<%@ language=VBScript %>
<%
'declare variables used on this page
Dim strAccessPoint, strPath, strLogon, strWarning
' Set the Access Point for this page
strAccessPoint = "301"
'Set the path where security scripts reside
strPath = "/cgi-bin/Security/"
'Check to see if person has logged in.
'If not send him to Logon.asp
If Not IsObject(Session("Access")) Then
Session("Response") = "Please log in"
Session("Path") = Request.ServerVariables("URL")
strLogon = strPath & "Logon.asp"
Response.Redirect strLogon
End If
'Check to see if person has this Access Point
'If not send him to SecurityWarning.asp
If Session("Access")(strAccessPoint) <> strAccessPoint Then
If Session("Access")("admin") <> "admin" Then
strWarning = strPath & "SecurityWarning.asp"
Response.Redirect strWarning
End If
End If
%>
MATTHEW
INTRODUCTION
TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
 |
|
GENERAL COMMENTS
Luke is unique in
the Gospel tradition for several reasons:
Luke-Acts are the only
New Testament books to be written by a non-Jewish Christian. Luke
is
of Greek ethnic background.
He makes use of a literary device in Lk 1:1-4 in which his
purpose is to demonstrate that he
is making an historical statement about
the person and ministry of Jesus. The style of
this introductory paragraph
was employed by writers of historical narratives in Luke's day.
In view of the fact that it is recognized today that one cannot study
Luke alone without
considering Luke-Acts together, we realize that Luke is also
unique in that his Gospel is
the only one followed by a sequel, namely, Acts. Acts is prefaced by a similar literary
device
as Luke with an introductory paragraph (Acts 1:1-4) emphasizing the historical
nature of the work.
|
UNITY OF
LUKE- ACTS
It is the consensus of critical scholarship today that Luke and Acts
form a unit of both literary and theological interest.
They are both dedicated to Theophilus (Lk 1:3, Acts 1:1).
As indicated above, they both incorporate a similar literary-historical
formula.
Their language and theology are widely recognized as similar.
From early in church history (Muratorian Canon c. AD 200, Irenaeus
c. AD 200) they have been recognized as being from the same hand
and mind, and combining to form a two part theological history that
explains the growth of the church from Christ to Jerusalem to Rome.
They both manifest an interest and style of relating the spread of
Christianity to world history and events.
The same theological motifs are woven throughout both books
LANGUAGE AND
STYLE OF LUKE
It has been noted by scholars in general (Cadbury, Metzger, Wilcox,
Bruce) that the Greek and literary style of Luke-Acts conforms more
with
classical Greek than any of the other Gospels or NT writings.
Luke often improves Mark's
style when using Mark as one of his sources (this naturally presupposes that
Mark was the first Gospel
written, the Streeter two source theory - see the
notes on The Synoptic Problem). The same would be true in regard to
Mathew's use
of Mark.
We noted that Mark's style is characterized by parataxis and vivid historic present
tenses which Matthew and Luke smooth out.
Some scholars have correctly observed that although Luke's Greek is
most like classical Greek that he on several occasions
incorporates Hebraisms
and Hebrew idiom into his style. Some have suggested
that this is necessitated by his use of the Septuagint
(Greek translation of the
Hebrew Old Testament).
Others have suggested that this is due to the
theological themes that have roots in the Old Testament. Others have
suggested that this
is due to Luke's attempts to retain an historical Palestinian flavor.
The bottom line, however, is widely accepted, that Luke's Greek is
tends toward the more classical Greek. This may be attributed to his
writing to a well educated and influential person, Theophilus.
AUTHORSHIP
AND DATE
The Early
Church Tradition
The title "According to Luke" was most likely not in the
original autograph, and was most likely added in the early second century (c.
125
AD). It is found in the best manuscripts (early copies of the original). E.
Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, p. 64. The oldest extant
manuscript (MSS = manuscript), P75 (c.175 AD) has Luke's name included at the end of the Gospel
(Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel
According to Luke, p. 35)
The Ancient Church
was firm in its view that the author of Luke-Acts was the evangelist and
co-worker of Paul, Luke. Irenaeus (c. A.D.
130-200), Tertullian (A.D. 160-220), Clement of Alexandria
(A.D. 200), and Origen (A.D. 186-225) all attributed the Gospel to Luke.
Marcion, the Roman Church heretic of the mid 2nd century, had Luke as the only
Gospel in his canon - the reason, Luke was the only
Gentile, non-Jewish writer of
the Gospels. Marcion rejected the Jewish element in Christianity.
The Muratorian Canon (c. 200 AD) attributed Luke-Acts to Luke.
The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (c. AD 180) attributed the Gospel to Luke the physician
and native of Antioch. We include for
reference a translation of the relevant section of the Anti-Marcionite
Prologue:
|
Luke is a man from Antioch, Syria, a physician by profession. He
was a disciple of the apostles, and later he accompanied Paul until his
martyrdom. Having neither wife nor child, he served the Lord
without distraction. he fell asleep in Boeotia at the age of
eighty four, full of the Holy Spirit.
Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke composed all of
this Gospel in the districts around Achaia although there were already
Gospels in evidence - one according to Matthew written in Judea and one
according to Mark written in Italy. He reveals this fact in the
prologue: that other Gospels were written before his and
that it was imperative that an accurate account of the
divine plan be set forth for the Gentile believers. This was
necessary in order that they might neither be distracted by Jewish myths
nor, deceived by heretical and vain phantasies, depart from the truth.
Therefore, right at the beginning Luke took up
the birth of John because this was a most important matter. John
is the beginning of the Gospel. he was the forerunner of the Lord
and his partner in preparation of the gospel, in the administration of
the baptism, and in the fellowship of the Spirit. The prophet with
this ministry is mentioned in the Twelve (Minor Prophets).
Afterwards the same Luke also wrote "the
Acts of the Apostles". Still later the Apostle John, one of
the Twelve, wrote Revelation on the Isle of Patmos and after these
things the Gospel. (E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 1966. Translated from the
Greek text of Aland) |
The New Testament
Internal Evidence
Internal Evidence in Luke-Acts supports this tradition.
Paul spoke of Luke the physician as one of his associates in ministry (Col.
4:14, 2 Tim 4:11, Philemon 24).
The Gospel prologue affirms that Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry
(Lk 1:1).
Much attention in Acts is given to Antioch [conjectured my many to be Luke's
home] (Acts 11:19-30; 13:1ff; 15:30ff.)
The "we" passages of Acts 16:10ff.
Recent Scholarly Discussion
The 19th cent Tubingen school of theology under F. C. Baur drove a
wedge between Paul and Luke arguing that the views and theology of
Luke-Acts and
that of Paul were so different that Luke could not have been
the author of Luke-Acts and that it must have been written
by someone other than
Luke, the companion of Paul. This radical view has been
rejected by subsequent scholarship. Adolf von
Harnack, Kirsop Lake, B. H.
Streeter, and H. J. Cadbury leading out in this rejection of the Tubingen school.
Subsequent German scholarship has, however, continued the debate
over Lukan authorship. Fundamental to this argument is the
seeming
difference between Lukan and Pauline eschatology (the return of Jesus).
the argument is that Paul expected an imminent
parousia (return of Jesus)
while Luke suggested a delay in the parousia. More recent balanced
scholarship has questioned the views
that Luke suggested a delayed parousia
(Hans Conzelmann's proposal) and an imminent parousia in Paul (Oscar Cullmann and an
inaugurated eschatology).
The consensus of modern scholarship is comfortable with Lukan
authorship, cf. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, and Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, the Anchor Bible.
Date of Writing
It is the consensus of most scholars today that The Gospel and Acts
were penned by Luke sometime towards the imminent destruction of
Jerusalem, AD 66-70. Some would have the writing earlier around
AD 60, others would date the writing after the destruction of Jerusalem,
around
AD 80.
Some have suggested that since Acts closes before the death of the
Apostle Paul (AD 64,65) that the writing must have been prior to this
date.
However, this may not be necessary since it may simply have been
Luke's intention to close his treatise with the Gospel and Paul in Rome.
We will work under the assumption that Luke-Acts were written after
Mark and Matthew, around AD 66-70.
CANONICITY AND AUTHORITY
Almost immediately Luke was apparently widely received and
accepted as the "word of God". For several reasons Luke's
writings were
accepted along with Paul's as the authoritative Word (see Oscar Cullmann,
Berger Gerhardson, et al.). The "apostolic" character of
Luke
was early and readily accepted.
The earliest Christian community were familiar with the
concept of Scripture and Canon, and Luke's writings were read in the early
church
because they were accepted as canon. As early as AD 180 Luke's
Gospel was already widely accepted as part of Tatian's Diatessaron
(Fourfold
Gospel corpus-collection).
Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200), Marcion (A.D. 140), Tertullian (A.D. 160-220), Clement of Alexandria
(A.D. 200), and Origen (A.D. 186-225) all
attest to to the early and wide acceptance, authority, and canonicity of
The Gospel of Luke.
See E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, p. 37-39 and Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke for extended discussion on the
authenticity and canonicity of Luke..
LUKE:
HISTORIAN, EVANGELIST, AND THEOLOGIAN
Luke was apparently a native of Antioch, a city in Syria, a
physician, and a companion of the Apostle Paul (Anti-Marcionite Prologue,
Col.
4:14, 2 Tim 4:11, Philemon 24). He must also have been associated
for a period with the city of Philippi in Macedonia see
(Acts 16 the
"we" passages).
Although some scholars debate this, Luke was apparently a Gentile convert to
Christianity.
From the literary formulae Luke adopts in his prologue to both Luke and
Acts we learn that it was his intention to write an account of
Jesus and the church in an historical style (E. Earle Ellis, The
Gospel of Luke, p. 64ff., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According
to
Luke, p. 288ff).
Although the historical style of Luke was questioned by German scholarship, the
consensus since H. J. Cadbury and William Ramsey
has been that Luke set his
writing in an historical style in keeping with that of 1st century historians, that
his writing is good history.
I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and
Theologian, has demonstrated that it was Luke's intention to set the story of Jesus and the
church into history in order to demonstrate the reasonableness of the story.
As a Gospel writer and a missionary companion of the Apostle Paul, it
is obvious that Luke's intention was evangelistic. He intended
to
tell the story of Jesus accurately in order to convert Gentiles to Christ and
to establish them in the Christian faith.
It will be noted shortly that Luke's intention was not simply history,
but theology. However, in an accepted literary style of his day, he
set that theology in an historical context, and for a good reason.
THE THEOLOGY OF LUKE
Attempts to summarize the theology of Luke in Luke-Acts in
simple form are not possible. Luke's theological concerns are broad and
significant.
His concerns were not simply to tell the story of Jesus and
the church for Gentile audiences, but to explain certain matters about Jesus and
the church that would be significant to their faith. It is not possible
to list the theological emphases of Luke in an order of priority since most
of
the emphases lead into one other and are symbiotic.
Jesus, the Savior. In Luke-Acts Jesus is the Savior.
The word salvation in the spiritual sense is not found in Matthew and is found
only once in
the long ending of Mark. That Jesus is the Savior is not
the chief concern in either Mark or Matthew. In these two Gospels he is
the Son of
God and the Messiah. Although these emphases are not absent in Luke, they
are not a major concern for Luke. In Luke-Acts, Jesus is
among other
things, the Savior.
Jesus, The Messiah. In Luke the Messiahship of Jesus is
concerned more with his mission than the need to establish him as the Messiah as
in Matthew. Jesus is the instrument through which God has brought
about the salvation of men, both Jew and Gentile.
The Holy Spirit. Luke give perhaps more emphasis to the
Holy Sprit than do the other Gospels. In Luke the emphasis is on the
witness of the
Holy Spirit to Jesus ministry. The Holy Spirit is the sign of
God's saving activity.
The Kingdom of God. Jesus' kingdom is not a threat to the Roman
empire! Jesus has no aspirations of "dethroning" the
Emperor! His kingdom
is a spiritual kingdom
open to both Jew and Gentile. As the king his mission is not one of
destruction but of redemption.
History and theology. We have already noted Luke's
historical interest and that his purpose is to set his theology into an
historical context. It
is Luke's purpose to demonstrate that Jesus and the church are
the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose or working in history. God has
been
working his plan of salvation in history and Jesus and the church fir into this
working. We call this concept heilsgeschichte (click on
heilsgeschichte
to go to the Glossary). It is not that history is salvation, but that salvation takes place in
history in the person of Jesus and
is carried out through the ministry of the
church.
Eschatology. Mention was made above to Conzelmann's views
of the delay of the parousia. Conzelmann held that Luke wrote
his Gospel to
explain why Jesus' second coming (parousia) had not taken
place early during the life of the Apostle Paul, believing as do some German
theologians that Paul expected an imminent parousia during his lifetime. We do not
accept Conzelmann's views of the delay of the parousia,
nor that there
was a difference between Luke and Paul over eschatology. But Conzelmann was correct
in demonstrating that Luke does
explain that before Jesus' parousia the
church has a ministry of redemption to carry out. Luke does explain that
the redemption begun in
Jesus ministry, life, death, and resurrection must
continue in the life and ministry of the church.
The Church and Christianity and the World.
Luke seeks to show that although the church is in the world it is not of this
world. Nevertheless,
the church has a responsibility for this world. That
responsibility, that messianic ministry, is to bring the message of Jesus to the
world,
the Jewish world, but also the Gentile world.
We notice in Luke a greater emphasis on prayer, women, and the poor
and disenfranchised. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, the narrative
of Zacchaeus, and similar emphases on the disenfranchised are part of
Luke's emphasis that in a world of suffering Jesus is concerned for
those who
suffer persecution and sociological rejection.
OCCASION AND PURPOSE
In his own words Luke indicates his purpose (Lk 1:1-4
"Since
many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been
fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from
the
beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too
decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent
Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things
about which you have been instructed."
Luke intended to write an orderly account so that Theophilus might know
the truth regarding Jesus.
We learn from this and the style of the Gospel that Luke had a Gentile
audience in mind.
At the time Luke wrote the mission of Paul had grown and spread rapidly
throughout the Roman empire. Paul and the Gospel had reached
Rome
itself. Romans and Greeks would have concerns over the nature
and spread of the church. Jews had spread false views of the
church. Theophilus as a representative of educated Gentiles would need to know
the truth regarding this Jesus and the church. Luke
intended to write a
Gospel so Gentiles might know about Jesus in terms that they could understand.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer has addressed this point well:
"Luke
writes from the period of the church and intends to assure Theophilus and
other readers like him that what the church of his day was teaching and
practicing
was rooted in the Period of Jesus, to strengthen them
in fidelity to that teaching and practice. ..to explain how God's salvation,
first sent to Israel in the mission and
person of Jesus of Nazareth, has spread as the Word of God - without the Law - to
the Gentiles and to the end of the earth (acts 1:8)...Luke's concern (is) to
show
that Christianity ...has as much right to recognition as religio licita, a lawful religion, in the Roman empire as
Judaism itself. It is the logical continuation of Judaism."
(Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, pp. 9, 10.
ORIGINS - TWO OR MULTIPLE SOURCE THEORY
In a previous lesson on the Synoptic Gospels we looked at
Gospel Origins and commented on the fact that in all probability Mark was the
first
Gospel written.
We observed that B. H. Streeter had proposed a two source theory for
the composition of Matthew and Luke. The two sources that Matthew
and Luke incorporated into their Gospels were 1) Mark as a
primary source, and 2) Sayings material most often identified as Q.
Together
with these two primary sources Matthew added material identified as M and Luke
material identified as L.
In regard to Luke's Gospel and this introduction, we observe that
Luke's sources seem to have been Mark, some Sayings material (Q), and
material identified as L which resulted from Luke's research (Lk 1:1-4).
It is the Q and Mark sources that provide the commonality between Mark,
Matthew, and Luke.
STRUCTURE OF LUKE
It is obvious to the serious reader of Luke that he has
followed the basic Markan narrative, in much the same order as Matthew.
However, it has
been noted that on occasion Luke deviates from the Markan-Matthean
structure. In fact in most cases when Luke differs with Matthew, it is
Luke who stands independent of the other two.
Allan Barr, A Diagram of Synoptic Relationships, T. and T.
Clark, 1938, 1976, has graphically in diagram form demonstrated the
relationships
between the three Synoptic Gospels.
Attempts to outline the Gospel of Luke have resulted in little real
consensus (as is the case with Matthew!).
E. Earle Ellis has broadly outlined the Lukan structure as follows:
|
1:1 - 4
1:5 - 9:50
9:51 - 19:44
19:45 - 24:23 |
Prologue
The Messiahship and Mission of Jesus
The Teaching of the Messiah
The Consummation of the Messiah's Mission |
Joseph A.
Fitzmyer has outlined the structure broadly as follows:
|
1:1 - 4
1:5 - 2:52
3:1 - 4:13
4:14 - 9:50
9:51 - 19:27
19:28 - 21:38
22:1 - 23:56a
23:56b - 24:53 |
Prologue
The Infancy Narrative
The Preparation for the Public Ministry of Jesus
The Galilean Ministry of Jesus
Jesus Journey to Jerusalem
The Ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem
The Passion Narrative
The Resurrection Narrative |
SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
For an exhaustive
and excellent bibliography see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke, The Anchor Bible.
The following
bibliography is divided into two major sections:
Advanced works for academics and ministers
Alfred Plummer, Commentary on St. Luke, ICC, 1896
Joseph Fitzmeyer, The Gospel According to Luke, Anchor Bible, 2 vols., 1981
Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, 1927
G. B. Caird, Luke, 1963
Earle E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 1966
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
1978
I. Howard Marshal, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 1970
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 1974
W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Book of Acts,
Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 1984
Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation
General works for Bible Class Teachers
Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel According to Luke
Leon Morris, Luke, Tyndale, 1988on.