel,
as compared with that of the others. We see that St. Luke forms a kind of transition, is a
sort of connecting link between the other two Synoptists13 and St. John. This is admitted
even by negative critics.14 The Gospel by St. Matthew has for its main object the
Discourses or teaching of the Lord, around which the History groups itself. It is intended
as a demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form peculiarly s uited to
them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. The Gospel by St. Mark is
a rapid survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly with the Galilean
Ministry. The Gospel by St. John, which gives the highest, the reflective , view of the
Eternal Son as the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem Ministry.15 And
the Gospel by St. Luke complements the narratives in the other two Gospels (St.
Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by tracing, what is not done o therwise:
the Ministry in Peroea. Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the
Judę n Ministry. If we may venture a step further: The Gospel by St. Mark gives the
a
general view of the Christ; that by St. Matthew the Jewish, that by St. Luke the Gentile,
and that by St. John the Church's view. Imagination might, indeed, go still further, and
see the impress of the number five - that of the Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms - in
the First Gospel; the numeral four (that of the world) in the Second Gospel (4x4=16
chapters); that of three in the Third (8x3=24 chapters); and that of seven , the sacred
Church number, in the Fourth Gospel (7x3=21 chapters). And perhaps we might even
succeed in arranging the Gospels into corresponding sections. But this would lead, not
only beyond our present task, but from solid history and exegesis into the regions of
speculation.16
12. St. Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14.
13. St. Matthew and St. Mark.
14. See Renan, Les Evangiles, p.266.
15. This seems unaccountable on the modern negative theory of its being an Ephesian
Gospel.
16. Of course, putting aside the question of the arrangement into chapters, the reader
might profitably make the experiment of arranging the Gospels into parts and sections,
nor could he have a better guide to help his own investigations than Canon Westcott's
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.
The subject, then, primarily before us, is the journeying of Jesus to Jerusalem. In that
wider view which St. Luke takes of this whole history, he presents what really were
three separate journeys as one - that towards the great end. In its conscious aim and
object, all - from the moment of His finally quitting Galilee to His final Entry into
Jerusalem - formed, in the highest sense, only one journey A nd this St. Luke designates
in a peculiar manner. Just as17 he had spoken, not of Christ's Death but of His 'Exodus,'
or outgoing, which included His Resurrection and Ascension, so he now tells us that,
'when the days of His uptaking' - including and pointing to His Ascension18 - 'were being
fulfilled, He also19 steadfastly set20 His Face to go to Jerusalem.'