Luke

Luke describes the coming of Jesus as good news for the entire world—for people of every race, age, gender, ethnic group, and social position. With John the Baptist as his prophetic forerunner, Jesus came as the Son of God and as the Messiah, the King descended from David who defeats Satan and brings salvation and healing. As Jesus served and taught the people and proclaimed good news, the religious leaders opposed him. Jesus went to Jerusalem as the suffering servant, proclaimed judgment on the nation before being executed as a criminal, then rose from the dead to fulfill God’s plan and launch his Spirit-driven mission to all the world. The risen Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, is the Savior of the whole world.

Setting

Luke was written in the context of the growing conflict between the church and the synagogue in the mid-to-late first century AD. The early church did not view itself as a new religion, but as the fulfillment and completion of Judaism. The promises made to the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) were fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and continued to be fulfilled through the missionary movement of the early church. During this time, more and more Gentiles (non-Jews) came into the church, while many Jews rejected the Good News. Division grew between those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and those who denied this claim.

The pressing question in this conflict became, Who are the true people of God? Are they the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Or are they the Jews who reject Jesus as a false messiah? Luke addresses this question and demonstrates that Jesus is indeed the Messiah who calls all people, Jew and Gentile, to put their faith in him.

Summary

Luke’s Gospel begins with a formal prologue, written in the style of the fine Greco-Roman writers of Luke’s day (1:1-4). This prologue demonstrates the author’s literary skills and sets out the purpose of his work: to write a reliable historical account of the life of Jesus that would confirm the truth of the Christian message.

After this formal literary introduction, the writing style changes dramatically. Luke describes Jesus’ birth (1:5–2:51) in a Jewish manner reminiscent of the Greek Old Testament. This birth narrative clearly shows the Jewish roots of the gospel message and introduces themes that are developed in the rest of Luke and Acts.

In common with Matthew and Mark, Luke introduces Jesus’ public ministry with accounts of John the Baptist (3:1-20), Jesus’ baptism (3:21-22), Jesus’ temptation (4:1-13), and descriptions of his ministry in and around Galilee (4:14–9:50). Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, taught with authority, healed the sick, and cast out demons, demonstrating the authority of the Kingdom in his words and actions. As in Matthew and Mark, the high point of Jesus’ Galilean ministry was Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah, followed by Jesus’ explanation that the Messiah must suffer and die in Jerusalem (9:18-22). Jesus then headed toward Jerusalem to fulfill this mission (9:51–19:44). In this travel narrative—the most distinctive structural feature of Luke’s Gospel—the author recounts many of Jesus’ beloved stories and parables: the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the story of Mary and Martha, and the Zacchaeus episode. The central theme of this section is God’s love for the lost and Jesus’ ministry to sinners, poor people, and outcasts. The theme of the entire Gospel is stated at the end of the Zacchaeus episode: “The Son of Man came to seek and save those who are lost” (19:10).

The climax of the narrative is Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion (22:1–23:56). The central theme of the crucifixion in Luke is Jesus’ innocence. Jesus is portrayed as the righteous suffering servant of the Lord (see Isa 52:13–53:12). At Jesus’ death, the Roman officer at the foot of the cross cried out, “Surely this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47).

The narrative resolves with Jesus’ resurrection (24:1-12). Luke’s most distinctive contribution here is the account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:13-35). As he walked with two discouraged disciples who did not recognize him, Jesus taught them that his death was not a failure, but a fulfillment of Old Testament promises. All of Scripture anticipated this great salvation event (24:25-27). The narrative ends with a brief account of the Ascension (24:50-53), which is described more fully in the book of Acts (Acts 1:1-11).

Structurally, Luke follows Mark’s basic outline, with a Galilean ministry followed by a journey to Jerusalem and the climax of Jesus’ ministry there. The main differences are: (1) Like Matthew, Luke begins with a birth narrative, which serves as a thematic introduction to the work (Luke 1:1–2:52); (2) Luke omits one major section of Mark’s account of the Galilean ministry, sometimes called his “great omission” (Mark 6:45–8:26); and (3) Luke expands Mark’s account of the journey to Jerusalem from a single chapter (Mark 10:1-52) to ten chapters (Luke 9:51–19:44) and includes here a great deal of Jesus’ teaching and his ministry to outcasts in Israel.

Luke as Literature

Luke’s Gospel must be read and interpreted alongside its companion volume, the book of Acts. Luke and Acts are two volumes of a single work written by the same author (Luke). The two are a literary and theological unity—when Luke wrote his Gospel, he already had the writing of Acts in mind. Themes introduced in the Gospel, such as the salvation of the Gentiles, reach their narrative completion in the book of Acts. Scholars often refer to this single two-volume work as “Luke–Acts.”

Luke’s purpose in writing gives his Gospel, like the other three Gospels, a unique perspective and emphasis that can best be understood by reading Luke’s Gospel as a distinct account of Christ’s life. However, it can also be beneficial to compare the accounts in the different Gospels.

Authorship

Though all of the Gospels are, strictly speaking, anonymous (their authors do not name themselves), the author of Luke–Acts can be identified readily as Luke, a physician and sometime companion of the apostle Paul. In several first-person plural passages in Acts (the “we” sections), the author describes himself as a participant in Paul’s missionary activities (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-17; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16). Luke was a Gentile (Col 4:11-14), and one of his central themes is that God’s salvation is for Gentiles as well as for Jews.

Luke evidently came to faith in Christ through the ministry of the apostle Paul. Even though he was not present during the earthly ministry of Jesus, he was a careful and astute historian. He drew on eyewitness accounts and on written and oral sources as he thoroughly investigated the events he reported. His purpose was to write so that “you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught” (Luke 1:4).

Occasion and Place of Writing

The specific place of writing is uncertain, but Rome, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Achaia (southern Greece) have all been suggested. The date is also uncertain. The two most common theories are that it was written at an earlier date, AD 59–63, or at a later date, AD 70–90. The earlier date is suggested by the ending of Acts, with Paul alive and in prison in Rome for two years (beginning around AD 60). If the Gospel was written before Acts, a date shortly before or during this imprisonment is likely (AD 59–63). A later date, after AD 70, has been proposed by those who believe that Luke used Mark’s Gospel as a source and that Mark was written in the late 60s, just before or during the Jewish war of AD 66–70 (see Mark 13:14).

Recipients

Luke addressed his work to a man named Theophilus (“one who loves God”), most likely a patron who sponsored the expensive task of researching and writing a book of this length. Theophilus might have been a questioning unbeliever, but more likely he was a believer who desired more instruction concerning the origin of the Christian faith. The individual address is like a dedication. Luke–Acts was probably also intended for a larger Christian audience, one made up primarily of Gentile Christians, but with some Jewish Christians as well. These believers were seeking confirmation and assurance that God’s plan of salvation was continuing, despite the rejection of Jesus by many of the Jews. Luke was affirming that the church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah, represents the true people of God in the present age.

Meaning and Message

The narrative of Luke–Acts positively affirms (1) that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures; (2) that his death on the cross did not negate this claim, because the Messiah’s death and resurrection were predicted in Scripture all along (Luke 24:26, 46); (3) that the mission to the Gentiles was initiated by the Spirit of God, was predicted in Scripture, and was part of God’s purpose of bringing salvation to the whole world in the last days; and (4) that the Jews and Gentiles who make up the church are the people of God. The central theme of Luke’s Gospel is that God’s salvation, promised in the Scriptures, was fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A Historical Message. More than any other Gospel writer, Luke affirms that the story of Jesus is historical, and he assures his readers that the gospel message is authentic. He emphasizes that his account is based on reliable eyewitness testimony (1:1-4) and meticulously dates Jesus’ ministry with reference to the rulers of his day (3:1-2).

Portrait of Jesus. Luke’s portrait of Jesus reflects a theme of promise and fulfillment. Jesus is introduced as the promised Savior, the Messiah descended from King David. He was born in Bethlehem, the city of David, and will reign forever on David’s throne (1:32-33; 2:4, 11). Jesus did not accomplish salvation through military power and conquest, but by suffering the fate of the prophets. He died as the servant of the Lord, fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus became the Savior of the world (Luke 2:11; Acts 2:36; 10:36). His servants now take this message of salvation to the ends of the earth.

Salvation for Outsiders. Luke emphasizes salvation for all who believe, especially with reference to the outsiders of Israel: the poor, sinners, despised Samaritans, women, and Gentiles.

(1) The poor. The Kingdom of God brings a great reversal of fortunes. God exalts the poor and the humble, and he will humble the rich and the arrogant (Luke 1:51-55; 16:19-31). The gospel is good news for the poor and oppressed (4:18) because they most recognize their need for God (6:20-21). It is impossible for the rich to enter the Kingdom when they trust in their riches instead of in God (12:13-21; 18:18-30).

(2) Sinners. God’s love for the lost is revealed most clearly in Jesus’ association with sinners and tax collectors. He called a despised tax collector, Levi, to be his disciple. As the Great Physician, Jesus came to heal the “sick” (sinners), not the “healthy” (the self-righteous; 5:27-32). He commended an immoral woman who anointed his feet because she recognized God’s forgiveness and loved greatly in response (7:36-50). He rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of religious law for their self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and lack of compassion. The repentant tax collector in the Temple received forgiveness, while the self-righteous Pharisee gained nothing (18:9-14). Even the chief tax collector Zacchaeus was forgiven when he repented and turned to God (19:1-10). Jesus forgave and offered a place in paradise to the repentant criminal on the cross (23:39-43). And Jesus’ parables express this same theme—for example, the father forgave his prodigal son when he returned to him (15:11-32). The message throughout the Gospel is that the coming of God’s Kingdom brings forgiveness to all who repent and believe.

(3) Samaritans. The Samaritans were despised outsiders, but in Luke, Jesus commends a Samaritan for his gratitude to God when he was healed of leprosy (17:11-19), and Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which a despised Samaritan was the only true neighbor to a wounded Jew (10:29-37). God’s salvation does not depend on ethnic identity or social status, but on a repentant heart and a life of love for God and others.

(4) Women. In first-century culture, women were viewed as inferiors, but Jesus elevated women to a position of dignity in the Kingdom of God. Luke’s Gospel gives special prominence to women and mentions thirteen women who are not found in the other Gospels. The birth narrative is told from the perspective of women (Mary and Elizabeth). Luke alone mentions the women who financially supported Jesus (8:1-3). And in his story of Mary and Martha, Mary is commended for learning as a disciple at Jesus’ feet (10:38-42).

(5) Gentiles. The ultimate outsiders were the Gentiles, and Luke emphasizes that God’s salvation extends even to them. Though arising within Israel, Jesus would be “a light to reveal God to the nations” (2:32), and “all people [would] see the salvation sent from God” (3:4-6; Isa 40:5). While Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1:1-17) emphasizes Jesus’ Jewish ancestry by beginning with Abraham, the father of the Israelites, Luke’s genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, the father of the entire human race (Luke 3:23-38). In his sermon at Nazareth, Jesus declared that God had always demonstrated grace toward the Gentiles (4:24-27). Luke’s message is that God loves all people everywhere and desires that all who are lost should be found (15:1-32; 19:10).

Rejection by Many in Israel. The dark side of this inclusion of the Gentiles and other outsiders is that Jesus’ message was rejected by many in Israel. At Nazareth, when he announced that God had blessed Gentiles in the past, the people rose up in anger to kill him (4:28-30). This episode initiated the rejection of Jesus by his own people and anticipated the Jewish opposition to the church (as recounted in Acts). Jerusalem rejected its Messiah and so stood under God’s judgment (Luke 13:33-35; 19:41-44), and this pattern continues in Acts. While many in Israel believed the gospel, still more rejected it. Israel was divided, and the gospel went out to the Gentiles. Luke emphasizes that this did not negate the gospel message; Israel’s rejection of the gospel was predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures and was a continuation of Israel’s history of stubbornness and hard-heartedness (11:29-32, 47-51; 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 23:27-31; Acts 13:46; 28:25-28; see also Rom 9–11).

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Luke

We are now entering into the labours of another evangelist; his name Luke, which some take to be a contraction of Lucilius; born at Antioch, so St. Jerome. Some think that he was the only one of all the penmen of the scripture that was not of the seed of Israel. He was a Jewish proselyte, and, as some conjecture, converted to Christianity by the ministry of St. Paul at Antioch; and after his coming into Macedonia (Act 16:10) he was his constant companion. He had employed himself in the study and practice of physic; hence, Paul calls him Luke the beloved Physician, Col 4:14. Some of the pretended ancients tell you that he was a painter, and drew a picture of the virgin Mary. But Dr. Whitby thinks that there is nothing certain to the contrary, and that therefore it is probable that he was one of the seventy disciples, and a follower of Christ when he was here upon earth; and, if so, he was a native Israelite. I see not what can be objected against this, except some uncertain traditions of the ancients, which we can build nothing upon, and against which may be opposed the testimonies of Origen and Epiphanius, who both say that he was one of the seventy disciples. He is supposed to have written this gospel when he was associated with St. Paul in his travels, and by direction from him: and some think that this is the brother whom Paul speaks of (Co2 8:18), whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches of Christ; as if the meaning of it were, that he was celebrated in all the churches for writing this gospel; and that St. Paul means this when he speaks sometimes of his gospel, as Rom 2:16. But there is no ground at all for this. Dr. Cave observes that his way and manner of writing are accurate and exact, his style polite and elegant, sublime and lofty, yet perspicuous; and that he expresses himself in a vein of purer Greek than is to be found in the other writers of the holy story. Thus he relates divers things more copiously than the other evangelists; and thus he especially treats of those things which relate to the priestly office of Christ. It is uncertain when, or about what time, this gospel was written. Some think that it was written in Achaia, during his travels with Paul, seventeen years (twenty-two years, say others) after Christ's ascension; others, that it was written at Rome, a little before he wrote his history of the Acts of the Apostles (which is a continuation of this), when he was there with Paul, while he was a prisoner, and preaching in his own hired house, with which the history of the Acts concludes; and then Paul saith that only Luke was with him, Ti2 4:11. When he was under that voluntary confinement with Paul, he had leisure to compile these two histories (and many excellent writings the church has been indebted to a prison for): if so, it was written about twenty-seven years after Christ's ascension, and about the fourth year of Nero. Jerome says, He died when he was eighty-four years of age, and was never married. Some write that he suffered martyrdom; but, if he did, where and when is uncertain. Nor indeed is there much more credit to be given to the Christian traditions concerning the writers of the New Testament than to the Jewish traditions concerning those of the Old Testament.

THE writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10-11 —in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him—we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Act 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen "Trophimus the Ephesian" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Act 16:10) from the third person singular ("he") to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (Ti2 4:11). EUSEBIUS makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; GREGORY NAZIANZEN alone affirming that he died a martyr.

The time and place of the publication of his Gospel are alike uncertain. But we can approximate to it. It must at any rate have been issued before the Acts, for there the 'Gospel' is expressly referred to as the same author's "former treatise" (Act 1:1). Now the Book of the Acts was not published for two whole years after Paul's arrival as a prisoner at Rome, for it concludes with a reference to this period; but probably it was published soon after that, which would appear to have been early in the year 63. Before that time, then, we have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation, though the majority of critics make it later. If we date it somewhere between A.D. 50 and 60, we shall probably be near the truth; but nearer it we cannot with any certainty come. Conjectures as to the place of publication are too uncertain to be mentioned here.

That it was addressed, in the first instance, to Gentile readers, is beyond doubt. This is no more, as DAVIDSON remarks [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 186], than was to have been expected from the companion of an "apostle of the Gentiles," who had witnessed marvellous changes in the condition of many heathens by the reception of the Gospel. But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain—see Luk 1:26; Luk 4:31; Luk 8:26; Luk 21:37; Luk 22:1; Luk 24:13. A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this Evangelist had in the first instance in view.

We have already adverted to the classical style of Greek which this Evangelist writes—just what might have been expected from an educated Greek and travelled physician. But we have also observed that along with this he shows a wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but Jews. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses will be found some traces of "the beloved physician" in this Gospel. But far more striking and important are the traces in it of his intimate connection with the apostle of the Gentiles. That one who was so long and so constantly in the society of that master mind has in such a work as this shown no traces of that connection, no stamp of that mind, is hardly to be believed. Writers of Introductions seem not to see it, and take no notice of it. But those who look into the interior of it will soon discover evidences enough in it of a Pauline cast of mind. Referring for a number of details to DA COSTA, we notice here only two examples: In Co1 11:23, Paul ascribes to an express revelation from Christ Himself the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper which he there gives. Now, if we find this account differing in small yet striking particulars from the accounts given by Matthew and Mark, but agreeing to the letter with Luke's account, it can hardly admit of a doubt that the one had it from the other; and in that case, of course, it was Luke that had it from Paul. Now Matthew and Mark both say of the Cup, "This is my blood of the New Testament"; while Paul and Luke say, in identical terms, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood" (Co1 11:25; Luk 22:20). Further, Luke says, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying," &c.; while Paul says, "After the same manner He took the cup when He had supped, saying," &c.; whereas neither Matthew nor Mark mention that this was after supper. But still more striking is another point of coincidence in this case. Matthew and Mark both say of the Bread merely this: "Take, eat; this is My body" (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22); whereas Paul says, "Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you" (Co1 11:24), and Luke, "This is My body, which is given for you" (Luk 22:19). And while Paul adds the precious clause, "This do in remembrance of Me," Luke does the same, in identical terms. How can one who reflects on this resist the conviction of a Pauline stamp in this Gospel? The other proof of this to which we ask the reader's attention is in the fact that Paul, in enumerating the parties by whom Christ was seen after His resurrection, begins, singularly enough, with Peter—"And that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve" (Co1 15:4-5) —coupled with the remarkable fact, that Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions that Christ appeared to Peter at all. When the disciples had returned from Emmaus to tell their brethren how the Lord had appeared to them in the way, and how He had made Himself known to them in the breaking of bread, they were met, as Luke relates, ere they had time to utter a word, with this wonderful piece of news, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Luk 24:34).

Other points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary.

Next: Luke Chapter 1