Luke introduction

Luke

Introduction

Luke the man

·                     Doctor….Col 4:14

·                     Gentile…Syrian or Greco-Roman

·                     Companion of Paul…Philemon 24

·                     Not a companion of Jesus

·                     Brother of Titus? (II Cor. 8:18; 12:18). (Gal. 2:3)

Written by Luke…….early 60AD

1. St. Clement……..persecution at the end of the reign of Domitian (96/97)
2. Justin Martyr…..Justin attempts to show that Christianity, not Judaism, is the way for Gentiles to be saved. Martyred in Rome under the prefect Rusticus.  160 AD

1. Ireaneus……Through his teacher, Polycarp, Irenaeus retained a link to the first Christian generation, since Polycarp had talked “with John and with others who had seen the Lord” ……………175   AD
2. Tertullian….. Early Latin writer and theologian …200 AD

Note: 42 % of the book of Luke is not found any other NT writings

Four issue that Luke deals with in this Gospel

1. Salvation of the Gentiles…Battle between Jewish tradition and the doctrine on Grace.

1. If this was God’s plan for the Jews, why weren’t they responding? Had God given up on them?

1. How could a dead man save the world? How could the Church exalt someone who wasn’t there?

1. How were they to respond to Jesus, what is expected of a Christian?

Luke and Jesus

Although Luke most likely never met Jesus, he knew by the Holy Spirit.  Luke wrote about Jesus the man.  He knew Jesus was God, the risen Lord, but he was inspired by the Spirit to show us the human side of our Lord.  Just as we are flesh and spirit, so was our Lord when He was on the earth, yet He was fully God and sinless.      

Notes:

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.

Polycarp’s letter to  the Philippians which records the following outburst:

Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist: and whoever shall not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whoever perverts the words of the Lord…and says there is neither resurrection nor a judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan. Therefore let us abandon the foolishness of the great majority and the false teachings, and let us return to the Word which was transmitted to us from the beginning (7:1–2).