30.  As it respects the character and plan of Luke’s gospel, the following particulars are to be noticed.  In the distribution of matter between the narration of events and the recital of our Lord’s discourses it holds a position between the first and the second gospel; being less full in the latter respect than Matthew, but far more full than Mark.  In the narrative part there is an easy and graceful style which charms every reader.  In the introduction of minute incidents he goes beyond Matthew, though he has not the circumstantial exactness of Mark.  The agreement of Luke’s gospel with the two preceding in its general plan is recognized at once by every reader.  Like them it is mainly occupied with our Lord’s Galilean ministry.  In regard to the Saviour’s infancy he is more full than Matthew, the matter of the first three chapters being in a great measure peculiar to him.  He omits a long series of events recorded by the first two evangelists.  Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26.  On the other hand he introduces (chap. 9:43-18:30) “a remarkable series of acts and discourses which are grouped together in connection with the last journey to Jerusalem.  Some of the incidents occur in different connections in the other evangelists; and the whole section proves, by the absence of historical data and the unity of its general import, that a moral and not a temporal sequence is the law of the gospels.”  Westcott, Introduct. to Gospel, chap. 7.  Very much of the matter in this remarkable section is peculiar to Luke, and contains passages of wonderful beauty and sweetness which would have been lost to the church but for the record of this gospel.  Among these are the mission of the seventy, several miracles, some striking lessons of instruction from passing incidents, and no less than twelve parables:  the good Samaritan, the unfortunate friend, the unclean spirit, the rich fool, the barren fig-tree, the lost sheep, the lost pieces of silver, the prodigal son, the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus, the unjust judge, the Pharisee and publican.  While the attentive reader perceives the very near relationship of the third gospel to the first and second, he notices also the fact that it differs from both of them more than they do from each other.

“If the total contents of the several gospels be represented by
100, the following table is obtained: 

Peculiarities.            Concordances. 
St. Mark,.........................7........................93
St. Matthew,.....................42........................58
St. Luke,........................59........................41
St. John,........................92.........................

8

“From this it appears that the several gospels bear almost exactly an inverse relation to one another, St. Mark and St. John occupying the extreme positions, the proportion of original passages in one balancing the coincident passages in the other.  If again the extent