Introduction
Overview
Luke’s purpose in his Gospel connects directly to his purpose in Acts. In this two-volume work he explains the grand plan of God through Jesus Christ and his church (Lk 1:20; 4:21; 9:31; 21:22, 24; 24:44–47). Luke writes to instruct Theophilus and others like him so that they may know the certainty of the things they have been taught (Lk 1:4). In other words, Luke-Acts provides a discipleship manual for new believers coming from a pagan background and living in a culture that is either indifferent or hostile to the Christian faith. Luke wants his readers to know that their faith rests on the facts of history reflected in eyewitness testimony. The Christian faith was not invented by a community far removed from the events. God really did step into history in the person of Jesus and offer salvation to all people.
Authorship
Nowhere does the Gospel of Luke reveal its author’s identity. To ascertain the author, therefore, one should first of all examine the Gospel’s internal evidence to find clues about its authorship. Unfortunately, the Gospel does not supply the reader with much information. We do learn, however, that the author was not an eyewitness (Lk 1:2), and thus anyone who observed Jesus in his public ministry can be eliminated. Furthermore, the writer of Luke clearly was intelligent and well educated, for he displays an ability to write in excellent Greek and is well acquainted with the OT.
A variety of evidence (common dedication to Theophilus; direct reference to a “first narrative” in Ac 1:1; common themes) indicates that the same author wrote both Luke and Acts. But Acts, unfortunately, is also anonymous. Are there any hints in Acts about the identity of the author? The chief clue is found in the “we-passages” of Acts (Ac 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). The careful reader notices that the author speaks of Paul and his companions as “they” (e.g., Ac 16:7–8), and then he suddenly starts using the first-person plural “we” (Ac 16:10–13, 16), probably because he is now participating in the Pauline mission. Indeed, in these sections he may be referring to a diary he kept of these events. By comparing these we-passages with the rest of the book, the reader can begin to eliminate certain names from authorship (cf. Ac 20:4). Although other solutions are possible (e.g., that the author was Titus), it is most likely that the author of the Gospel was Paul’s traveling companion—the physician Luke.
Luke is mentioned three times in Paul’s Letters. In Col 4:14 he is called “Luke, the dearly loved physician.” In Phm 24 he is mentioned as one of Paul’s fellow workers. In 2 Tm 4:11 Paul says that “only Luke is with me.” This reference to Luke’s loyalty is especially poignant because the context of 2 Tm 4 reveals that Paul is about to be executed by the Romans, and many of Paul’s companions abandoned him in such a perilous situation. If Philemon and Colossians were written by Paul from Rome (and this theory is still the most probable), then the references to Luke in these letters fit with Ac 27:1–28:16, where the author of Acts accompanies Paul to Rome.
Colossians 4:14 also implies that Luke was a Gentile and not a Jew. In Col 4:10–11 Paul names Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus and says that they are his only companions of the circumcision, meaning presumably that they are his only Jewish companions. Then in Col 4:12–14 Paul names Epaphras, Luke, and Demas and says that they send their greetings. If the three listed in Col 4:10–11 are the only Jews with Paul, then the obvious conclusion is that Luke was a Gentile.
Even though the internal evidence may point to Lukan authorship, decisive evidence is lacking. But it is significant that the early tradition of the church is unanimous in positing Lukan authorship. For example, the title “Gospel according to Luke” is attached to our earliest manuscript of the Gospel, from the late second century AD. Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, and an ancient prologue to the Gospel (all written near the end of the second century AD) also assert Lukan authorship. Tertullian, writing early in the third century AD, also held to Lukan authorship. Modern scholars who doubt Lukan authorship do not adequately explain why the early church would attribute the work to Luke. The most probable reason for the tradition of Lukan authorship is that this tradition is accurate.
Scholars often question Lukan authorship because Luke’s picture of Paul seems to contradict Paul’s self-portrait in his letters. But the difference in the portrait of Paul is probably due to two different perspectives. Inevitably, there will be differences between the way a person describes him- or herself and the way an outsider views that person. In addition, it is also claimed that Luke’s writing is subapostolic; a belief in the imminent return of Christ (Gk parousia) has been abandoned, and the church has become an institution that grants salvation. The objection regarding the second coming is too simplistic. A careful reading of the Gospel accounts shows that there are three different types of sayings about the end: some stress the imminence of the end (Mk 13:30 and parallels), others a period of delay (Mt 25:14–30), and others uncertainty regarding the end (Mk 13:32–37 and parallels). The Gospel of Luke displays the same tension (e.g., 21:9 and 21:33) and thus is in accord with the other Gospel accounts. The notion that the church has been institutionalized is also oversimplified, for it is obvious that any new movement must have some organization. The question is whether the Lukan organization is as advanced as the church of the second century AD. Even a cursory reading of the letters of Ignatius (d. ca. 107) shows that there are major differences, for there are no regional bishops in Luke as there are in the Ignatian letters. Neither of these objections, then, is decisive.
Date and Audience
The date and destination of the Gospel of Luke are also shrouded in uncertainty. Indeed, the problem is particularly knotty because the date of Luke usually depends on the dates of Mark and Acts (most scholars still hold that Mark was the first Gospel written). Two basic theories are favored in scholarship today: Luke was written in either the 80s or the 60s. Those who favor a date in the 80s maintain that Luke was written after Mark, and the latter was not written until circa AD 65–70. In addition, some scholars claim that Luke was probably written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Others think Luke was written in the early 60s because Acts ends (Ac 28:30–31) with Paul under house arrest, and no information is given on the outcome of his trial. According to this theory, such an abrupt ending in Acts shows that Luke finished Acts before Paul’s case was resolved. In this instance Acts would be dated between AD 61 and 63. Since Luke was written before Acts, the Gospel would be placed in the early 60s or late 50s. The same scholars would argue that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 50s. Other scholars date Luke between AD 65 and 70, arguing that it was probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Certainty is impossible on such difficult matters, but a date before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 seems probable.
Where was Luke when he wrote the Gospel? Early traditions suggest Achaia, Boeotia, or Rome. The latter is especially attractive because of the tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome; however, no one really knows where Luke was, but the matter is not crucial in the interpretation of the Gospel.
Almost all scholars agree that Luke wrote to Gentile Christians. The dedication of the two volumes to a person who has a Greek name (Theophilus), the excellent Greek of the prologue of the Gospel (Lk 1:1–4), the interest in Gentiles, and the elimination of certain Jewish customs and debates (e.g., the controversy on cleanness in Mk 7:1–23), and the substitution of Greek terms for Jewish terms all suggest a Gentile audience.
Sources
That Luke used sources is immediately evident from the prologue of the Gospel (1:1–4). He indicates that many others have written accounts of the Gospel traditions and that these traditions have been handed down to the church. Luke specifically states that he “carefully investigated everything from the very first” (1:3), showing that he thoroughly sifted through the information that was available to him. What were the actual sources Luke used? This is a matter of speculation, of course, and so dogmatism is excluded. (See the article “The Synoptic Problem” in the introduction to Mark.)
Most NT scholars still agree that Luke used the Gospel of Mark when he composed his Gospel (although this theory is contested rather strongly by a significant number of scholars). The reason for this is that a substantial portion of Mark’s Gospel, often including the exact words from Mark, is used in Luke’s Gospel. Of course, the argument as it is stated above could support Lukan priority, but for a variety of complex reasons such a view is unlikely.
Also, both Luke and Matthew may have used a common source that was either a written document or consisted of oral tradition. This material is designated “Q” (from German Quelle, “source”). Unfortunately, Q has not survived and possibly never even existed in written form. Approximately 230 verses appear in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark’s Gospel. A common source is possible since the wording of this common tradition that Luke and Matthew share is remarkably similar and sometimes exactly the same. But if the wording is so similar, then perhaps Luke borrowed it directly from Matthew (very few scholars think Matthew borrowed from Luke). This is improbable, however, because Luke uses the same sayings that Matthew does and places them in completely different contexts. It is highly unlikely that Luke would transpose the same sayings or break up Matthew’s tightly organized Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7). Thus, the idea that Luke and Matthew both used and adapted a common source or sources, each without directly depending on the other’s Gospel, is the most likely, though we cannot be sure if the source or sources were oral or written.
Last, any material in Luke’s Gospel that is not dependent on Mark or Q is usually labeled “L.” This is simply a convenient way of indicating that Luke had other sources of information. It is impossible to know how many.
We should also not rule out that Luke may have received information from Mary the mother of Jesus, the disciples of John the Baptist, Manaen (an early disciple; cf. Ac 13:1), Cleopas (Lk 24:18), and others. Many NT scholars would doubt that Luke depended on any of these persons. But it is quite probable that Luke would have spoken to living persons about what they had heard and seen of Jesus when he came into contact with them. Any modern researcher would have done the same, and in the ancient world such a procedure would have been prized just as highly, as the early church father Papias in the second century made clear.
Some scholars have maintained that Luke’s use of his sources shows that his writing lacks historical reliability—that he was writing to edify the church and to propound his own theology and not to transmit what really happened. First, we should note that such a position contradicts Luke’s own statement of his purpose in the prologue of the Gospel (1:1–4), where he indicates that accuracy in the work is one of his concerns. Second, it is methodologically flawed to pit edification and theology against history. All history writing is interpretive to some degree; the writer must select which themes to emphasize. Clearly, Luke does have a distinctive theology, but it is not logically necessary to conclude that such interpretive selection and presentation by an author obviates historical reliability. The same point applies to edification; that is, what really happened could be edifying. Third, Luke’s use of the Gospel of Mark (the most common theory) also shows that he was interested in historical accuracy. For example, the sayings of Jesus shared by Luke and Mark usually have only minor differences. The modern reader needs to remember that the ancient writer was not always interested in exactly what was said. Luke would naturally be content at times to paraphrase Jesus’s words and actions. Such a paraphrase would be inaccurate only if it deceived a person about what actually happened. Luke was not transcribing the words of Jesus, but neither was he freely inventing them; he clearly felt free to record in his own style what happened. Last, when Luke’s account differs from the other Synoptics, we need to recall that none of the accounts claims to be exhaustive. Thus, one should not demand that any Gospel writer tell the whole story. All our questions about historicity will never be answered when reading the Gospels. But humility and the inspiration of Scripture suggest that we should give the writer the benefit of the doubt.
Theological Themes
When studying Luke’s theology, one must remember that he did not simply write a Gospel but that he also wrote the book of Acts. Both works must be taken into account in formulating a Lukan theology.
It is evident from the writing of both the Gospel and Acts that Luke is interested in the continuing history of the church. The prologue to the Gospel (1:1–4) clearly shows that Luke was interested in historical accuracy. More than any other Gospel writer Luke explains the relationship between the events he narrates and Roman and Palestinian history. Of course, Luke was not a disinterested historian; he wrote these books because he saw this period of history as the decisive in-breaking of God’s salvation.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Luke is usually described as a theologian of salvation history. Luke sees what is happening in the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of the early church as the fulfillment of God’s plan and purpose. This saving plan comes to realization as people experience salvation.
Luke also emphasizes that this salvation is for all people, even for the people considered to be outcasts or socially marginal. Thus, Jesus proclaims his saving message to tax collectors, sinners, the poor, women, and children. This theme continues in Acts, where the early church slowly grasps that God wants the gospel message to be proclaimed to both Samaritans and Gentiles. Jews and Gentiles are equal members in God’s new community.
The power of the Spirit and the importance of prayer are also prominent themes in Lukan theology. In the Gospel of Luke Jesus conducts his ministry in the power of the Spirit. His messianic work can be accomplished only because “the Spirit of the Lord is on me” (Lk 4:18). After Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation he becomes the dispenser of the Spirit (Ac 2:32–33) and pours the Spirit on his disciples. Then his disciples proclaim the gospel of salvation to the ends of the earth by the power of the Spirit. Prayer also plays a vital role in Jesus’s ministry. Luke emphasizes repeatedly that Jesus prayed before making important decisions or at key points in his ministry. The disciples in Acts follow the pattern of their master by continuing in prayer.
Luke also focuses on the importance of discipleship. Some of Jesus’s strongest statements on the commitment demanded of those who would follow Jesus are found in this Gospel (Lk 9:57–62; 14:25–35). Also, Luke stresses in uncompromising terms the dangers of materialism. The love of riches ousts one’s love for God, which is why Luke thinks it is a blessing to be poor, for the poor are dependent on God (Lk 6:20–26). In Acts, Luke portrays the ideal of Christian community (Ac 2:42–47; 4:32–37).
Unlike Paul, Luke does not fully explain the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross. Luke views the death of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s plan (Lk 24:44), and he even connects the possibility of forgiveness with the death of Jesus (24:46–47). What Luke does not do, however, is attempt to explain in detail the relationship between Jesus’s death and the forgiveness of sins.
The salvation that Luke centers on is available through Jesus of Nazareth. The significance of Jesus becomes apparent when one examines the titles Luke ascribes to him. Jesus is Messiah, Lord, the Son of God, the Son of Man, Savior, servant of the Lord, king, prophet, and the Son of David.
Outline
1. Prologue: A Reliable Account of Salvation History (1:1–4)
2. Preparation for Jesus’s Ministry (1:5–4:13)
A. Two Births Predicted (1:5–56)
B. Two Sons Born (1:57–2:52)
C. The Baptist’s Ministry: Preparation for the Lord (3:1–20)
D. Jesus: Endowed by the Spirit for Ministry (3:21–4:13)
3. Jesus Proclaims Salvation in Galilee by the Power of the Spirit (4:14–9:50)
A. Proclamation of Good News in Galilee (4:14–5:16)
B. Conflict with the Pharisees (5:17–6:11)
C. Good News for the Poor (6:12–8:3)
D. Revelation and Obedience (8:4–21)
E. The Revelation of Jesus’s Identity (8:22–9:50)
4. Galilee to Jerusalem: Discipleship (9:51–19:27)
A. The Journey Begins (9:51–13:21)
B. The Journey Continues (13:22–17:10)
C. The Last Leg of the Journey (17:11–19:27)
5. Arrival at Destiny: Death and Resurrection in Jerusalem (19:28–24:53)
A. Entrance into Jerusalem (19:28–48)
B. Controversy between Jesus and Leaders Heightens (20:1–21:4)
C. Apocalyptic Discourse (21:5–38)
D. Passover Events (22:1–38)
E. Arrest and Trial (22:39–23:25)
F. Crucifixion and Burial (23:26–56)
G. Resurrection: Scripture Fulfilled (24:1–53)