INTRODUCTION to The Gospel According to Luke

INTRODUCTION

to

The Gospel According to Luke

I. WHO WROTE THIS GOSPEL?

A. Luke Did

Though not all agree, the traditional ascription of the Third Gospel to Luke, called by Paul “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14), has the weight of evidence in its favor.

In Greek his name was Loukas (Latin Lucas). It may have been an abbreviation of Loukanos (Latin Lucanus). Abbreviation from Loukianos or from Loukios (Latin respectively Lucianus, Lucius) has also been suggested. Nevertheless, there is no good reason for some to identify the Luke who wrote the Third Gospel with the Lucius of Acts 13:1 or with the one of Rom. 16:21.

Name abbreviations—so that the abbreviation becomes a name in its own right—were, and have remained, popular; e.g., Antipas for Antipatros, Demas for Demetrius; and today: Dave for David, Don for Donald, Ed for Edward or for Edwin, Reta (or Rita) for Margaret, etc.

Now it must be granted at once that absolute proof for the traditional position, namely, that the Luke mentioned in Col. 4:14 was the author of the Third Gospel, is not available. Some even maintain that “There is nothing in the simple mention of the name Luke, or of Luke the physician in the epistles of Paul, to indicate the slightest connection with Luke the Evangelist.”¹

Nevertheless, when one compares the arguments pro and con, it becomes apparent that the negative position is weak, and that a high degree of probability attaches to the traditional view. The arguments in favor of the belief that it was indeed Luke, the beloved physician, who wrote the Third Gospel can be summarized as follows:

1. The name Luke occurs only three times in the New Testament (Col. 4:14; II Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24). In Col. 4:14 he is distinguished by Paul from those “of the circumcision” (see verse 11). This is in line with the fact that the language of Luke–Acts appears to be that of an educated Greek. More on this later. See point V A.

2. A comparison of Luke 1:1–4 with Acts 1:1, 2 (“The first account I composed, Theophilus,” etc.) clearly indicates that whoever it was that wrote Acts also wrote the Third Gospel. Therefore, once we discover the identity of the author of Acts our problem is solved.

3. From the three passages mentioned under point 1 it is clear that Luke was Paul’s loyal companion in travel. He was in Rome during both Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24) and his second (II Tim. 4:11). Each time Paul mentions him by name. From the “we” and “us” sections in the book of Acts—more on these in point I B 6—we gather that the author of that book was in the apostle’s vicinity during the latter’s first Roman imprisonment. Yet the author of Luke–Acts never identifies himself. In Acts he mentions other fellow-laborers and fellow-travelers but never himself. Neither does he mention himself in the Third Gospel. This very fact may well point to Luke as the author, for also in none of the other three Gospels does the author ever identify himself. The Fourth Gospel refers to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), without mentioning him by name. Mark (in 14:51, 52) may be referring to himself, but “the young man” remains anonymous. The same holds even with respect to the Gospel According to Matthew, for though the publican’s name is mentioned in 9:9; 10:3, he does not call himself the author.

Now it is true that there is also another fellow-worker and (at times) fellow-traveler (of Paul) who is never mentioned by name in the book of Acts, though implied in Acts 15:2; cf. Gal. 2:3. We refer to Titus. See N.T.C. on Galatians, pp. 76–80, and on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 36, 37. There are those who, on the basis of II Cor. 8:18; 12:18, have arrived at the conclusion that Titus was Luke’s literal brother, and that it is for this reason that the author of Luke–Acts never mentions him by name. However, on this question see the fine discussion by P. E. Hughes in his commentary on Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New International), Grand Rapids, 1962, pp. 312–316. Even though these Corinthian passages may well refer to Luke as “the brother,” the theory that Paul refers here to a literal blood-brother of Titus lacks proof. On the other hand if, as held by many prominent exegetes, past and present, “the brother”—in Christ!—is, nevertheless, Luke, the real point, namely, that the author of the Third Gospel-Acts never mentions himself by name, still remains. No completely satisfactory answer has been given to the question why Titus, mentioned so frequently by Paul—no less than thirteen times, mostly in II Corinthians—is never mentioned by name in Acts.

There is, however, another reason that points away from Titus to Luke as the author of Luke–Acts:

4. According to Col. 4:14 Luke—not Titus—was a medical doctor. Paul calls him “the beloved physician.” W. K. Hobart, in his book, The Medical Language of St. Luke, Dublin, 1882 (reprint Grand Rapids, 1954) endeavored to prove that the language used by the author of Luke–Acts is that of a physician. H. J. Cadbury—author (among other works) of The Style and Literary Method of Luke—made an attempt to overthrow Hobart’s theory. He calls it “an immense fallacy,” and tries to show that the style of Luke–Acts is simply that of an educated person, not necessarily that of a physician. It is doubtful, though, whether this challenge has been completely successful. The balanced view is probably that held by ever so many scholars—including Berkhof, Harnack, Plummer, Ramsay, Robertson, Zahn—and summarized by G. T. Purves in his article on Luke (W.D.B., pp. 364–366). His position is as follows: Given the fact that Luke was indeed a physician (Col. 4:14), certain passages in the Third Gospel (and in Acts) coincide with this description. To see this clearly these passages should be compared with their parallels in Matthew and/or Mark:

Accordingly, compare Luke 4:38 with Matt. 8:14 and Mark 1:30 (the nature or degree of Peter’s mother-in-law’s fever); Luke 5:12 with Matt. 8:2 and Mark 1:40 (leprosy); and Luke 8:43 with Mark 5:26 (the woman and the doctors). Other little touches can easily be added. So, for example, it is Luke alone who states that it was the right hand that was withered (6:6, cf. Matt. 12:10; Mark 3:1), and among the synoptists it is Luke alone who mentions that it was the right ear of the highpriest’s servant that was severed (22:50; cf. Matt. 26:51 and Mark 14:47). Also compare Luke 5:18, 24 with Matt. 9:2, 6 and Mark 2:3, 5, 9; and cf. Luke 18:25 with Matt. 19:24 and Mark 10:25. Besides, though it is true that all four Gospels portray Christ as the Sympathetic Physician for soul and body, and in doing so reveal that their authors, too, were men of tender compassion, nowhere is this trait more abundantly evident than in the Third Gospel. See point V D.

5. Among the three Synoptics it is especially the third that breathes the spirit of Paul. Note the following points of resemblance:

a. Salvation is universal, yet particular. According to Paul’s teaching, salvation, including justification, is a gift of God, imparted by his sovereign grace to men regardless of nationality, race, sex, age, or social position. In that sense salvation is universal. Nevertheless it is also particular, for none but believers inherit it. See Rom. 3:21–24; 10:11–13; II Cor. 5:18–21; Gal. 3:9, 14, 29; Eph. 2:8, 13, 14, 18; Col. 3:11.

Now the Third Gospel, too, stresses this universalism-particularism. See 2:30–32; 4:18, 19, 25–27; 6:17–19; 7:19, 22, 23, 36–50; 8:21; 9:48, 60; 10:1, 10–15, 30–37; 13:29; 14:23; 15:7, 10, 11–32; 17:11–19; 19:10; 24:47. It, too, places great emphasis on the necessity of faith. Study 1:45; 7:9, 50; 8:25, 48; 12:28; 17:5, 6, 19; 18:8, 42; 20:5; 22:32. And it even speaks of justification in the forensic sense; if not in 10:29; 16:15, at least in 18:14.

b. Along with Paul’s emphasis on faith goes that on prayer. Note, for example, his own beautiful prayer recorded in Eph. 3:14–19, and that rich and oft quoted passage, Phil. 4:6, 7. See also Rom. 1:9; 12:12; 15:30; I Cor. 7:5; Eph. 1:16; Phil. 1:4, 9, 19; Col. 1:3, 9; 4:12; I Thess. 1:2, 3; 5:17, 25; II Thess. 1:11; 3:1; I Tim. 2:8; 4:5; Philem. 4, 22.

Luke, too, more than any other evangelist, stresses prayer. See 1:10, 13; 2:37; 3:21; 5:16; 6:12, 28; 9:28, 29; 10:2; 11:1–13; 18:1–8, 9–14; 19:46; 21:36; 22:32, 40–46.

c. Paul throughout his epistles emphasizes the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord. See Rom. 1:4; 10:9; 13:14; I Cor. 1:2; 2:8; 12:3; Gal. 6:14; and especially Phil. 2:11.

Now though in connection with Jesus the designation Lord (kurios) is found in all the Synoptics—yes, also in Mark—and Jesus even applies it to himself (Matt. 7:21, 22; 22:45; Mark 11:3), nowhere among the three does it occur as frequently as in the Third Gospel (2:11; 5:8; 6:5, 46; 7:13; 10:1; etc.).

d. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit receives much attention in the epistles of Paul (Rom. 8:1–16, 23, 26, 27; II Cor. 13:14; Gal. 5:16–18, 22; etc.).

This also holds for the Gospel which by tradition has been ascribed to Luke (1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25–27; 3:22; 4:1, 14, 18; etc.).

e. It is a well-known fact that although Paul endured many afflictions, including imprisonments (II Cor. 11:23–33), he was a joyful believer, filled with praise and gratitude even while a prisoner. In fact, the theme of joy, praise, and thanksgiving sings its way through Philippians, one of the prison epistles.

This same characteristic marks the Third Gospel (1:14, 46–55, 58, 68–79; 2:10, 14, 28; 4:18, 19; 6:23; 10:20, 21; 13:17; 24:52).

f. There is also a striking resemblance between Luke’s account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper and that of Paul. Cf. Luke 22:19, 20 with I Cor. 11:23–25. Did Luke obtain this report from Paul? Did both make use of the same source?

This remarkable six-item (from points a. to f.) similarity between Paul’s epistles and Luke’s Gospel—to which a seventh could easily be added; see point V D—confirms the position that it was indeed Luke, Paul’s companion in travel, who wrote the Third Gospel.

A word of caution is in order, nevertheless. Though the relation between Paul and Luke was very close, and there are many words and phrases that are peculiar to them, exaggeration should be avoided. The statement of Irenaeus that Luke wrote what Paul preached is too simplistic. And perhaps even farther from the truth is the saying of Athanasius that Luke’s Gospel was dictated by Paul.

Though Luke’s writings resemble Paul’s in several respects, there are also marked differences. By and large one can say that Luke narrates; Paul reasons, exhorts, doxologizes. Paul’s personality stands out in his writings much more than does Luke’s in his. Moreover, the Third Gospel’s historical scene is earlier than is that of Paul’s epistles. Besides, the style of deeply emotional, effervescent Paul is characterized by a greater number of breaks in grammatical structure (anacolutha of various kinds) than is Luke’s generally more calm manner of writing. Most of all, the Preface to the Third Gospel (1:1–4) clearly shows that its author has gathered his material from many sources, not only from Paul. Therefore, the conclusion must be that in writing their respective Gospels Luke was not nearly as dependent upon Paul as was Mark on Peter.

When all this is taken into consideration, it is safe to reaffirm that the relation between Luke and Paul was close. And the evidence presented in points 1 through 5 adds further weight to the strong tradition in support of the belief that it was “the beloved physician,” Paul’s companion, who wrote Luke–Acts.

But is the tradition of the church indeed so consistent and emphatic? This introduces us to the next point.

6. About the year a.d. 400 Jerome wrote: “Luke, a medical man from Antioch, was not ignorant of the Greek language. He was a follower of Paul and a companion in all his travels and he wrote the Gospel” (De Viris Illustribus VIII).

A little earlier—that is, at the beginning of the fourth century—Eusebius, the church historian, wrote: “Luke, by race an Antiochian, and a physician by profession, had long been a companion of Paul, and had more than a casual acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. In two God-breathed books, namely, the Gospel and the Acts, he left us examples of the art of soul-healing which he had learned from them” (Ecclesiastical History III.iv.6; see also III.xxiv.15).

Before him Origen (fl. 210–250) stated, “… and thirdly the Gospel According to Luke [was written]. He wrote for those who from the Gentiles [had come to believe] the gospel that was praised by Paul” (quoted by Eusebius, op. cit., IV.xxv.3–6).

Going back still a little farther, note the statement of Tertullian (fl. 193–216): “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith in us, while the apostolic men, Luke and Mark, renew it afterward” (Against Marcion IV.ii). Note “apostolic men.”

At about the same time Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200) writes: “… it is written in the Gospel According to Luke, as follows, ‘… Jesus was coming to his baptism, being about thirty years of age.’ ” The burden of proof rests on those who doubt that this Luke was “the apostolic man” to whom Tertullian refers.

Note also the testimony contained in The Muratorian Fragment. This is an incomplete list of New Testament books, written in poor Latin and deriving its name from Cardinal L. A. Muratori (1672–1750), who discovered it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. It may be assigned to the period 180–200. With respect to the present subject it reads as follows:

“The third book of the gospel [is that] according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, wrote it in his own name; according to the [general] belief, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had associated him [with himself] as one zealous for correctness. Though he had not seen the Lord in the flesh, yet, having ascertained the facts, he was able to begin his narrative with the nativity of John.”

This brings us to Irenaeus (fl. about 182–188), in whose writings there are numerous quotations from the Third Gospel. He was a pupil of Polycarp, who had known the apostle John. He writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him” (Against Heresies III.i.1. See also in the same work III.xiv.1). This testimony, coming from a pupil of a pupil of the apostle John, is important. Moreover, because of his many travels and intimate acquaintance with almost the entire church of his day, what this witness says about the authorship of the Third Gospel must be considered of great significance.

Next, there is the testimony of The Anti-Marcionite Prologue (about 160–180): “Luke, an Antiochian of Syria, a physician by profession, was a disciple of the apostles. At a later date he accompanied Paul, until the latter’s martyrdom. He served the Lord blamelessly. Having neither wife nor children, at the age of eighty-four he fell asleep in Boeotia, full of the Holy Spirit. While there were already Gospels in existence—that according to Matthew written in Judea and that according to Mark in Italy—Luke, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, composed his entire Gospel in the region of Achaia. In his prologue he makes very clear the fact that other Gospels had been written before his, and that it was necessary to present to believers converted from the Gentile world an accurate account of the plan (‘economy’) of salvation, so that these people would not be led astray by Jewish fables, nor be deceived by heretical and futile fancies, and thus wander away from the truth. And so right at the beginning he relates for us the nativity of John, a most essential matter, for John is the beginning of the gospel. He was the Lord’s forerunner and companion both in the preparation of the gospel and in the administration of baptism and the fellowship of the Spirit. This ministry [of John] had been mentioned by one of the Twelve Prophets [Malachi]. And afterward this same Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles.”

But we can go back even farther than this, for probably as early as a.d. 125 the four Gospels were assembled into a collection for use in the churches and were given titles. “According to Luke” was the title of—or superscription above—the longest of the four. That this “Luke” was someone other than the companion of Paul would have to be proved by those who affirm it.

This still leaves over half a century—from the moment when the Third Gospel was completed until a.d. 125—for which there is no written evidence naming Luke as the author. However, this is not strange. Why not? First, travel and communication were much slower then than they are today. Secondly, the Third Gospel and the Acts were, after all, in the first instance private documents, sent by one person, the composer, to one other person, Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). And thirdly, even when these books finally began to be copied, circulated, and quoted—for example, in the writings of the apostolic fathers—these very early witnesses were not in the habit of mentioning the names of the authors whose works they quoted, probably deeming this to be unnecessary, since their authors were then still well known. For these several reasons this very early silence is not a sound basis for the contention that Luke, “the beloved physician” and Paul’s companion in travel, did not write the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. As has been shown, the cumulative evidence in favor of Luke’s authorship is as strong as anyone can reasonably expect it to be.²

B. Who, Then, Was Luke? He Was

1. A man from Antioch in Syria, with close ties—later residence perhaps?—in Philippi

His interest in Antioch is clear from the many references to that city (Acts 11:19–27; 13:1–3; 14:26; 15:22, 35; 18:22). And as to Philippi, if it became his “adopted” city, the manner in which he speaks of it in Acts 16:12 becomes easy to understand. Besides, as will be shown, Philippi was the place where Luke remained when Paul traveled on, and the place where Paul picked him up again.

2. A convert from the Gentile world, probably a Greek

Though there are those who deny it, yet the most reasonable interpretation of Col. 4:14—contrast 4:10, 11, and on both see N.T.C. on Colossians, pp. 186–193—is that Luke was not a Jew. We have no means of knowing when his conversion to the Christian religion took place (but see Acts 11:19–24), nor do we know whether or not before he became a Christian he had first been a proselyte to the Jewish faith.

According to the voice of tradition Luke was a Greek. The accuracy, breadth, and beauty of his Greek style—see point V A—are in line with this belief.

A. T. Robertson, in his book Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, New York, 1923, p. 18, uses, as another argument to prove that Luke was a Greek, the fact that the writer of Acts calls the inhabitants of Malta “barbarians” (Acts 28:2, 4). But even though the term barbarians can mean “non-Greeks”—whether by reason of descent or culture or both (cf. Rom. 1:14)—does this necessarily mean that the one who so describes them must be a Greek? Note the wide connotation given to the term barbarian in I Cor. 14:11.

On p. 21 of the same book Robertson uses still another argument to show that Luke must have been a Greek. His reasoning implies the syllogism:

a. Titus was a Greek (Gal. 2:3).

b. Luke was a brother of Titus (II Cor. 8:18; 12:18).

c. Therefore, Luke, too, must have been a Greek.

But it has already been indicated that this interpretation of the word brother in the Corinthians passages is not the only possible one, and perhaps not even the best.

Many fanciful tales have been concocted around Luke, a person about whom we really know very little. For example, it has been surmised that Luke had been a slave of Theophilus. The latter, recognizing the slave’s extraordinary brightness and goodness of heart, set him free. He even enrolled Luke in the famous medical school that was part of the University of Tarsus. At this university Luke met “Saul of Tarsus.” The two became and ever afterward remained close friends. Saul’s—that is, Paul’s—conversion led to Luke’s conversion. Luke, in turn, stirred up the interest of Theophilus in the Christian religion. Etc., etc. R. Lloyd has even written a very interesting book bearing the title The Private Letters of Luke, New York, 1958.

But all this aside, the best cumulative evidence for the belief that Luke was probably a Greek could still be: Col. 4:10, 11, 14; the Greek of the Preface (Luke 1:1–4); and the voice of tradition.

3. A medical doctor

This point has already been made clear. We are not carrying our imagination too far when we theorize that as such Luke must have been a real help to Paul in all his afflictions, some of them physical.

Did Luke practice his healing art on the island of Malta? There are those who defend this theory, on the basis of the following: (a) he was definitely in Paul’s company when the shipwrecked passengers, etc., came ashore on that island (in Acts 28 note “us” in verses 2, 7, 10, and “we” in verses 10, 11); (b) he was a physician (Col. 4:14); and (c) he shared in the honors bestowed by those who had been cured of their illnesses (note “who honored us”). Though this possibility must be granted, the fact that not Luke but Paul is said to have placed his hands on the father of Publius and to have been instrumental in healing him must not be overlooked. But it is safe, nevertheless, to affirm that whenever Luke was able to make use of his medical skill he did so gladly and without showing any partiality.

We should never forget, however, that Luke was a physician not only for the body but also for the soul. He, as well as Paul, was “a preacher,” a “proclaimer of the way of salvation,” Paul’s “fellow-worker.” See Acts 16:10, 13, 17; Philem. 24. Accordingly, Luke was an “evangelist” in a twofold sense: (a) he wrote a Gospel (an “evangel”); and (b) he preached the gospel. “Preached it,” but even more: showed its force in his own life. It is not strange that Paul called him “the beloved physician.”

Accordingly, Luke was actually

A medical missionary.

As such he was the forerunner of all the medical missionaries whereby the church and mankind have since been abundantly enriched!

4. A kind and sympathetic person

It is not without reason that Paul and Luke were warm friends. Their hearts were drawn together by the spirit of active, sympathetic benevolence. It is not strange, therefore, that Luke’s Gospel abounds with stories which reveal Christ’s kindness toward the less privileged. See under Point V D.

5. A painter?

A very old legend so describes him. For more on this legend see A. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke (The International Critical Commentary), New York, 1910, pp. xxi, xxii. Whether or not it is based on fact can no longer be determined. Fanciful deductions should be avoided. Roger Van der Weyden (1400–1464) portrayed “St. Luke Painting the Virgin,” the latter holding the babe Jesus!

It is true that in his books (both Gospel and Acts) Luke pictures scenes so vividly that artists have used many of his themes. The chart below, although incomplete, lists various artists who have depicted passages from Luke.

6. Paul’s travel companion

It is not true that Luke accompanied Paul “in all his travels.” At times he is with the apostle; at other times he is not. In describing Paul’s journeys Luke frequently uses the pronoun he with reference to the apostle. At times, however, without any change in the style of the account³ there is a transition from “he” to “we” and from “him” to “us.”

Art and the Gospel of Luke

*Artist*	*Subject*	Passage in Luke
Hacker, Van Eyck, and Van der Weyden	The Annunciation	1:26–38
Rossetti	“Ecce Ancilla Domini”	1:38
Merson	The Arrival at Bethlehem	2:1–7
Plockhorst	Tidings of Great Joy	2:8–14
Lerolle	The Arrival of the Shepherds	2:15–17
Van der Goes	The Adoration of the Shepherds	2:15–17
Memling, Van der Weyden, Meire, Rubens, Rembrandt	The Presentation in the Temple	2:22–38
Clementz	The Boy Christ in the Temple	2:41–51
Von Gebhardt	Jesus and the Doctors	2:41–51
Seegar	“Mary Has Chosen the Better Part”	10:42
Plockhorst	The Good Shepherd	15:1–7 (cf. Matt. 18:12–14; John 10:11, 14)
Soord	The Lost Sheep	as above: 15:1–7, etc.
Burnand	Der Verlorene Sohn	15:11–32
Rembrandt	The Return of the Prodigal Son	15:17–24
Girardet	The Walk to Emmaus	24:13–29
Eichstaedt and Rembrandt	The Supper at Emmaus	24:30, 31
Biermann	The Ascension	24:50–53 (cf. Acts 1:6–11)
Mastroianni (sculptor)	The Ascending Christ	also 24:50–53, etc.

According to what is probably the best Greek text the first “we” section describes events that take place during Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 15:36–18:22). The date for the entire journey is probably a.d. 50/51–53/54. The first “we” section is Acts 16:10–17, which relates certain happenings that occur during the outward-bound part of that trip. We are told that Luke joins Paul at Troas. It is here that the apostle in a vision receives a call from a Macedonian, “Come over and help us.” Paul heeds this call, being convinced that God is ordering him to do so. Therefore after crossing the sea into Europe the missionaries—Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke—perform their spiritual labors in Philippi. Here the nucleus of a most—perhaps the most—loyal and generous church (of that day) is formed. It very quickly becomes Paul’s “joy and crown,” as he describes it several years later. See Phil. 4:1, 15, 16. Here Lydia is converted, and so is the jailer. Any church that can count such people, including also Luke, among its members, and is willing to follow their example, is certainly blessed!

It would seem that when the rest of the missionaries depart from Philippi (Acts 16:40), Luke remains there. At Philippi, considerably later, he rejoins Paul (20:6). This was during the latter’s third missionary journey (Acts 18:23–21:16). The date for that entire journey is probably a.d. 53/54–57/58. Included in it there is one “we” section: 20:5–15 (or: 20:6–16), and the beginning of another: 21:1–16.

It is during the homeward stretch of this journey that Luke is again seen in the company of Paul. On their way to Jerusalem Paul and his companions call on the church at Troas. It is here that Luke attends a worship service which goes on and on and on. When Paul “prolongs his speech until midnight,” a young man named Eutychus, by this time sound asleep, falls to the ground from a third-story window and is picked up dead. By Paul he is miraculously restored to life. In view of this “revival” is it possible that even the most strict and wholehearted believer in the doctrine of divine providence—and we all should be such believers—with its implication that, strictly speaking, nothing ever happens “by chance,” could ever forget this young man’s name, Eutychus (that is, Fortunate, Lucky)?

The next stop is Miletus, located on the western shore of Asia Minor, south of Ephesus. It is here that the emotion-filled meeting with the elders of the Ephesian church takes place. Although the “we” section (20:5–15, or 20:6–16, if one prefers) does not include the account of this “Farewell” gathering, the graphic manner in which what takes place here is described (see verses 17–38) probably indicates that Luke himself is present; that is, that he, too, is among those who at the close of the meeting kneel down and pray.

In any event when chapter 21 opens—and with it the second “we” section pertaining to Paul’s third missionary journey (the third “we” section in all)—Luke is again, or is “still,” with Paul. The company spends seven days at Tyre. After another touching “Farewell” (21:5), the party boards the ship and, after a brief stop at Ptolemais, spends some time at Caesarea. Luke is present when Agabus in a symbolic manner predicts Paul’s imminent loss of liberty. The beloved physician is among those who accompany the apostle to Jerusalem. And with the arrival in that city, the third missionary journey, and also the “we” section as far as it belongs to that journey, end.

The next stage in the story deals with Paul’s experiences in Jerusalem and Caesarea (Acts 21:17–26:32). A better way of putting this would be to say that what is here offered represents another stage in the work which Christ, from his exalted throne in heaven, is doing through the labors of Paul and those associated with him. See the phraseology used in Acts 1:1. It is Jesus himself who, through the agency of human beings, is “doing” and “teaching.”

That the “we” section begun in 21:1–16 overflows into this new section is clear from the use of “we”—“us”—“us” in 21:17, 18. Moreover, the thought connection between these “we” passages and that which immediately follows in verses 19 ff. is so close that, in spite of the further absence of these pronouns until chapter 27 is reached, many authorities include most or all of chapter 21 in one “we” section. If this conclusion is correct, as it well may be, Luke is a witness of the events that transpire in Jerusalem: the conference with James, the inflammatory troubles experienced by Paul when he is manhandled in the temple, and his rescue from the mob and formal arrest by the military tribune.

Acts 22 reports Paul’s address to the people from the stairs of the fortress of Antonia; chapter 23, the apostle’s defense before the Sanhedrin. A plot of the Jews to kill Paul is frustrated by his nephew. Under strong guard Paul is sent to Caesarea where Felix, the procurator, has his residence. Hearings before Felix accomplish nothing, and Paul is left in prison in Caesarea until Festus succeeds Felix (Acts 24). Then, in order that he may not be taken to Jerusalem for trial Paul, making use of his right as a Roman citizen, appeals to Caesar (Acts 25:11). Accordingly, after a hearing before Herod Agrippa II, Festus also being present (Acts 26), Paul sails for Rome (Acts 27).

Where is Luke during Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment? We hear nothing about him. Is it possible that during these two years he was doing research work? Was he gathering materials for his Gospel?

What we definitely know is that when the apostle, as a prisoner, starts out for Rome, Luke is at his side. We know this because another “we” section, the final one, starts at 27:1.

Throughout the voyage to Rome, on all the three ships (27:2; 27:6; 28:11) Luke is with Paul. The pronouns we and us are interspersed liberally all the way from Acts 27:1 to 28:16. As some writers see it 28:16 marks the end of this final “we” section. In a sense they are correct. But in view of the fact that (a) the rest of chapter 28 is closely connected in material content with that which immediately precedes, and (b) Paul himself informs us that Luke is with him as a highly appreciated fellow-worker and friend (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24), other interpreters include all of chapter 28 in this final “we” section.

In Rome “the beloved physician” must have visited the prisoner very regularly and must have helped him in many ways. That such visits were possible is clear from 28:30.

Intelligence, wisdom, skill, warmth of heart and mind, loyalty to Christ, to his cause, and to his followers, including especially Paul, such were the qualities that made Luke unforgettable.

As was indicated earlier, Luke—he alone—was with Paul also during the latter’s second Roman imprisonment, the one that led to death.

“Having neither wife nor children, at the age of eighty-four Luke fell asleep in Boeotia.” So, as we have seen, reads The Anti-Marcionite Prologue.

7. The Author of the Third Gospel

This has been established.

II. WHY DID HE WRITE IT?

Luke’s purpose is clearly stated in 1:4, and receives further amplification from the very contents of his book. That purpose may be viewed as having been threefold:

A. Immediate purpose

To place in the hands of a person highly regarded by the writer, namely, Theophilus—meaning “loved by God”—an accurate account of the matters touching Jesus, matters in which the addressee had already received some instruction, and to do this in the interest of that person’s spiritual well-being.

It is clear that the evangelist is a friend of the person whom he addresses, and regards him highly. Was Theophilus even now a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If so, Luke writes in order to strengthen that faith. On the other hand, has the addressee advanced no farther than being a deeply interested enquirer? If so, Luke writes in order to bring him to a decision, so that with heart, mind, and will he may surrender himself to Christ as his Lord and Savior. One thing seems certain: Theophilus, assailed from every direction by stories, rumors, and counter-rumors regarding Jesus (see Acts 28:22b), needs a fully reliable and systematically organized report with respect to the events centering in Jesus. For more on Theophilus see the explanation of Luke 1:1–4.

The idea has been suggested that Luke’s Gospel is a defense brief or apologia, and that the evangelist as it were “dedicated” it to Theophilus in order to prove to him that in no respect was there any conflict between the Christian religion and the interests of Rome.

There may be an element of truth in this. Did not Josephus dedicate some of his writings to a certain Epaphroditus?

Some venture out farther, and suggest that the Third Gospel and Acts were written with the purpose of securing Paul’s acquittal and release.⁴

Now it can be readily admitted that defense of the Christian religion against attack and misrepresentation, whether by Jew or Gentile, was included in Luke’s purpose. This may well be implied in the chronological note (3:1, 2), the genealogy of Jesus (3:23–38), the record of Pilate’s repeated affirmation of Jesus’ innocence (23:4, 14, 15, 22), the report of the centurion’s testimony (23:47), etc. It is also true that whatever may have been Luke’s purpose in writing Acts, the second part of that book (chapters 13–28; especially 15:36–28:31) loudly proclaims the greatness of God as revealed in the labors of Paul, a man who was proud of his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28) and humbly thankful for his citizenship in the kingdom of heaven (Phil. 3:20). Nevertheless, when the evangelist himself states his purpose in writing the Gospel (Luke 1:4), he mentions none of these things. To the extent in which they are present, they remain in the background. Moreover, undue emphasis on the idea that Gospel-Acts was intended to be an apologia in behalf of Paul fails to answer the question why, if this be true, so much material irrelevant to the attainment of that particular goal was included.

Basing our answer, first of all, on Luke 1:1–4, it becomes clear that Luke’s primary or immediate concern was the spiritual well-being of Theophilus, in the sense already indicated.

B. Intermediate purpose

To enlighten earnest enquirers and to strengthen the faith of believers, especially those who had been or were being gathered from the Greek-speaking Roman world, the converts from heathendom. Origen held that Luke’s Gospel was composed “for the sake of Gentile converts.”

Luke must have regarded Theophilus as a representative of that large company of contemporaries who either had already become committed to Christ or were seriously considering doing so. Both earnest enquirers and beginning believers were included in his purview.

There must have been many people who had recently entered the church, as well as many who were preparing themselves for this step. Such people, like Theophilus, needed further instruction in the story of redemption, and in Christian doctrine and ethics.

Even while Jesus was still on earth there were people who, when they came face to face with Jesus, when they saw his deeds and heard his words, were “astonished.” Yes, astonished, but not fully assured; surprised, but not fully surrendered. There were those—at times including Christ’s immediate followers—who asked questions (Luke 5:33–39; 7:19–23) and made suggestions, sometimes foolish and sinful (9:12, 13, 51–56). They revealed their ignorance (9:45, 49, 50), and were guilty of distorted evaluations (10:17–20). And, of course, to a certain extent these conditions continued even after Christ’s resurrection. See Acts 1:6; 13:15; 18:24–26; 19:1–5. The Third Gospel was written for the sake of correcting the erroneous views of enquirers and strengthening the faith of believers, perhaps especially of those recently brought to Christ.

C. Ultimate purpose

To reach

all

the nations—including even the Samaritans—for the Triune God as revealed in Christ. See Luke 2:32; 3:6; 4:25–27; 9:51–56; 10:25–37; 17:11–19; 24:47.

III. WHAT WERE HIS SOURCES?⁵

A. Material Contents of Luke’s Gospel in Relation to the Other Gospels

1. New or “L” Material

Having studied Mark’s Gospel and Matthew’s, and proceeding from there to a study of the Gospel According to Luke, we are immediately struck by the latter’s unique character. Mark, it will be recalled, begins with a paragraph introducing The Ministry of John the Baptist (1:1–8). This is followed by one on The Baptism of Jesus (1:9–11). And that, in turn, by one on The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness (1:12, 13). With variations all this material is also found in Matthew and Luke (even to some extent in John); however, it is not found at the very beginning of those books. Nevertheless, Matthew, after only 48 verses (chapters 1 and 2) of material which to a large extent is peculiar to that Gospel, falls in line with Mark and describes The Ministry of John the Baptist.

But Luke introduces us into a new universe. To be sure, there is nothing that clashes with Mark and Matthew. Nevertheless, beginning at 1:1 and continuing through 2:52 the new (or at least mainly new) material covers 132 verses, that is, the entire first chapter—one of the longest in Scripture, 80 verses!—plus the entire second chapter, 52 verses. In fact, even chapter 3—minus verses 3, 4, 7–9, 16, 17, 21, 22—should be added, making in all 161 verses of new or largely new material (from 1:1 through 3:38, with the exceptions already indicated). This amounts to almost one-seventh of the total contents of Luke’s Gospel.⁶ And this is only the beginning of all that is new in Luke.

The following list shows where this new or “L” (for Luke) material can be found. However, the indicated references do not imply that within the listed passage everything is new. It may be, but need not be. The letter m following a reference means that although the passage is peculiar to Luke in a degree sufficient to be included in the list, it is of a mixed character. Some of its content is not peculiar to Luke. That part may be non-Marcan Matthew-Luke material (e.g., Luke 3:1–20 in part) or may even be reflected in both of the other Synoptics, as is frequently true. Parallels in Mark 16:9–20 have not been included, since, as has been demonstrated in N.T.C. on Mark, there is no solid evidence to show that Mark’s “long ending” is part of Scripture. Also, in this Commentary no parallel is listed in connection with Luke 3:23–38. Reason? See footnote 6. And no parallel is here suggested in connection with Luke 14:15–24, for Luke’s parable of The Rejected (or Slighted) Invitation must not be confused with that of The Royal Marriage (Matt. 22:1–14). Similarly, Luke 19:11–27 (parable of The Pounds) has no real parallel, for the parable found in Matt. 25:14–30 is that of The Talents, which is indeed “a different story.”

There are several passages not here listed which contain words, phrases, and sometimes entire clauses that are peculiar to Luke. See, for example, N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 18, 19. The references given in the following “L” list are intended only to serve as an aid to the understanding of the general situation in connection with the contents of Luke as compared with the other Synoptics.

New Material in Luke

*Reference*	*Subject Matter*
1:1–4	Preface or Prologue
1:5–25	Promise of the Baptist’s Birth
1:26–38	The Annunciation (Promise to Mary regarding the Savior’s Birth)
1:39–45	Mary’s Visit to Elizabeth
1:46–56	The Magnificat (Mary’s Song of Praise)
1:57–66	The Birth of John the Baptist
1:67–80	The Benedictus (Zechariah’s Prophecy)
2:1–7^m	The Birth of Jesus
2:8–21	The Announcement to Shepherds of the Savior’s Birth “Glory to God in the Highest” The Visit of the Shepherds The Naming of Jesus
2:22–38	The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple Simeon’s Nunc Dimittis Anna’s Thanksgiving
2:39, 40	The Return to Nazareth
2:41–52	The Boy Jesus in the Temple
3:1–20^m	The Ministry of John the Baptist
3:23–38	The Genealogy of Jesus
4:14, 15^m	The Beginning of The Great Galilean Ministry
4:16–30^m	The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth
5:1–11^m	A Miraculous Catch
7:11–17	The Raising of the Widow’s Son at Nain
7:36–50	Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman Cancellation: The Parable of The Two Debtors
8:1–3	Ministering Women
9:51–56	A Samaritan Village Refuses to Welcome Jesus
10:1–12	The Charge to The Seventy (or Seventy-two)
10:17–20	The Return of the Seventy (or Seventy-two)
10:25–37	The Parable of The Samaritan Who Cared
10:38–42	Mary of Bethany Makes the Right Choice
11:1–4^m	“Teach Us to Pray” The Lord’s Prayer
11:5–13	The Parable of The Troubled (or Embarrassed) Host
11:27, 28	True Blessedness
11:37–54^m	Jesus Invited to Eat at a Pharisee’s Home Pharisees and Law-Experts Denounced
12:13–21	The Parable of The Rich Fool
12:32–34^m	“Do Not Fear” “Sell Your Possessions and Give Alms”
12:35–40^m	The Parable of The Watchful Servants
12:49, 50^m	Fire and Baptism
13:1–5	Be Converted or Perish
13:6–9	The Parable of The Barren Fig Tree and The Magnanimous Vineyard-Keeper
13:10–17	The Healing of a Crippled Woman on the Sabbath
13:22–30	The Narrow Door
13:31–33	The Departure from Galilee
14:1–6	The Healing of the Man Afflicted with Dropsy
14:7–14	A Lesson for Guests: The Parable of The Reserved Seats, and a Lesson for the Host
14:15–24	The Parable of The Rejected Invitation
14:25–33	The Cost of Discipleship The Parable of The Rash Builder The Parable of The Reasonable King
15:1–7^m	The Parable of The Lost Sheep
15:8–10	The Parable of The Lost Coin
15:11–32	The Parable of The Lost Son
16:1–13	The Parable of The Shrewd Manager
16:14, 15	Pharisaic Self-righteousness Rebuked
16:19–31	The Parable of The Show-off (A Rich Man) and The Beggar (Lazarus)
17:5, 6^m	“Increase Our Faith”
17:7–10	The Parable of the Coldly Calculating (or Unprofitable) Servant
17:11–19	The Cleansing of Ten Lepers, Only One of Whom Returned to Give Thanks
17:20–37^m	The Coming of The Kingdom
18:1–8	The Parable of The Widow Who Persevered
18:9–14	The Parable of The Pharisee and The Tax-Collector
19:1–10	Jesus and Zacchaeus
19:11–27	The Parable of The Pounds
19:39, 40	“If These Were Silent, the Very Stones Would Cry Out”
19:41–44	“When He Saw the City He Wept Over It”
21:20–24^m	Prediction of Jerusalem’s Destruction
21:25–28^m	The Coming of The Son of Man
21:34–36	Watch and Pray, with a View to The Son of Man’s Return
21:37, 38	Summary of Jesus’ Final Teaching in the Temple
22:3–6^m	Satan Enters the Heart of Judas
22:14–23^m	The Institution of The Lord’s Supper
22:24–30	The Dispute About Greatness
22:31–34^m	Christ’s Prayer for Peter
22:35–38	“Did You Lack Anything?”
22:39–46^m	Jesus on the Mount of Olives
22:47–53^m	The Betrayal and Arrest An Ear Severed and Restored “This is Your Hour”
22:54–62^m	Peter’s Denial of Jesus
22:63–65^m	The Mocking and Beating of Jesus
22:66–71^m	Jesus Condemned by the Sanhedrin
23:1–5^m	Jesus Before Pilate
23:6–12	Jesus Before Herod
23:13–25^m	Jesus Sentenced to Die
23:26–43^m	Simon of Cyrene Jerusalem’s Weeping Daughters Jesus Crucified Between Two Criminals The First Two Words from the Cross
23:44–49^m	The Death of Jesus
23:50–56^m	The Burial of Jesus
24:1–12^m	The Resurrection of Jesus
24:13–35	Christ’s Appearance to the Men from Emmaus
24:36–49^m	Christ’s Appearance to the Disciples
24:50–53	Christ’s Ascension

2. Material Found Also in Mark

Nevertheless, not nearly everything in Luke is “new” or even “mainly new.” A considerable portion of Luke’s Gospel reminds one of Mark. This introduces us to the Synoptic Problem. Since this subject has already been treated in some detail,⁷ only a reference to it will be necessary now.

For the purpose of the study of sources Luke’s Gospel may be divided into the following three Parts or Sections:⁸

Divisions in the Gospel of Luke

Section I	Luke 1:1–9:50	about 8 5/6 chapters, 58 sections
Section II	Luke 9:51–18:14	about 8 3/6 chapters, 46 sections
Section III	Luke 18:15–24:53	about 6 4/6 chapters, 42 sections
Entire Third Gospel		24 chapters, 146 sections

In Section I, 34 of the 58 sections are paralleled, to a greater or lesser extent, in Mark, as is shown in this Commentary in connection with the captions above each of these small sections.

In Section II—Luke’s very interesting Central Part; for more on it see pp. 556–821—only 6 (or at most 8) of the 46 sections are similarly paralleled in Mark.

In Section III, 33 of the 42 sections are paralleled in Mark; sometimes generously, often sparingly. In the Passion account Luke retains only 27 percent of Mark’s words, and at times (as elsewhere) departs from Mark’s sequence in recording events.⁹

All in all one-half of Luke’s small sections are, to some extent, paralleled in Mark. But since in many cases the parallel is only partial, it remains true that fully two-thirds of Luke’s Gospel contains no Marcan material.

In almost every case in which Luke’s Gospel is reflected in Mark it also has a parallel in Matthew. Exceptions: Luke 4:31–37; 4:42–44; 9:49, 50; 21:1–4.

3. “Q” Material

So far we have considered (a) material peculiar to Luke, and (b) Lucan material that is found also in Mark, at least to some extent. The words is found also do not mean “in that exact form.” Each evangelist has his own style.

There is a third group of individual passages and at times sections (as a whole or in part): those that are found in Matthew and in Luke but not in Mark. Such material is indicated by the symbol Q, on which see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 21, 35, 47–49 (including footnote 50). To a large extent this “Q” indicates a sayings source.

Sometimes the resemblance between the passage in Matthew and its echo in Luke is so close that the two remind us of identical twins. A few examples from among many are here listed. Since this is a commentary on Luke, the right-hand (Luke) column is basic. That Gospel’s sequence is followed. Matthew’s column is placed on the left because that Gospel was in all probability composed before Luke.

Examples of Close Resemblances Between Matthew and Luke

Matthew	*The Passage Briefly Introduced*	Luke
3:7–10	You offspring of vipers	3:7–9
12:43–45	Swept clean and put in order	11:24–26
24:45–51	Who is the faithful servant?	12:42–46
23:37, 38	Jerusalem, Jerusalem!	13:34, 35
6:24	No one can serve two masters	16:13

Note the difference in sequence between Matthew and Luke. Does it not seem more probable that Luke is here using Matthew’s notes rather than the latter’s Gospel? What is written on notes or scraps can be inserted wherever needed.

There are also many passages which reveal a lesser degree of resemblance. Sometimes, in fact, the resemblance is so remote that authors will differ as to whether such passages should be regarded as “Q” material. It is for this reason that according to some there are 200, according to others 250 non-Marcan verses common to Matthew and Luke.

Resemblance in varying degrees can be detected in the sections listed in the chart below. The list is not complete. Here, too, the right-hand column is basic:

Examples of Resemblance Between Matthew and Luke

Matthew	*Brief Indication of Contents*	Luke
4:23–25	Christ’s Preaching, Teaching, and Healing	6:17–19
5:1–12	Beatitudes (Matt. & Luke) and Woes (Luke)	6:20–26
5:38–48	Love your enemies	6:27–36
7:1–5	Do not pass judgment	6:37–42
7:17–20	No good tree bears corrupt fruit	6:43–45
7:24–27	The Two Builders	6:46–49
8:5–13	The Healing of a Centurion’s Servant	7:1–10
11:2–19	Are you the Coming One?	7:18–35
8:19–22	I will follow you wherever you go	9:57–62
11:20–24	Woe to you, Chorazin!	10:13–16
11:25–27; 13:16, 17	I praise thee, Father—Blessed are the eyes, etc.	10:21–24
6:9–15; 7:7–11	The Lord’s Prayer—Ask, seek, knock!	11:1–13
10:28–31	Sparrows Two for a cent (Matthew); five for two cents (Luke)	12:4–7
10:32, 33; 12:32; 10:19, 20	Confessing versus denying Christ, etc.	12:8–12
6:21, 25–34	Where your [your: Matt.] treasure is there will your [your: Matt.] heart be also	12:22–34
10:34–36	No peace but division [a sword: Matt.]	12:49–53
5:25, 26	Settle with your opponent	12:57–59
7:13, 14, 21–23	The Narrow Door	13:22–30
24:17, 18, 23–28, 37–41	As were the days of Noah	17:20–37

All the “Q” material is found in Sections I and II of Luke’s Gospel. “Q” has no Passion account and no Resurrection narrative. It is not a Gospel or Message of Good News. As has been shown in N.T.C. on Matthew, there is no valid reason to believe that an actual document “Q” ever existed.

4. Verbal Parallels Between Luke and John

F. L. Cribbs, “St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition,” JBL, 90 (Dec. 1971), pp. 422–450, and earlier G. W. Broomfield, J. V. Bartlet, J. A. Findlay, and others, have pointed out verbal parallels between Luke and John. See also E. E. Ellis, op. cit., p. 28. Thus Annas, the highpriest, is mentioned only by Luke (3:2; cf. Acts 4:6) and by John (18:13, 24). The same is true with respect to Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38–41; John 11:1, 5, 19–21, 24, 30). Though it is a fact that the story of the anointing of Jesus by Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha, is found not only in John 12:1 ff., but also in Matt. 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9, ¹⁰ her name, in connection with that incident, is mentioned only in John (12:3).

Another possible link between Luke and John is the fact that in no other Gospel do Samaria and the Samaritans figure as prominently as in Luke (9:51–55; 10:25–37; 17:11–19; cf. Acts 1:8; 8:1, 14, 25; 9:31; 15:3) and John (4:1–42). Moreover, only in these two Gospels is mention made of the fact that Satan entered (the heart of) Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:27); that it was the right ear of the highpriest’s servant that was struck (Luke 22:50; John 18:10); that Pilate no less than three times declared Jesus to be innocent (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4, 6); that Joseph’s tomb was “new,” i.e., had never been used (Luke 23:53; John 19:41); that two angels were seen in the tomb of the resurrected Christ (Luke 24:4; John 20:12); and that after his resurrection Jesus appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33, 36 ff.; John 20:19–31). The visit of Peter to the tomb is reported in Luke 24:12, 24, and more fully in John 20:1–10, not in Matthew and Mark. Both Luke (5:1–11) and John (21:1–14) report a miraculous catch of fishes, but that reported by the latter occurred much later than that described by the former. In fact, the miracle related so interestingly by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is ascribed to Christ risen from the dead.

B. The Sources of Luke’s Gospel

1. The “L” Material

That “L” ever existed as an actual and distinct written document is very doubtful. We have already seen that this can be said also with respect to “Q.” Therefore the same unsubstantial character must be ascribed to “Proto-Luke,” an imaginary combination of “Q” and “L” (minus the nativity account). Take away “Q” and “L,” viewed as actually existing documents, or remove “Q” or “L,” and Proto-Luke, viewed as Luke’s first Gospel draft, to which he supposedly later added the nativity account and parts of Mark, also evaporates. This does not cancel the fact that if “L” and “Q” are viewed as being no more than symbols, so that the former indicates all the new material in Luke’s Gospel—that is, material that cannot be found either in Matthew or Mark—and the latter refers to all non-Marcan Matthew-Luke material, these symbols, if used carefully, are unobjectionable and even useful.

It seems probable that at least some of the “L” material was derived from Semitic sources, probably both written and oral. The reason for this inference is that the language and style not only of the infancy narratives but also of several other “L” passages bear this linguistic characteristic. Luke specifically states that he had consulted the “eyewitnesses.” Their everyday language was probably predominantly Aramaic, a Semitic language. At least some of them must have been acquainted with another and closely related Semitic tongue, namely, Hebrew. See further on 6. Oral Sources. And on Luke’s language and style see below, heading V.

The fact that so much of the “L” material—no less than 34 sections as a whole or in part—is found in 9:51–18:14, and that it breathes the cosmopolitan spirit and strongly condemns all narrow exclusivism (see 10:25–37; 14:5–24; ch. 15; 17:11–19; 18:9–14) has caused some to ascribe “L” to the influence of Paul upon Luke. For Paul’s “gospel for the world” emphasis see such passages as Rom. 3:21–24; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:9, 29; Eph. 2:14, 18; Col. 3:11. Others, with equal justification, call such material “Johannine.” See John 1:29; 3:16; 4:42; 10:16, etc.

We must not forget, however, that basically this so-called cosmopolitan spirit is evident throughout the Third Gospel (see above: point I A 5 a), and was that of Jesus Christ. He himself, by means of his oral teaching, was the primary “Source” of “L,” as well as of the entire Third Gospel; yes, of the Good News everywhere: the message of salvation full and free, by God’s sovereign grace granted to all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles.

And as to secondary “sources,” we have no right to limit their number too rigidly. Luke 1:1 f. leaves the impression that the evangelist had a good many sources, both oral and written. Today it would be entirely impossible to trace them all.

2. The Marcan Material

It has already been shown—see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 36–47—that in all probability it was Luke who used Mark’s Gospel, not vice versa. In fact, both Matthew and Luke probably had Mark as one of their sources. But the manner in which they used Mark differed. It would seem that Matthew was never able to forget Mark. He appears to be filling in the Marcan outline. Luke’s Gospel, on the other hand, consists of alternating Marcan and non-Marcan blocks. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 25–31 (“the three rivers”). It should also be remembered that Luke was personally acquainted with Mark (Col. 4:10, 14; Philem. 24).

3. The “Q” Material

This material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark may, as remarked earlier, have been derived in part from notes and fragments written by early witnesses, especially by Matthew.

A problem presents itself at this point. There are those who claim that in Luke these passages and/or sections appear in a context different from that in Matthew. Thorough investigation, verse by verse, section by section, soon reveals that the problem is not nearly as serious as it is often represented to be. It is true, for example, that in Luke the sermon that includes the Beatitudes was delivered when Jesus stood on “a level place,” while Matthew mentions “the mountain.” But the seeming contradiction disappears by supposing that Jesus delivered his discourse on a mountain-plain. For another possible solution see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 260.

Another seeming contradiction is that between Luke 11:1–4 and Matt. 6:9–15. Matthew includes the Lord’s Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount; Luke, as some see it, ascribes the teaching of that prayer to a considerably later period of Christ’s ministry. Here again the “contradiction” is in the mind of those who are looking for contradictions. More than one possible solution has been suggested: (a) In Matt. 5–7 Matthew includes sayings that belong to a later period; (b) Luke is simply recording what had happened earlier; (c) The Twelve, often forgetful (Matt. 16:9, 10), were in need of having this prayer repeated to them; (d) the disciple who asked, “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1) was not one of The Twelve; so for him the prayer was new. Whichever of these solutions is adopted—see the comments on 11:1–4—a real contradiction cannot be proved. And so it is in every case.

To the itinerant preacher—minister, evangelist, missionary, theological student—who has used the same sermon in different places, it should cause no difficulty to believe that our Lord repeated his marvelous sayings. For example, the one recorded in Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33; John 12:25 may have been used several times. Was he not fully aware of the fact that the (by nature) selfish human heart needed to hear the demand of total self-surrender again and again, and in every age? Cf. Rom. 15:4.

Besides, the very fact that “history repeats itself” (though never precisely) adds weight to the need of constant repetition and reassertion of basic truths and principles. Parallel events abound in history and in the life of every individual. For that very reason illustrations of déjà vu (the illusion that one has previously experienced something similar) are plentiful.

In the United States of America, beginning with the year 1840, when Pres. W. H. Harrison was elected to office, every twentieth year (1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960) marked the election (or re-election) of a president who died in office, whether because of illness or because of assassination. And in how many particulars did not the incidents which we associate with World War I recur in World War II? Besides, who would deny Luke the right to link a dominical saying spoken earlier with one uttered later, when he saw a connection in thought? See especially 9:51–18:14.

4. The Johannine Material

How shall we account for the similarities between Luke and John? Before writing his own Gospel had John seen Luke’s and does this account for the similarities? L. Morris answers this question negatively. Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200), on the other hand, writes, “Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” Note the words I have placed in italics. This very early witness, therefore, must have thought that John was acquainted with the contents of the Synoptics. L. Berkhof’s opinion is given in these words, “John may have read the Synoptics before he composed his work, but he did not use them as sources from which he drew a part of his material.”¹¹ For passages in John’s Gospel which, according to several interpreters, seem to indicate that John, in writing his Gospel, presupposed that its readers were already acquainted with the Synoptics see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 32.

On one fact all serious students of the four Gospels agree, namely, that there must have been a very rich common tradition, especially oral, from which both Luke and John were able to draw. That, more than anything else, may well account for the similarities between the Third and the Fourth Gospels,

5. Overlapping Sources

The various sources which Luke consulted were probably not so artificially separated that without qualification one would be able to say, “For the ‘L’ material Luke drew on this source, for ‘Q’ on that.” Frequently the material contents of the sources must have overlapped. This holds too for written sources as distinguished from oral.

6. Oral Sources

We must be careful not to make Luke dependent upon written sources only. We know that the author of the Third Gospel, who was Paul’s companion, was living at a time when many eye-and-ear witnesses had not yet died (I Cor. 15:6). In Caesarea Luke, bound for Jerusalem on Paul’s third missionary journey, spent some time with Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8 ff.). This was the very Philip who previously had been enabled by the Lord to perform a very successful ministry in Samaria (Acts 8:5–8). Can it be that the prominence of Samaria material in Luke’s Gospel was due, in part, to this meeting of Luke with Philip?

Having arrived in Jerusalem, Luke spent some time in that city (Acts 21:17). Moreover, during the years a.d. 58–60, while Paul was kept in Caesarean imprisonment, Luke may have consulted several early witnesses. Could one of these have been Mary, the mother of Jesus? Or, perhaps, some of her close friends or relatives, to whom she had entrusted the facts pertaining to Christ’s conception and birth?

It is considered possible that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, manager of Herod’s household, gave Luke information with respect to matters touching Herod (Luke 8:2, 3; 23:56–24:10). This Joanna is mentioned only by Luke. He may have known and contacted her. Does this perhaps account for the fact that the story of Christ’s appearance before Herod is found only in Luke’s Gospel (23:6–12)?

Luke’s close association with Paul, which began before the Third Gospel was written, must not be passed by in silence. Both before and after his conversion Paul had been in touch with the early witnesses (Acts 9:1 ff.; I Cor. 15:1–8; Gal. 1:18; 2:9).

7. One Final Fact, the Most Important of All

The fact I am about to state is generally left unspoken and unwritten in the treatment of this subject. Yet, without it, the treatment of sources is at best deistic. That fact is this, that with respect to the authors of Scripture the impulse to write, the investigation of the facts, and the actual writing took place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21; cf. II Tim. 3:16, 17).

As a result of the operation of that same Spirit the reader, at the very outset, accepts the inspired record as being nothing less than the Word of God. “Protestants are bound to pay homage to a strict theory of inspiration, for if this falls by the wayside, everything falls” (H. Bavinck).

Very instructive are the words of S. Greijdanus. At an unusual place, namely, the close of his very thorough two-volume Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke, he writes a Postscript (Dutch Naschrift), which is actually an Introduction to the Third Gospel!¹² His opening sentence on Sources (Dutch Bronnen) is as follows (my translation): “The search for sources, in order in connection with them to judge the historicity of that which Luke imparts to us in his Gospel, can be called both improper and thoroughly useless.” He continues: “The truth of the position that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God, that according to his human nature he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he performed the miracles and spoke the words reported by Luke, and that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, cannot by means of source investigation be established by anybody. He who makes the recognition of these truths dependent on such research starts out with their rejection, at least with the assumption that they are debatable.… That he then reaches a negative result is not surprising. In the final analysis one either believes or rejects what Luke says about such matters.”

If one reads these words of the Dutch scholar carefully, it will become clear that Greijdanus is not summarily denying the value of tracing sources. On the contrary, what he warns against is the process of carrying on such a study without being properly motivated. In all candor, are we not driven to admit that a good deal of negative criticism is tainted with this evil? Even when the Greek text is undisputed, the critic insists on digging deeper until he imagines that he has discovered why “the early church” (marvelously creative!) or even the evangelist himself modified or “edited” a saying of Jesus or a report of an event so as to produce the present text.

In a choice between, on the one hand, what the best Greek text actually says in the light of its own inspired context, and on the other hand, the frequently speculative product of quasi-research, let us adhere to the former!

IV. WHEN AND WHERE WAS THIS GOSPEL WRITTEN?

A. When?

It would amount to a waste of space and time to discuss all the various views. Basic to much of the argumentation are the words of Jesus recorded in Luke 19:41–44; 21:20 f.:

“The days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a palisade [or: siegeworks] against you and encircle you and hem you in from all directions.… When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.…”

Conservatives interpret these words as an actual prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall. Since this fall occurred in the year a.d. 70, they date Luke–Acts¹³ earlier than that year.

Liberals, on the other hand, regard these words to be a description, in the form of a prophecy to be sure, but actually written after Jerusalem’s fall. They base this conclusion on the vividness and—as they see it—detailed character of the description. It follows that they assign to Luke–Acts a date after a.d. 70.

However, that the Jews were already rebellious during Christ’s sojourn on earth is clear from John 6:15. That this attitude, unless checked in time, might well lead to the destruction of Jerusalem could be foreseen. Cf. John 11:48. For the rest, instead of considering the quoted words to be too detailed to have been spoken before the city was overwhelmed by the terrible catastrophe, would it not be appropriate to say in the spirit of Judg. 14:18:

(When the enemy intends to take a city)

What is more natural than siegeworks,

And what more effective than a besieging army?

In other words, if the “description” had been written afterward, would it not have been more detailed? It is exactly the lack of detail that should have made it rather easy to believe that these words were spoken before Jerusalem’s fall, and that Luke–Acts antedates a.d. 70. I hasten to add, however, that he who by God’s sovereign grace has been led to regard Christ’s claims as being true does not hesitate to believe that this Exalted Person was able to utter even minutely detailed prophecies (Matt. 17:27; 21:2; Mark 10:32–34). Could the real reason for the late-dating of Luke 19:41–44; 21:10 f., and consequently for the late-dating of Luke–Acts, be disbelief in the possibility of genuine predictive prophecy?

Among several other arguments advanced by those who accept a late date for Luke–Acts is one which is too interesting to pass by in silence. Josephus, in his work Jewish Antiquities (XX.97–99), states that during the period when Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain false prophet, named Theudas, caused a large crowd to believe that at his command the Jordan River would be parted. When Fadus heard about this, he sent a squadron of cavalry who slew many of the impostor’s followers, made slaves of others, and caused Theudas to be beheaded. Several lines farther along Josephus makes mention of a certain rebel against the Roman government, named Judas (XX.102), whose sons were brought up for trial and crucified. Now in Acts 5:35–39 these same two names occur, and in that same sequence: Theudas and Judas. Luke records the words of Gamaliel, a famous Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin. By means of an eloquent address this influential leader restrained his fellow councilmen from taking precipitous action against Peter and the rest of the apostles. In his speech Gamaliel relates how Theudas and Judas had perished. Accordingly, there are those who maintain that Luke must have derived his account about Theudas and Judas from Josephus, and that since Jewish Antiquities was not published until the year 93, the Third Gospel and Acts must be dated even later, perhaps around the turn of the century.¹⁴

Now it must be admitted that the identity of names is indeed striking. However, this argument for the late-dating of Luke–Acts fails for the following reasons:

a. The false prophets to whom Gamaliel refers lived at a date considerably earlier than did the two men mentioned by Josephus. The revolt to which Antiquities refers occurred in a.d. 45–46. When Gamaliel delivered his speech, some time before the year 37, the Theudas and Judas to whom he refers had already perished.

b. According to the speech of Gamaliel “about four hundred men” had joined Theudas. Neither Gamaliel nor Luke could have derived this detail from Josephus, for he does not mention it.

c. Josephus states that the sons of Judas were crucified; Gamaliel reports that Judas himself perished.

It is clear, therefore, that the two reports cannot refer to the same incident.

On the positive side it can be stated that for the book of Acts we have “an earliest probable date” (terminus a quo, if one prefers the Latin expression) and “a latest probable date” (terminus ad quem). The earliest probable date is a.d. 62. Reason: it can be established with a high degree of probability that Paul reached Rome in or about the year 60.¹⁵ Since the book of Acts covers the life of Paul until the time when he had spent two years in Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:30), Luke cannot have finished it before the year 62. As to the latest probable date, here we must be very careful. It is sometimes said that since Paul must have been released about a.d. 63 or soon afterward and Acts ends with Paul still in prison, the book must have been written not later than the year 63, for if Luke had known about Paul’s release he would probably have mentioned it.

This argument is rather weak, however. For, first of all, it must be borne in mind that Luke is not writing Paul’s biography but the story of the Christ-controlled progress of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and thus, in a sense, to the uttermost parts of the earth. See Acts 1:1–8. Besides, there are those who think that the expression “And he lived two whole years in his own rented dwelling” or “at his own expense” may have a legal meaning, namely, he waited the two full years (the limit established by law?) during which the accusers had the opportunity to press their charge. No one appearing (does Acts 28:21 point in that direction?), the trial ended by default, and Paul was released, the legal requirement of two years having been fulfilled.¹⁶ So interpreted, Acts 28:30 would imply Paul’s’ release. Whether or not this interpretation is correct has not been established. It has become clear, however, that one can do very little with Acts 28:30, 31 in attempting to fix the latest probable date for Acts. Note, however, the following:

In the night between the 18th and the 19th of July of the year 64 a fearful conflagration broke out in Rome. It turned ten of that city’s fourteen districts into a shapeless mass of ruins. Who or what caused that fire? An accusing finger was pointed at Nero. In order to divert attention from himself he, in turn, cast the blame on the Christians. Result: a fiendishly cruel persecution of believers, a bloodbath in Rome, bitter hostility toward Christianity on the part of the Roman government.

Not only is no mention of this horror made anywhere in the book of Acts, but the entire spirit of the book makes it almost impossible to believe that it could have been written during or after the middle of the year a.d. 64.

Luke constantly emphasizes the relative fairness, at times even the friendliness and helpfulness, of the Roman authorities. Rescued by the military tribune out of the hands of the murderous mob at Jerusalem, Paul is permitted to make his defense, first before the people, then before the Jewish council (Acts 21:31–23:9). By the tribune he is rescued once more, this time out of the hands of quarreling Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23:10); and even a third time, now from a band of more than forty oath-bound Jews. He is brought to Caesarea. Claudius Lysias writes a letter in his favor (Acts 23:12–35), addressing it to the governor Felix. The latter also permits Paul to make his defense, but desiring to do the Jews a favor, leaves him in prison. When Festus succeeds Felix, the apostle appeals to Caesar. Festus tells King Agrippa that Paul had done nothing worthy of death, and permits him to make his defense before the king. On board a ship on his way to Rome, the apostle is treated kindly by the Roman centurion, Julius (Acts 27:3), who also subsequently saves his life (Acts 27:43). After the storm and the shipwreck, having first been hospitably entertained by the chief of the island of Malta (Acts 28:7), and having afterward covered the final leg of the journey, he reaches Rome, where he is permitted to stay by himself with a soldier to guard him (Acts 28:16). Though he is a prisoner awaiting trial, he is allowed considerable personal liberty as well as opportunity to preach the gospel (Acts 28:30, 31).

Conclusion: the book of Acts was probably written before the middle of the year 64. A reasonable guess would be a.d. 63. And since Luke–Acts is really a single work, the date when Theophilus received the Third Gospel cannot have been much earlier—probably “sometime during the period a.d. 61–63.”

B. Where?

As has been indicated, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue states that Luke wrote his Gospel in Achaia, a province of ancient Greece. We know, however, that Luke reached Rome in the company of Paul, and that he was still—or again—in Rome when during this same first Roman imprisonment Paul wrote Colossians (see 4:14) and Philemon (see verse 24). Did Luke leave Paul for a while, in order to write his Gospel in Achaia, and did he then return to Rome? It is hard to imagine that Luke would have done this. The reference to Achaia, as the place where Luke wrote his Gospel, may be merely an inference from the fact that the beloved physician was completely “at home” in the Greek world, wrote excellent Greek, “was probably a Greek” (A. T. Robertson), and wanted his Gospel to be read by the entire Greek-speaking world of his day.

Of all the other guesses—namely, Ephesus, Corinth, Caesarea, Rome—the last seems to be the most reasonable. It would harmonize best with the facts already stated under point A. As already indicated, much of the preparatory work—gathering and sifting data and organizing them—may have been done in Caesarea and elsewhere.

Commenting on the date and place of Acts, A. T. Robertson writes, “On the whole, the early date has the best of it. We, therefore, date the Acts about a.d. 63 and in Rome.”¹⁷

And F. F. Bruce points out that the exact date of Luke–Acts must remain uncertain and that it is an unimportant question in comparison with the authorship and historical character of the work.¹⁸

I can find no fault with either of these statements.

V. WHAT ARE ITS CHARACTERISTICS?

A. Its Style Is Multi-Faceted¹⁹

Luke’s style is anything but uniform. That of the preface is classical; that of 1:5–2:52 Semitic; and that of the rest of his Gospel similar to the Greek of the Septuagint, but with wide variation. Sometimes it approaches classical Greek very closely; then again it is tinged with Semitisms.

Aside from the fact that the beloved physician was a very versatile person, there is no certainty as to what may have been the reason for this extraordinary variety of style. Worthy of consideration is the following: Luke uses classical Greek for the preface because it is natural for him to do so, especially when he is not using sources, and because he wishes to indicate at the very outset that his Gospel is meant for the entire Greek-speaking world. He expresses himself in Semitic style because wherever he does this—especially in the nativity account—he is making use of very early source material, perhaps written as well as oral. He adopts the style of the Septuagint in order to show that the story of Jesus is a true fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies were read by many and were generally quoted by Luke as they had been translated in the Septuagint.

Luke uses no less than 266 words (not counting proper names) that are not found in the rest of the New Testament. This compares with less than half as many for Matthew, and less than one-third as many for Mark.

Even where Luke makes use of Mark’s Gospel, he changes the style, so that where Mark co-ordinates clauses (and … and … and) Luke often subordinates. For the details see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 39, footnote 37. Luke also omits Mark’s Aramaic words. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 42. For “Cananaean” (Mark 3:18) Luke substitutes “zealot” (6:15); for “Rabbi” (Mark 9:5), “Master” (9:33); for “Rabboni” (Mark 10:51), “Lord” (18:41); and for “Golgotha” (Mark 15:22), “Skull” (23:33). And cf. Mark 5:41 with Luke 8:54.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the type of Greek used by each evangelist answers his purpose best. In this respect Mark’s vernacular is not any worse than Luke’s more polished style. All three Synoptics—in fact, all four Gospels—must be considered the product of divine inspiration. But inspiration, though indeed plenary, is organic. It makes use of evangelists with different backgrounds and qualifications, and equips each for his specific task.

B. It Covers a Longer Span of History Than Do the Other Synoptics and More Often Relates Its Narratives to Contemporaneous Events

Luke–Acts covers the history of redemption all the way from the prediction of the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5–23) to the implantation and propagation of the gospel in Rome (Acts 28:16–31). Even Luke’s first book surpasses the other Synoptics in point of completeness, for it traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam (3:38) and ends with the record of Christ’s ascension from the Mount of Olives (24:50–53). In fact, the Third Gospel even contains an allusion to the realization of the Father’s promise, namely, the coming of the Holy Spirit. See Luke 24:49; cf. Acts 1:4, 8. To Luke, Jesus was one of our race. The Son of God was also the perfect or ideal man.

Again and again Luke relates his narrative to contemporaneous historical events. He informs us that it was during the days of Herod—the one often described as “Herod the Great”—that “a certain priest named Zacharias” received the promise of the birth of a son, who was to be called John (1:5); that it was “while Quirinius was governor of Syria” that the census took place and Jesus was born (2:1, 2, 7); and that it was “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” etc., that “the word of God came to John,” and that he accordingly began his ministry. Other chronological references can be found in the following passages: 1:36, 56, 59; 2:42; 3:23; 9:28, 37, 51; 22:1, 7, 66; 23:44, 54; 24:1, 13, 29, 33. On the other hand, at times Luke can be very indefinite: “Now it happened while he [Jesus] was in one of the towns” (5:12); “on one of those days” (5:17); on another sabbath” (6:6); etc.

C. Its Geography and History Are Reliable.

This Thesis Defended Against Redaction Criticism

Today, perhaps more than ever, this reliability must be stressed. By no means all who have read and commented on Luke’s writings have admitted their reliability. There is Gospel Criticism, and there are Gospel critics: those who do not believe that whatever is written by the four recognized evangelists is true.

In N.T.C. on Matthew several pages (54–76) were devoted to a brief summary of the views of these men, beginning with Harnack (1851–1930). It was made clear that each succeeding critic, while rendering a service by exposing the weak points in the theory of his predecessor, came up with a system of his own … which, in turn, was (at least to some extent) blasted by the next critic.

The last to be discussed was Bultmann, with his theory of single Gospel units and with his demythologization advice. He established what may be termed a “school” of disciples, many of whom today occupy influential chairs in various institutions of higher education on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. His theories, however, have by no means escaped searching criticism. And the critics, in turn, while deserving praise for what they have accomplished in the way of criticism and sometimes even in other respects, are airing views which, in some cases, are also in need of demolition or at least serious modification.

Today “Redaction Criticism” is riding high. What is Redaction Criticism? A book bearing this very title was written by Norman Perrin.²⁰ The author of that book is himself an enthusiastic advocate of that ism. In his favor it must be said that in clear language he has given us a comprehensive view of this relatively new development in the study of the Gospels. I strongly urge the reader to study his treatise. Apart from a Foreword, a Glossary, and a Bibliography, the book has only 79 pages of reading material. It would be unfair to Perrin to depend entirely on what someone says about the contents of his writing. The book itself deserves to be read.

Briefly, then, Redaction Criticism, as outlined in the book to which reference was made, may perhaps be described as a discipline which regards the various Gospel units as being not accurate historical narratives, etc., but rather products of redaction, that is, of the revision and editing of miscellaneous traditions. The evangelists, instead of necessarily reproducing the facts as they actually occurred, gather, modify, and even create traditions. Often, therefore, the material found in the Gospels must be ascribed to the theological motivation of the evangelist or of this or that editor. See pp. 40, 42, 66, 69. The Gospel writers offer us information about the theology of the early church, rather than about the teaching of the historical Jesus.

To support this thesis Perrin refers, among other things, to the incident that occurred at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27–9:1; cf. Matt. 16:13–28; Luke 9:18–27). It will be recalled that here Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say I am?” Upon receiving their answer, he asked, “But you, who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ,” etc. Jesus then began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things … Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him … Jesus rebuked Peter.… Mark 8:34, 35 reads, “And having called the people to him along with his disciples, he said to them, ‘If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it.” It will also be recalled that Matthew’s main addition to the Marcan account of this incident is found in 16:17–19: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah,” etc.

Perrin’s argument to show that here we have instances of redaction includes the following:

a. The insertion, in Matt. 16, of verses 17–19, is a piece of tradition not paralleled in Mark or Luke. See Perrin, pp. 58, 59.

b. The words (here in italics) “take up his cross” and “for my sake and the gospel’s” (Mark 8:34, 35) represent language that suits the situation in the early church, not any situation in the ministry of Jesus, p. 42.

c. The three passion predictions (Mark 8:31 f.; 9:31 f.; 10:33 f. and parallels) reveal a constant editorial pattern of prediction—misunderstanding—teaching, p. 45.

It is unnecessary for me to reflect on (a), since I have already done this in my N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 645. There is a very reasonable explanation for the omission of this passage from Mark and Luke.

As to (b), though it is true that Jesus had not as yet been crucified, this can be no objection against very early use of the phrase take up his cross, since crucifixion was not at all unusual in those days. The disciples of Jesus may very well have seen a man taking up his cross and being led away by soldiers for execution. They were therefore well able to understand that the act of deliberately taking up one’s cross symbolized self-denial.

This holds too with respect to the phrase “for my sake and the gospel’s.” Already in pre-Christian times the word gospel was used in the sense of “good news.”²¹

And as to (c), this objection is certainly strange. Is not history full of repetitions and coincidences? Besides, was it not rather natural for these men, who until they began to associate with Jesus had probably never heard about a Suffering Messiah, to react negatively to these passion predictions, and to do so more than once? Do we actually need editorial redaction to account for this repetition?

If a historian should report that a soldier, upon entering a building, met a group of men carrying out a fatally wounded President of the United States; and that again, years later, this same soldier, now Secretary of War, upon entering a building, met a group of men carrying out a fatally wounded President of the United States; and that for the third time, years later, this same individual, upon entering a building met a group of men carrying out a fatally wounded President of the United States,²² would there not seem to be far more reason to shout “editorial redaction”? The pattern would indeed be very arresting, for in the case of the passion predictions the negative reactions, though similar, were not nearly as similar as were the three above-mentioned experiences encountered by Robert Lincoln.

Redaction Criticism, in order to prove its point, will have to come up with something far better than it has presented thus far.

As to redaction critics and their books, note also the following:

J. Rhode, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, Philadelphia, 1969.

G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Philadelphia, 1963.

W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, Göttingen, 1959.

On p. 28 of his book Perrin calls Hans Conzelmann the most important of the true redaction critics. We shall therefore now turn our attention to him. His book, to which reference is going to be made, bears the title Die Mitte Der Zeit, Tübingen, 1954. The subtitle of the book is Studien zur Theologie des Lukas. Based on this subtitle is the title of the English translation, The Theology of St. Luke, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London, 1957.

Without any disparagement of the translation which, it would seem to me, is good, it still remains a fact that it is always best to read the author’s own words in the very language in which he wrote them. But there may be some readers of this commentary who are unable to follow the German. To accommodate everyone, the references given below are first of all to the German original (marked G.), then to the English translation (marked E.).

Conzelmann believes that the Gospel writers were real authors, not simply men who gathered and strung together previously unconnected Gospel units. Take Luke as an example. He was not merely an author; he was a theologian. As he saw it the heart and center²³ of the good tidings is Jesus Christ himself. Great is the emphasis which Conzelmann places on this fact. And as for Christ’s archenemy, Satan, that strong Adversary lacks every bit of independent authority. He must always serve God’s purpose.²⁴ So far, so good.

There are, however, also other statements. With some of the views of Conzelmann many readers will not be able to agree, and rightly so. To provide a background for these very controversial positions note the following two passages from the Third Gospel:

“And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time” (4:13).

“Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve” (22:3).

According to Conzelmann these two Lucan passages divide salvation history into three stages: (a) the Age of Israel, closing with 4:13; (b) the Age of Jesus, extending from 4:13 to 22:3; and (c) the Age of the Church, from 22:3 to the end.²⁵ As he sees it, the lines of demarcation cannot be too sharply drawn. The Central Age, moreover, that of Jesus, is protected from every activity of Satan.²⁶

What Conzelmann means when he describes Luke as being a theologian has now become clear. To be sure, the evangelist is also interested in geography and history, but only to the extent in which they serve theology. In fact, as Conzelmann sees it, Luke’s geographical interest is very strong; yet his geographical references must not be interpreted literally but symbolically, theologically; e.g., the Jordan is simply the sphere in which John the Baptist carries out his ministry. Conzelmann’s interpretation of Luke 17:11 shows that he accepts the probability that Luke is frequently ignorant of the actual geographical situation.

Again and again Conzelmann casts doubt on the accuracy of the evangelist’s knowledge about the exact place or territory where the events he writes about took place.²⁷

And as to history, “There seems to be implicit in his [Conzelmann’s] approach the traditional (and erroneous) view that the Gospel is intended to be a running chronological account of Jesus’ ministry.”²⁸

The objections to Conzelmann’s position are as follows:

a. That it was Luke’s intention to divide the history of salvation into these three stages is a mere assumption. Neither the text nor the context points in that direction. If three stages are required, why not the far more natural and scriptural: Adam to Christ’s First Coming; Christ’s First Coming to his Return to Judge; Gehenna and its opposite: The New Heaven and Earth? See such passages as the following: Matt. 25:46; Luke 3:23–38; 12:35–40; 16:16; 17:22–37; 21:25–28; 24:27; Gal. 4:4; Rev. 12:1–5; 20:14, 15; 21:1 ff.

b. Most of Luke’s passages with respect to Satanic activity are found in the “Central Section,” the very one which, says Conzelmann—G. p. 135; E. p. 156—is exempt from such activity.²⁹

c. Ignorance or carelessness on the part of Luke with respect to geography and history has never been proved. Rather, the very opposite.

There was a time when William Ramsay also harbored doubts with respect to Luke’s knowledge of geography and related subjects. Diligent research cured him.³⁰ Partly through Ramsay’s (and Hobart’s) influence did not Harnack reverse his position in connection with the authorship of Luke–Acts? Did not Goodspeed experience a somewhat similar change of mind with respect to the authorship of Matthew?

Frank Morison, convinced that resurrection from the dead was an impossibility, planned a book bearing the title Jesus, the Last Phase. By God’s grace the study of the facts as reported in the Gospels caused him to change his mind. He did indeed write a book, with contents the very opposite of what had been his original plan.³¹ So, let us hope and pray that in time Conzelmann, too, will change his mind with respect to Luke’s ignorance and/or lack of accuracy.

When one reads what Conzelmann says, and even more often implies, with respect to Luke’s carelessness about geography and history, the question arises, “Must the old battle be fought all over again?” Have not the works of Ramsay and of Robertson, the inscriptions and other archaeological discoveries, proved beyond possibility of reasonable doubt that Luke was a thoroughly reliable writer?

The following questions used to be answered with a thunderous “No”:

Luke 2:1, 2. Was there a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, one that took place before the census mentioned in Acts 5:37?

Luke 2:3, 4. To satisfy the requirements of this early census, did people have to return to their ancestral homes?

Luke 3:1, 2. Did John the Baptist begin his ministry “in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar … when Lysanius was tetrarch of Abilene?”

Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11. Does Luke’s account of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem make sense?

Acts 13:7. When Paul proclaimed the word of God in Cyprus, did that island have a proconsul?

Acts 17:6, 8. Were the rulers of the city of Thessalonica called “politarchs”?

Acts 18:12. When Paul, on his second missionary journey, performed his ministry at Corinth, was Gallio proconsul of Achaia?

By this time, however, we know that wherever it has been possible to check Luke’s statements, his impeccable reliability as a historian has come to light. In not a single case has it been established that he was wrong. It must be granted that not every problem with respect to the census mentioned in Luke 2:1–4 has as yet been solved; also, that commentators have not as yet reached unanimity in their interpretation of Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11. But the evidence in Luke’s favor is overwhelming, as books and articles continue to testify.³²

As to the solution of the difficulties mentioned above:

On Luke 2:1, 2 (Quirinius) see the treatment of this passage in the present Commentary; also the author’s Survey of the Bible, pp. 139, 400.

On Luke 2:3, 4 (census) see on that passage.

On Luke 3:1, 2 (fifteenth year of Tiberius) see on that passage; also Survey of the Bible, pp. 66, 400.

On Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11, in the present Commentary see Summary of and Introduction to Luke’s Central Section; especially under point B, pp. 541–545.

On Acts 13:7 (proconsul at Cyprus) and on Acts 17:6, 8 (politarchs at Thessalonica) see Survey of the Bible, p. 401.

On Acts 18:12 (Gallio) see Survey of the Bible, p. 67; also A. T. Robertson, Luke the Historian, pp. 175, 176.

What is, indeed, very striking is the remarkable correspondence between the Third Gospel and other sources as to the location of towns, villages, etc. The great majority of these geographical units present no formidable problem at all. That is true with respect to Nazareth (1:26; 2:39, 51, etc.); Capernaum (4:23, 31; 7:1, 2; 10:15); Nain (7:11); Jerusalem (2:22, 41; 4:9, etc.); the Lake of Gennesaret (5:1); Zarephath in the region of Sidon (4:26); the district of the Garasenes (8:26); Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives (19:37); Jericho (on the way toward Jerusalem from the northeast, 18:31, 35; 19:1); etc. As to Bethsaida (9:10; 10:13) see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 216, 217; and on Emmaus see on Luke 24:13 in the present Commentary. Indeed, the Third Gospel’s seemingly incidental remarks, relating to geography and history, to the extent in which comparison with other sources is possible, are in full agreement with what is known about the Palestinian and surrounding scene.³³

What is true with respect to geography and history holds also for the customs prevailing in the days described in Luke’s Gospel. All of them correspond with information available from other sources, sacred and secular. To mention but a few of these usual practices: temple liturgy and priestly duties (1:5–10, 21, 23; 6:4); customs pertaining to the birth and naming of a child (1:57–63); circumcision (1:59; 2:21); purification and presentation (2:22); Passover attendance and preparation for the Bar Mitzvah ceremony (2:41, 42); the custom of “publicans” to exact more than their due (3:13); winnowing, gathering of wheat, burning of chaff (3:17); synagogue liturgy (4:16–21); the washing of nets (5:2). So one could continue.

With respect to Acts the story is no different:

1:8: “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, ends of the earth.” From Jerusalem as starting point this division of terrain for successive missionary activity is logical.

1:11: The designation men of Galilee is accurate.

1:12: Mt. Olivet is indeed “about a sabbath day’s journey”—circa 3000 feet—from Jerusalem.

1:19: Luke knows that the burial place which the chief priests purchased with Judas’ tainted money came to be called “the Field of Blood.”

2:9–11: The series of nations represented at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost follows a natural pattern, as can be seen by tracing them on a map.

8:26: The designation desert road suits the one from Jerusalem to Gaza.

9:11: For “Straight Street” in Damascus see L. H. Grollenberg, op. cit., Plates 387–390, p. 133.

9:32–38: Lydda (O.T. “Lod”) is indeed “near to” (about 10 miles southeast of) Joppa (modern Jaffa) on the Mediterranean Coast. That the news with respect to the cure of Aeneas at Lydda would spread throughout the Plain of Sharon was to be expected.

10:1: That Caesarea, in the Plain of Sharon, should be mentioned next, is again very natural.

10:6: It was natural for a tanner to live outside the city, near the seaside. Think of the unpleasant odors connected with his trade, and the need of easy access to a body of water for washing the skins.

12:4–10: Note: prison, squads of four soldiers each, chains, sentries, iron gate. Luke has detailed knowledge of the prison.

12:12–17: He also knows exactly where the disciples were gathered; in fact, even knows the name of Mary’s servant girl.

12:19–23: Luke is thoroughly acquainted with the where, when, why, and how of the death of Herod Agrippa I. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities XIX.343–350.

21:40: Again the evangelist shows his thorough knowledge of Jerusalem and its temple. The fortress of Antonia, northwest of the temple, was connected with the temple’s outer court by means of two flights of steps.

One of the most dramatic, definitely exciting, chapters of Acts is the twenty-third. First we see Paul before the Sanhedrin. The apostle’s claim that he had lived in harmony with the dictates of his conscience corresponds with what we find in Acts 24:16 and Phil. 3:6. The action of the highpriest, Ananias, a man despised even by the Jews because of his greed, was both legally and morally irresponsible. Therefore, Paul’s reaction is at least understandable. The apostle’s excusable failure to discern the identity of the man who had issued the order to strike him across the mouth shows how very “human” he was. The story of the plot against Paul’s life, how it was discovered and how it was foiled, is presented in a most dramatic and true-to-life fashion. Note also the Roman tribune’s kind attitude toward Paul’s nephew, his letter, and his forceful action in behalf of the apostle. Then try to visualize the midnight ride from Jerusalem to Antipatris (about 35 miles), the trip from Antipatris to Caesarea (27 additional miles), and the arrival at the headquarters of Governor Felix in Caesarea. All is vivid, clear, manifestly accurate.

We are trying to be fair to “redaction criticism.” What is good about it has been mentioned. Its errors have also been exposed. We shall have occasion to refer to it again; see pp. 553; 555; 991. See also earlier remarks (N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 21, 22; and on Mark, pp. 599, 600). Our main criticism is that, having—whether explicitly or implicitly—cast aside the fact that the words of II Tim. 3:16, 17; II Peter 1:21 also apply to the first four books of the New Testament, redaction criticism frequently pays too little attention to what is written in the sacred text. At times instead of exegesis it offers fantasies. Not always, to be sure, but in many instances.

If this criticism seems too harsh, let the reader take note of the book review by Quentin Quesnell. See JBL, Vol. 93, No. 4 (Dec. 1974), pp. 614, 615. It deals with this very subject of Redaction Criticism. It warns that if this kind of criticism begins to exempt exegetes from adhering to the text it may already have outlived its usefulness. It correctly points out that the real question should always be, “What did the author of this text intend?” It shows that the wrong method of handling the material presented to us in the Gospels leads to “fantasy and foible.” Exactly! Isa. 40:8!

D. If Possible, Even More Than Do the Other Synoptics, Luke’s Gospel Emphasizes Christ’s Tender Love, His Far-Reaching Sympathy

In each Gospel Jesus is pictured as the long-awaited Messiah, sent by the Father and anointed by the Spirit to be his people’s Great Prophet, Sympathetic Highpriest, and Eternal King. It has already been indicated that it is the prophetic office that comes into the foreground in Matthew (see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 82, 83), and the kingly in Mark (N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 14, 17, 18).

Are we in danger of arbitrarily concluding, by a process of elimination, that Christ’s highpriestly office is emphasized in Luke?

Answer: In describing the heavenly Highpriest Heb. 4:15 states, “We do not have a highpriest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses.” This is clearly a litotes for “We definitely have a Highpriest who is able to sympathize—and does sympathize—with our weaknesses.” His heart goes out to us to the extent that he offered himself for our sins (7:27). More even: He is constantly making intercession for us …; rather, he ever lives to make intercession for us (7:25), which is even more comforting and meaningful. In view of this sympathy, deep, tender, wide-embracing, the Savior rightly bears the title Our Sympathetic Highpriest. And it is especially Luke who so describes him!

Luke’s book abounds in stories, parables, and sayings, in which our Lord’s lovingkindness toward the less privileged, the weak, and the rejected comes to expression. His love in action is revealed to the poor and the social outcasts; to children, shepherds, and tax-collectors; to the sick, the handicapped, and lepers; to Samaritans and Gentiles (2:7, 8, 24; 4:18; 6:20; 7:2, 6, 9; 8:42, 55; 14:13, 23; 17:11–19; etc.). See, however, also on 2:39.

The beloved physician’s book has been called The Gospel of Womanhood, for the Savior’s tender and profound regard for women comes to the fore in this Gospel more clearly than in any other. Note, for example, the prominence accorded to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and to Elizabeth (chapters 1 and 2). Remember also that Anna, the prophetess, and Joanna, the loyal follower, are mentioned only in this Gospel (2:36–38; 8:3; 24:10). The beautiful story in which Mary (sister of Martha and of Lazarus) makes the right choice is told only here (10:38–42). This holds too for the stirring reports about Christ’s kindness bestowed upon the widow of Nain (7:11–18), and upon the sinful woman who anointed the Lord (7:36–50). Unforgettable, too, is the parable of The Widow Who Persevered (18:1–8). And see 11:27, 28; 13:10–17; 23:27 f.

The Savior’s own sympathy for those in distress, regardless of race, is marvelously portrayed in the parable of The Samaritan Who Cared (chapter 10). The Father’s pardoning grace is most exquisitely enshrined in the parables of The Lost (“Prodigal”) Son (chapter 15) and The Pharisee and The Tax Collector (chapter 18), illustrative stories found only in Luke’s Gospel. And it is here alone that we read the meaningful words, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (3:6). On this (“the wideness of God’s mercy”) see also above: point I A 5. Cf. Isa. 52:10; Titus 2:11.

It is hardly necessary to add that when Luke so portrays Christ, he is not merely telling an interesting story. On the contrary, by means of the story he is saying: (a) “Accept that Sympathetic Highpriest as your [or your] Lord and Savior”; and (b) “By God’s grace show forth his virtues in your [or your] lives [life].”

As to the source of Luke’s stress on this aspect of Christ’s activity, it has been traced by several authors to the physician’s intimate friend, the apostle Paul. And it is true that the virtues extolled by Luke, and ascribed by him to Jesus, are also the very ones extolled and exhibited by Paul. See, for example, Rom. 12:9–21; 13:10; 14:19; 15:1–13; I Cor. 13; II Cor. 2:8; Gal. 4:19, 20; 5:22–24; Phil. 4:8, 9; Col. 3:12–17; I Thess. 2:11; etc. It would, therefore, be possible to add a seventh resemblance between Luke and Paul to the six that were mentioned previously.

Nevertheless, we must be careful here. After all, Luke reported the words and works of Another, namely, Jesus. And in Paul’s epistles Christ’s spirit is reflected. Luke and Paul were drinking water from the same Rock, and that Rock was—and is—Christ. Luke describes him. Paul reminds the readers of him (II Cor. 8:9; Eph. 4:31–5:2).

One further word of caution. We have dwelt long on the mercy and tender compassion of Christ, as it reflects itself in Luke and in Paul … in fact, in all God’s true emissaries. But no matter how tender, deep, and far-reaching we picture this compassion and eagerness to help those in need, we must not—as is generally done—stop here, as if Jesus were the embodiment merely of humility, pity, and forgiveness, and as if both Luke and Paul had no further message to deliver. Such a representation is definitely out of balance.

What happens when God’s love is unrequited? Read about it in I Cor. 5:3–5; Gal. 1:6–9; 5:1–4; yes, but also in Luke 3:17; 9:5, 41; 10:13–15; 11:17–19, 29–32, 39–52; 12:1, 2, 13, 14, 45, 46, 49–53; 13:28; 16:15; 19:22–27. Luke, rather than Matthew, reports that when Jesus spoke the Beatitudes he also uttered four Woes (6:20–26)! To proclaim the kindness of God, and then to omit his sternness (Rom. 11:22) is to preach half the gospel, which ultimately amounts to no gospel at all. And does not even this sternness have as one of its purposes to lead men to repentance? Do not Paul and Luke—and basically Christ himself—teach this? See I Cor. 5:5b; cf. II Cor. 2:6–8; also Luke 11:32; 12:15; 13:24, 34.

VI. WHAT IS ITS THEME AND HOW CAN IT BE OUTLINED?

One of the differences between the authors of the other Gospels and Luke is that the latter presents an extensive birth narrative. Matthew offers a Genealogy of Jesus Christ and devotes 8 very important verses to his conception and birth, and then continues as follows: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,” etc. Mark presents no birth narrative at all. John reaches all the way back to eternity, stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God” (1:1; cf. 8:58). He summarizes the birth and life as follows: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us as in a tent, and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14). In accordance with his purpose (20:30, 31) John selects from the life of Jesus on earth certain important events, and also presents a death and resurrection narrative. He views Jesus as the One who came from heaven, having been given and sent by the Father (3:16; 6:51, 57; 8:42; etc.). Again, no birth narrative.

But Luke’s Gospel is different. It devotes no less than 100 verses to the birth of Jesus and of his forerunner (1:1–2:20), then 32 more verses to the events of the holy child’s eighth and his fortieth day and to what happened when he was twelve years of age, ending with the summary of 2:52.

Nevertheless, the Third Gospel, as well as the others, clearly indicates that in one very important respect the birth of Jesus differs from all other births. Not only was he born; he was sent. He came with a task to perform, assigned to him by the Father (22:29). That task was “to seek and to save what was lost” (19:10). See also 12:50; 22:22. Accordingly, a good theme (see John 17:4b) for the story told in any or all of the Gospels is:

The Work Thou Gavest Him To Do

The broad divisions would be the same for the three Synoptics, namely, this work (or this task):

I. Begun

II. Continued

III. Accomplished

Or, in slightly different phraseology:

I. Its Beginning or Inauguration

II. Its Progress or Continuation

III. Its Climax or Consummation

For the subdivisions of Luke, under each of these main headings, see the Table of Contents and the Outlines at the opening of the chapters.

VII. WHAT LIGHT DOES THIS GOSPEL SHED ON TODAY’S PROBLEMS?

Having just now finished this Commentary on Luke, I address myself to this question. The answer can be divided into four parts:

A. This Gospel is a Book of Doctrine Showing Us What to Believe

Apart from God’s special revelation man is living in darkness. He may say that what was good enough to be believed by former generations is not good enough today, but he forgets that man’s basic needs are still the same. The ultimate question as man faces not only the problems of life but also of death is still, “How can a man be just before God?” (Job 9:2). What man needs, therefore, is doctrine. True doctrine! Luke’s Gospel presents itself as a book of doctrine. Its opening words may be summarized as follows, “Theophilus, I am writing this book so that you may know what to believe.” The ruler of the synagogue is told, “Only believe” (8:50). Satan’s aim is to see to it that the sinner does not believe and, as a result, will not be saved (8:12).

What, then, are some of the doctrines man must believe? There is space to mention only a few:

1. What must I do to be saved? Answer: I must confess my sinfulness to God and implore him for his grace, his pity (Luke 18:13).

2. I must believe that mercy is bestowed on us through the work of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, who, being both God and man, and completely sinless, is able to save to the uttermost all those who surrender themselves to him. That Savior was born of a human mother, Mary, and is therefore man. But this human mother was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, and her conception was brought about not by man but by God. Jesus is therefore God, and without any sin, the Holy Spirit having taken care that sin’s pollution was not transmitted to him. It is especially Matthew (1:21–23) and Luke (1:34, 35) who teach the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

3. In any age it is a comfort to know that “my life in all its perfect plan was ordered ere my days began.” Luke’s Gospel gives prominence to this doctrine (2:14; 12:32; 18:7, 31; 22:22; cf. Acts 2:23). As these passages also show, in no way is human responsibility canceled.

B. It is a Book of Ethics Telling Us How to Live

Because of the entrance of sin man lacks a sense of duty. He may boast about his accomplishments. Has he not reached the moon? At the same time unrest of every description is intensifying. The reason is that apart from God’s special revelation man does not know how to live. Along with the other Gospels, but at times even more emphatically than the others, Luke stresses the threefold duty of Humility—the mother of Gratitude— Homage, and Helpfulness. As to Humility, see Luke 9:46–48; 22:24–30; as to Gratitude, 17:11–19. Homage, including such elements as humble petition, praise, etc., is emphasized in 10:38–11:13. Helpfulness is illustrated unforgettably in 10:25–37.

The Christ depicted by Luke entered a world filled with class distinctions and barriers: racial, national, social, sexual. He insisted that by means of the application of self-sacrificing love for everyone these barriers be broken down (4:25–27; 7:9, 36–50; 8:3; etc.). We must love even our enemies (6:35), must proclaim the gospel to all nations (24:47), and in our enthusiasm for the mission cause must not forget to strengthen the brothers (1:1–4). All this must be done “to God’s glory” (2:14, 20; 5:25; 18:43; 24:53).

C. It is a Book of Comfort Teaching Us Why to Rejoice

More emphatically than any of the other Gospels Luke’s book underscores the necessity and privilege of rejoicing. Joy sings its way through this book, as it does also, for example, through Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Well, Luke and Paul were friends. They could often be seen in each other’s company.

Luke’s Gospel begins with five songs (see the Commentary), and ends with “great joy” and with continual praises to God (24:52, 53). In the heart and center of the book (10:20, 21; 15:7, 10) God himself is rejoicing … in the saved sinner’s joy. Now, is not that beautiful?

The world in which we are living is filled with despair. Many of the most popular songs are superficial and fail to satisfy.

D. It is a Book of Prophecy Informing Us What to Expect

1. It distinctly reveals to us that the glorious prophecy of Isa. 53 was fulfilled in Christ, and that he is therefore indeed the promised Redeemer (read the Commentary on 22:37; 23:34; 23:50 f.).

2. It emphasizes the need for the study of prophecy, with a believing heart (24:25 f.).

3. It discloses certain things about the afterlife which otherwise we might not have known (12:47, 48).

4. It proclaims to us that in the life to come Jesus will bestow upon us honor and joy almost unbelievable (see Commentary on 12:37).

In a world of confusion with respect to the future, how relevant is Luke!

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

¹ So, for example, P. C. Sense, A Critical and Historical Enquiry into the Origin of the Third Gospel, Oxford, 1901, p. 5. In the much more recent book by F. W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age, St. Louis, 1972, pp. xii, xiii, the anonymity of Luke–Acts is defended.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

W.D.B. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible

Up to the time when Rationalism started to assail the books of the Bible, the view that it was Luke, “the beloved physician” and companion of the apostle Paul, who wrote the Third Gospel, was generally accepted. F. C. Baur and the Tübingen school maintained that the Gospel of Marcion, whom Polycarp, if we can rely upon the testimony of Irenaeus, addressed as “the first-born of Satan,” and who began to teach at Rome about the year a.d. 140, was the original of our Third Gospel. When the influence of the Tübingen school started to decline, the opinion began to prevail that Marcion’s Gospel, the only one he recognized, is a mutilation of Luke’s. Accordingly, there was a return to the traditional view regarding the authorship of the Third Gospel.

In recent years, however, there has been a renewed attack upon this view. Leaders in this attack are the men who belong to the so-called Bultmann school, and in particular also P. Vielhauer. Their contention is that the author of Luke-Acts could not have been “Luke, the beloved physician,” a close friend and companion of the apostle Paul, for between the epistles of Paul, on the one hand, and Luke–Acts there is a radical difference in theology; for example:

1. According to Acts the Gentiles in their ignorance are still worshiping God (17:23). They even live in him (17:25). According to Paul, however, “knowing God, they do not glorify him” (Rom. 1:21).

Answer: Luke–Acts does not place the unconverted Gentiles any closer to God than does Paul, for also according to Luke–Acts their ignorance is something for which they themselves are responsible and for which forgiveness is necessary (Luke 23:34). See also Dan. 5:23b. Such ignorance amounts to an unwillingness to acknowledge God as God.

2. Paul taught freedom from the law, and accordingly opposed circumcision (Gal. 5:1, 2). Luke–Acts reveals no such attitude; rather the opposite; see Acts 16:3; 21:17–26.

Answer: During the period of transition Paul was not opposed to circumcision for the Jews. He insisted, however, that circumcision never be regarded as a condition of salvation, and that circumcision should not be required of the Gentiles who turn to the Lord—a stand also endorsed by the Jerusalem Synod (Acts 15:19, 24–29).

3. Paul’s emphasis on the doctrine of the cross (Gal. 6:14) is missing in Luke–Acts.

Answer: Not so; see Luke 22:19, 20; Acts 20:28.

At the conclusion of his valuable discussion of the modern attack on the traditional view regarding the authorship of Luke–Acts E. E. Ellis affirms that, with the exception of the major Pauline letters, the authorship of no section of the New Testament is as well supported as that of Luke–Acts by Luke the physician and Paul’s companion. See Ellis’ book, The Gospel of Luke (The Century Bible), London and Edinburgh, 1966, pp. 40–52.

³ This very fact—the continuation, in abundant supply, of Lucan language characteristics in the “we” sections—was one of the chief factors in changing Harnack from an opponent into an advocate of the traditional position regarding the authorship of the Third Gospel. See his books: Luke the Physician, 1906 (Engl. tr. 1907); The Acts of the Apostles, 1908 (Engl. tr. 1909); and especially The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptics, 1911. See also N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ, Grand Rapids, 1951, p. 15.

⁴ See, for example, H. Sahlin, Der Messias und das Gottesvolk, Uppsala, 1945, pp. 34 ff.

⁵

Among the many articles and works consulted on this subject were the following:

Barrett, C. K., Luke the Historian in Recent Study, London, 1961.

Bavinck, H., Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, four volumes, 3rd edition, Kampen, 1918, especially Vol. I, pp. 406–476.

Ellis, E. E., op. cit., pp. 21–30.

Geldenhuys, N., Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids, 1951, pp. 23–29.

Greijdanus, S., Het Heilig Evangelie naar de Beschrijving van Lucas (Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), two volumes, Amsterdam, 1940, 1941; especially Vol. II, pp. 1223–1230.

Harnack, A., Luke the Physician, 1906 (Engl. tr. 1907).

_____, Sayings of Jesus, London, 1908.

Harrington, W. J., The Gospel According to St. Luke, London, 1968, pp. 8–14.

Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae, Oxford, 1911, pp. 107–113.

Manson, W., The Gospel of Luke, London, 1948, pp. xiii–xx; 19–21.

Morgenthaler, R., Die Lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis, two volumes, Zürich, 1949.

Plummer, A., op. cit., pp. xxiii–xxviii.

Robertson, A. T., “Luke, the Gospel of,” I.S.B.E., Vol. III, pp. 1938–1940.

_____, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. II, Nashville, 1930.

_____, Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, pp. 61–75.

Stonehouse, N. B., The Witness of Luke to Christ, pp. 22, 23.

Taylor, V., Behind the Third Gospel, Oxford 1926.

_____, The First Draft of St. Luke’s Gospel, London, 1927.

Weiss, C. P. B., Die Quellen des Lukas-Evangeliums, Stuttgart, 1907.

⁶ The genealogy of Jesus, as presented by Luke, must be included in the “new” material, for although Matt. 1:1–17 also contains a genealogy of our Lord, the two, though not in conflict, are not truly parallel.

⁷ See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 6–54.

⁸ Note capital “S” to distinguish this from the smaller sections (small “s”), such as 1:1–4; 1:5–25, etc.

⁹ See G. B. Caird, Saint Luke (Pelican Gospel Commentaries), 1963, p. 25.

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

¹⁰ Definitely not in Luke 7:37–39!

¹¹ For Morris see his Studies in the Fourth Gospel, Grand Rapids, 1969, p. 38. For Clement of Alexandria see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI.xiv.7. For Berkhof see his New Testament Introduction, Grand Rapids, 1915, p. 114.

¹² Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Vol. II, pp. 1209 ff.

¹³ Considered as a single work, in view of Luke 1:1–4; cf. Acts 1:1. For the single work theory see also N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ, pp. 12–14.

¹⁴ For the names of some of the defenders of this theory and the titles of their books see the editorial remarks appended to the passage in Loeb Library, Josephus, Vol. IX (Book XX), p. 441.

¹⁵ See the author’s Survey of the Bible, pp. 66–68, 74.

¹⁶ See L. Pherigo, “Paul’s Life After the Close of Acts,” JBL LXX (December, 1951), pp. 277–284. See also the doctoral dissertation of N. G. Veldhoen, Het Process van den Apostel Paulus, Leiden, 1924. And see GTT, Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 (1955), pp. 60, 61.

¹⁷ Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, p. 37.

¹⁸ Commentary on the Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids, 1964, p. 23.

¹⁹ See H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, Cambridge, 1920.

²⁰ What Is Redaction Criticism?, Philadelphia, 1969.

²¹ See A. Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East, New York, 1927, p. 366.

²² This interesting historical item is repeated here, in slightly abbreviated form, from The Ft. Lauderdale News, Sept. 6, 1975. For other striking historical coincidences see above, point III B 3.

²³ Note German title of Conzelmann’s book, meaning The Center of Time.

²⁴ G. p. 135; E. p. 156.

²⁵ G. p. 129 f.; E. p. 149 f.

²⁶ G. p. 146; E. p. 170.

²⁷ See the following pages:

G. 56, 57, 58, 60, 69, 78, 79.

E. 69, 70, 71, 73, 83, 93, 94.

²⁸ E. E. Ellis, op. cit., p. 147.

²⁹ For this item of criticism see also Schuyler Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke, Rome, 1969, p. 6.

³⁰ See his many books along this line; in the present connection especially The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, reprint Grand Rapids, 1953; and Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, 1898. See also A. T. Robertson, Luke the Historian; and M. F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1962.

³¹ Title of the book: Who Moved the Stone?, New York, London, 1930.

³² See, for example, F. F. Bruce’s Commentary on the Book of Acts. Bruce furnishes an abundance of archaeological evidence in support and elucidation of such passages in Acts which at one time or another were used by the critics to show that Luke was not a trustworthy historian. See p. 344 on “politarchs,” and p. 374 on Gallio. E. E. Ellis, op. cit., writes that investigation has confirmed the conviction that Luke was “a careful historian” (p. 9). See also the excellent articles by H. W. Hoehner (“Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ”) that appeared in BS Vol. 130, No. 520 (Oct.–Dec. 1973), pp. 338–351; and Vol. 131, No. 521 (Jan.–March 1974), pp. 41–54. These articles answer many questions that arise in connection with Luke 2:1–4 and 3:1, 2.

³³ In this connection see L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, New York, etc., 1956, p. 132.

↑ Back to top