Luke | Knowable Word

Luke’s Secondary Audience

September 27, 2019 By Peter Krol

Upon analyzing Luke’s treatment of the Jews in both Luke and Acts, I concluded that neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Luke gleefully wished doom on the Jews. Paul says as much regarding himself, in both Acts (Acts 28:19-20) and his own letters (e.g. Rom 9:1-3, 10:1). Yet he remains confident in the justice of that coming doom as retribution for the way the Jews treated both their God and his message (1 Thess 2:14b-16).

So throughout both Luke and Acts, we ought to notice a consistent thread of appeal to the Jews to turn around before it’s too late. Though Luke’s primary audience is Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), a “most excellent” Roman official, Luke extends persistent invitations to a secondary audience, the Jewish people, to repent while they still can.

Luke’s Appeal to the Jews

Luke wants the Jews to repent and turn to Jesus.

We see this appeal in Jesus’ tearful regret over his people (Luke 19:41-44). We see it in Jesus’ stern warning after they try to implicate Pontius Pilate (Luke 13:1-5). Luke follows that warning with a parable (Luke 13:6-8) and healing episode (Luke 13:10-17) whose allusions to the rotten vine of Isaiah (Isaiah 5:1-7) and the subsequent ethical condemnation (Isaiah 5:8-25) must not be missed.

We see the appeal in Jesus’ inaugural sermon in Luke, where he offers himself to the people of Israel, for the sake of their liberty, sight, and reception of God’s favor (Luke 4:17-21). We see the appeal in one of Jesus’ final discourses, where he foretells the precise signs that generation should look for to recognize the doom before it hits (Luke 21, especially Luke 21:29-33).

We see the appeal in the words of Peter when he begs his fellow Jews to save themselves from “this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). We see it again when Peter exposes once again the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah, even while once again offering the ignorant a chance to trust the Prophet whom God sent to give them life (Acts 3:12-26).

We can see the appeal in the words of Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon, who offer help to Israel (Luke 1:54-55), mercy to Israel (Luke 1:72), and glory to Israel (Luke 2:32). It is the unrequited hope in this redemption for Israel that has crushed the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:21). This hope in the restoration of Israel is on the minds of Jesus’ disciples even in their last days with him (Acts 1:6-7). This same hope, sometimes labeled as hope in the resurrection, inspires Paul at every step (Acts 23:6, 24:15). Paul’s hope in these promises have put him in chains (Acts 26:6-7, 28:20).

Through both volumes, Luke constantly appeals to the Jews—perhaps even the same Jews who now accuse Paul before Caesar—to find the very hope they seek (Acts 26:6-7). But to find it, they must stop doing what they are doing (Luke 3:7-8) and receive cleansing on the inside from the mighty one (Luke 3:15-16).

An Appeal for Salvation

And this hope which Luke, Jesus, and Paul share for the Jews, this “hope of Israel” for which Paul is in chains (Acts 28:20), can be summarized in a single word which Luke uses more than any other gospel writer: salvation.

Besides Luke, only John uses the noun, and only once (John 4:22). Luke uses it 5 times in his gospel (Luke 1:69, 1:77, 2:30, 3:6, 19:9) and 6 times in Acts (Acts 4:12, 7:25, 13:26, 13:47, 16:17, 28:28). Luke alone includes Isaiah’s line about all flesh seeing “the salvation of God” in his description of John the Baptist’s ministry (Luke 3:6). Simeon sees this salvation in the infant Jesus (Luke 2:30), and it can come to any house of Abraham’s true children (Luke 19:9)—those who repent and believe.

Luke uses the verb form “save” (sometimes also translated “made well” or “healed”) more times than any other gospel writer. And he is the only one beside John (again, only once, in John 4:42) to use the personal title Savior (Luke 1:47, 2:11).

Luke is deeply concerned with salvation. It’s the thing a Savior effects when he saves people. This salvation is something the Jews can find nowhere but in Jesus the Savior (Luke 2:11, Acts 4:12).

And yet, when they reject it, God offers it freely to the Gentiles instead (Acts 28:28). “They [the Gentiles] will listen” are Paul’s last words in Luke’s body of writing. They are the last words put in the mouth of any character. They represent Luke’s parting shot, his fourth-quarter Hail Mary pass. His desperate appeal to the Jews, motivating them through jealousy (Rom 10:19).

Conclusion

Though we have good reason to read Luke (and Acts) as a trial-brief to help exonerate the Apostle Paul from the charges laid against him by the Jews, that defense of Paul before the Roman official Theophilus is clearly not Luke’s only purpose. Luke also seeks to win the Jews who accuse Paul—and Jews around the world—to receive their own Messiah, and with him the salvation of God. That Messiah rose from the dead to make it possible.

Yet even if the Jews don’t receive their Messiah, God remains eager to save (Luke 14:15-24). Therefore his offer of “salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:77) will find a warm reception among the other nations of the world (Luke 2:30-32, 4:25-27, 11:29-32, Acts 8:5-8, 10:1-5, 13:48-51, etc.).

We could therefore possibly identify a tertiary audience for Luke’s gospel in the Gentiles of the world who likewise need and will receive God’s salvation offered in Christ. But I find it simpler to see them as part of the same “secondary audience.” In other words, faithful Jews are not those who are Jews merely outwardly—via ancestry—but those who are Jews inwardly, with circumcised heart (Rom 2:28-29). True Jews are those who repent and believe in Jesus the Messiah. And God is able to raise up such children for Abraham from the stones if he pleases (Luke 3:7-8).

So while Luke addresses Theophilus directly, he also implicitly writes his book for all of Abraham’s children, be they Jew or Gentile, to lead them to repentance and faith in the risen Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Luke’s Treatment of the Jews

September 20, 2019 By Peter Krol

The themes of Luke and Acts are shaped by the charges brought against Paul by the Jewish leadership. So in continuing our overview of Luke’s gospel, we ought to look at how Luke portrays the Jews, and especially the leadership. In this post, I’ll land on the key points in Luke’s gospel, but I’ll end with a few comments from Acts as well.

The Jews in Luke’s Gospel

Of course, no people group is monolithic. So authors rarely treat them as such. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see a variety of portraits of Jewish people in Luke’s gospel.

While some of the greatest acts of faith, in Luke’s gospel, take place among foreigners (Luke 7:8-9, 17:17-19), many Jews still demonstrate sincere faith in the identity or promises of Jesus: the paralytic’s friends (Luke 5:20), a sinful woman (Luke 7:50), a bleeding woman (Luke 8:48), a synagogue ruler (Luke 8:50), and a blind man (Luke 18:42).
Jesus’ own mother is in many ways a faithful, model Israelite, trusting the Lord’s word (Luke 1:38), ruminating on God’s ancient promises (Luke 1:46-55), and obeying everything written in the law of Moses (Luke 2:22-24, 39).
A few select witnesses understand who Jesus is and what he came to do (Luke 2:15-17, 34-35, 36-38).
While multitudes of Jews seek Jesus out for teaching and healing, at least 11 stuck close to him (Luke 6:13-16).
A number of marginalized Jews play key roles in making Jesus’ ministry possible (Luke 8:1-3).
Yet notwithstanding these positive examples, Jesus wonders whether he will, in the end, find faith among those who ought to be faithful (Luke 18:1-8). This leads him into severe criticism of the Jewish leadership (Luke 18:9-14).

Jewish Leaders in Luke’s Gospel

Luke’s portrayal of the Jewish leaders is quite bleak. This ought not surprise us, as this is likely the very group of people Luke must defend Paul against.

It’s no coincidence that Luke’s opening scene, after his preface, describes a Jewish priest inside the temple of God in Jerusalem. And this holy man on a holy task can’t recognize the holy word of God when he hears it. The angel Gabriel must defend his credentials to this priest before cursing him with muteness (Luke 1:18-20)—if you won’t trust God’s word, you’ll have nothing of your own to say. So while this priest comes around by the end of his story (Luke 1:63-64, 67-79), he has a rather inauspicious beginning. It’s as though Luke wants us to be suspicious from the start of Jewish priests serving in the temple!
When Jesus first arrives at the temple, as an infant, the two people who recognize his identity are not priests (Luke 2:25, 36-37)!
The civil leader closest to being Jewish refuses to repent of his sin (Luke 3:18-20), thereby finding himself utterly unprepared to meet the King of the Jews (Luke 23:8-12).
Unlike Matthew (Matt 3:7) and John (John 1:19), Luke doesn’t mention any Jewish leaders going out to visit John the Baptist (Luke 3:7, 10-14).
Luke’s first mention of the Pharisees has them questioning Jesus’ identity (Luke 5:17-21). It doesn’t take them long to start plotting his downfall (Luke 6:7, 11). Luke tells us outright that they rejected the purpose of God for themselves (Luke 7:29-30) and were lovers of money (Luke 16:14).
The Pharisees repeatedly extend hospitality to Jesus (Luke 7:36, 11:37, 14:1), yet Luke always uses the episode to expose their mistaken beliefs and evil motives.
They ask him questions under false pretenses (Luke 5:30, 6:2, 13:31, 17:20), and they lie in wait for him (Luke 11:53-54).
Of course, they arrest Jesus under cover of darkness and on trumped-up charges (Luke 22:52-53, 23:2).
They play the primary role in manipulating Pilate to execute Jesus (Luke 23:10, 13-18). We know of only one of their number who did not agree with the council’s decision to condemn Jesus (Luke 23:50-51).

Jewish Crowds in Luke’s Gospel

Under such poor leadership, it’s inevitable that the rot would likewise infect the masses.

Jesus’ own townspeople try to kill him (Luke 4:28-29).
As in all the gospels, the crowds come out to hear him teach (Luke 5:1) and to get healed (Luke 5:15).
However in Luke, it’s only “the multitude of his disciples”—not a broadly Jewish crowd—who acclaims his entry to Jerusalem (Luke 19:37). The Pharisees ask Jesus to shut them up (Luke 19:39-40).
A theme unique to Luke is Jesus’ surprising sorrow over the coming fate of the people. He weeps for them while riding his donkey (Luke 19:41-44). On the way to his own death, he ominously advises the daughters of Jerusalem to weep not for him but for themselves and their children over their coming doom (Luke 23:28-31).
The coming doom on that generation of Jews is a major theme for Luke (Luke 12:49-59, 13:1-9, 13:27-30, 13:34-35, 21:5-36).

Hope for Jews

Notwithstanding all the negativity toward the majority of Jews who reject or oppose Jesus, Luke presents tremendous hope for the people of Israel.

From the beginning of Luke’s history, there is much hope extended to Israel:

John will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God (Luke 1:16).
Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob forever (Luke 1:32-33).
In Mary’s pregnancy, God has helped his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy to Abraham and his seed (Luke 1:54-55).
The prophetic calling of John involves giving knowledge of salvation to God’s people in the forgiveness of their sins (Luke 1:76-79).
In the baby Jesus, Simeon sees God’s salvation, which is glory for Israel (Luke 2:29-32).
Anna speaks of the baby Jesus finally bringing to pass the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38).

This theme of hope for Israel leads Luke to recount Jesus’ patient exposition of the Old Testament to show that he, in fact, is the one who will redeem Israel (Luke 24:21, 25-27).

Jewish Leaders in Acts

In the book of Acts, we see the Jewish leaders continuing their opposition to Jesus by escalating their opposition against Jesus’ followers. The Jewish leaders:

are annoyed at the apostles’ teaching (Acts 4:1-2)
arrest the apostles (Acts 4:3, 5:17-18)
ask questions under false pretenses (Acts 4:7)
can’t figure out what to do (Acts 4:15-17: 5:33-39)
command the apostles to stop speaking (Acts 4:18, 5:28, 5:40)
beat the apostles (Acts 5:40)
allow themselves to be manipulated into prosecuting Christians (Acts 6:12-14)
persecute the church (Acts 8:1, 9:1-2)
plot to kill Paul (Acts 9:23-24, 14:5, 18:12-13, 20:3, 20:18-19, 21:11, 23:12-15, 23:20-21, 23:27, 24:2-9, 25:2, 25:7, 25:15, 26:21)
are pleased with the death of James (Acts 12:3)
whip up lynch mobs (Acts 13:50, 14:19, 17:5, 17:13, 21:27-30, 22:22-24)
remain doggedly resistant to receiving Gentiles into the church, even after coming to faith in Christ (Acts 11:2-3, 15:1-2)

Yet even in Acts, there is hope for the Jews.

A great many of the priests come to faith (Acts 6:7).
The first converts in many towns are Jews (Acts 13:43, etc.).
“More noble” Jews in Berea consider Paul’s teaching in light of the Old Testament Scripture (Acts 17:11).

There is hope for the Jews precisely because Paul’s mission, all along, has been to bring the Jews their promised hope (Acts 26:6-8, 28:18-20).

Conclusion

Across the entire two-volume history of Luke and Acts, all these observations boil down to a few key assertions:

Jesus came to fulfill all God’s promises to the Jews, putting Israel at the center of God’s work in the world.
The apostles (especially Paul) preached a message consistent with Jesus’ mission to fulfill God’s promises to the Jews.
A few Jews received and participated in that message.
Many Jews, especially leaders, rejected that message and tried to squash it out by any means necessary.
Because of this rejection of their own Messiah, Luke expects the first century Jews to suffer a terrible doom on their temple and nation.
In the first century AD, the Christians are not disturbers of the Roman peace; the Jewish leaders are. Therefore Rome will herself serve as the agent of God’s vengeance on the Jewish people (Luke 21:20-24). Jesus—and Paul, for that matter—is like a new Jeremiah, weeping over a new calamity coming upon Jerusalem and its temple at the hands of a new Babylon.

Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Luke gleefully wish this doom on the Jews. Perhaps this trial-brief could have another purpose besides simply persuading Theophilus of Paul’s innocence…?

How the Charges Against Paul Frame Luke’s Purpose

August 30, 2019 By Peter Krol

Last week, I presented evidence from both Acts and Luke to argue that Luke wrote his two-volume history of the early Christian movement to the Roman nobleman Theophilus as a trial-brief for the Apostle Paul’s first hearing in Rome. Part of that evidence is the excessive amount of space Luke dedicates to Paul’s legal situation and to 5 defenses of his innocence (Acts 22-26). I believe this material presents the framework of Luke’s purpose, providing an outline of Luke’s essential thesis regarding Paul’s innocence.

The Charges

In particular, the third of Paul’s five defenses (and the one that presents itself most clearly as a legal/courtroom drama) is preceded by a listing of the charges against Paul, as recounted by Tertullus, the prosecuting attorney hired by the Jewish leaders (Acts 24:4-8).

In particular, through Tertullus the Jews make the following three charges against Paul:

He is a disturber of the Roman peace: “We have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world” (Acts 24:5).
He is in charge of a new, and non-Jewish, religion: “This man…is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).
He has committed a capital offense under Roman law: “He even tried to profane the temple” (Acts 24:6).

What’s At Stake

If charge #1 is true, then Paul is a threat to the Pax Romana. He cannot be trusted with freedom in the public sector. And in light of charge #2, Paul is not the only threat to the public welfare; all “Nazarenes” (Christians) everywhere are equally threatening.

If charge #2 is true, then Paul, and his Nazarene followers, ought not to be granted the religious exemptions granted to the Jewish people. The Roman Empire, you see, compelled all citizens, colonists, and conquered peoples to offer not only allegiance but also worship to the emperor. They gave an exemption to only one people group: the Jews. Rome had learned the hard way not to mess in any way with the religion of Israel lest they cause more rioting and upheaval than they bargained for. So they had learned to leave the Jews alone, as far as their religion was concerned. By disassociating from Paul and “the sect of the Nazarenes,” the Jews are bringing this exemption into question for the newfound Christian movement.

If charge #3 is true, then, by nature of the religious freedom Rome has granted to the Jews by law, they must allow the Jewish leaders to put Paul to death.

In summary, with Paul on trial, Christianity is on trial. Luke probably seeks to exonerate Paul because he is a dear friend (he is both “beloved” to Paul—Col 4:14—and the only one who stuck with him to the end—2 Tim 4:11). But he also likely wants to prevent the newborn Christian movement from being suffocated before it can truly take off.

How This Frames Luke’s Gospel

Nearly every commentator and overview article highlights a number of major themes that receive exceptional emphasis in Luke’s gospel: the poor, women, Gentiles, outsiders, prayer, the word, and the Holy Spirit. The charges against Paul explain why these themes mattered so much to Luke.

Luke highlights the roles of the poor, women, Gentiles, and outsiders to show time and again, with respect to charge #1, that Christianity is not a threat to the Roman peace. In fact, Christianity is the opposite: a tremendous blessing to the public welfare! In both Luke and Acts, the ones who stir up public turmoil and instigate riots are usually the Jewish leadership (and sometimes pagans who feel personally threatened by the Christians’ extreme monotheism). The Christians—particularly Jesus himself, Peter, and Paul—are supporting the needy in local communities and calming things down.

Luke highlights the place of prayer and the word of God to show, with respect to charge #2, how closely connected the Christian movement is with ancient Judaism. Christianity is not a brand new religion; it is the fulfillment of the promises of God to Abraham and David, as recorded in Jewish Scripture. Luke begins his gospel with “ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2), and he ends it with Jesus explaining all the things written about him in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44-49). And the focus on prayer shows the Christians as pious believers in these promises to Israel; they are walking in the faith of the ancient faithful. It is the Jews who fail to recognize their own God when he visits them and who will suffer dearly for it (Luke 7:16, 19:44, etc.).

Luke highlights the Holy Spirit to show, with respect to charge #3, the early Christians (especially Jesus, Peter, and Paul) following the direction of their God and Father, as communicated by his Spirit. And they were already becoming new temples, with the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Paul was not some rogue who came to profane the temple and start a new world order; he was acting under orders (Acts 22:20-21) and clearly never profaned the Jerusalem temple (Acts 24:17-19). In the gospel, Luke portrays Jesus under similar orders (Luke 3:22, 4:1, 4:14, 4:18, 10:21) and acting in conformity to God’s intentions for the temple (Luke 19:45-46).

Conclusion

How does knowing all this help us to study Luke’s gospel? I haven’t yet laid enough groundwork to propose a main point for the book, but I can list a few ways Luke’s purpose helps us to read his book.

We can have tremendous confidence in the evidence Luke presents for the historicity of these events. Here we have two books, inspired by God, where God was willing to go on record in the Roman court system regarding “the things that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1).
We’ll get a lot of help from this book to embolden us to face direct opposition.
By fitting this text within its time-and-space circumstances, we’re more likely to read it the way Luke intended it.
Finally, we’ll see how Luke, in contrast to the other 3 gospels, focuses not primarily on the person of Jesus, but on the Christian movement founded by him. We’re not “missing the gospel” if we teach this book accordingly.

What Circumstances Occasioned Luke’s Gospel?

August 23, 2019 By Peter Krol

I’ve argued that the genre of Luke’s gospel is history (in contrast to the genre of Matthew, Mark, and John, which is biography). And I’ve discussed the commonly accepted likelihood that Luke’s primary recipient, Theophilus, was a Roman nobleman.

What more can we conclude regarding the occasion of Luke’s writing? In other words, why did Luke write this two-volume history to this Roman nobleman at this time?

Let me state this post’s thesis up front: In his excellent overview articles on Luke and Acts, Daniel Wallace argues that these books were composed as a trial-brief for the Apostle Paul’s first hearing in Rome.

Evidence from Acts

Wallace is not the only one to propose this thesis, but he articulates it clearly and concisely, especially in his introduction to Acts. Since Luke and Acts go together as two volumes, the occasion for Acts is highly relevant to the occasion for Luke.

Wallace brings 8 pieces of evidence to the argument (in his article, you’ll find these under point E: “Occasion and Purpose”):

Not only is Theophilus called “most excellent” in Luke 1:3, but it occurs in the vocative case (direct address). This term in the vocative case can be found in ancient literature only in petitions.
The unusual and extraordinarily anti-climactic ending to Acts strongly suggests that Luke is writing while Paul is still in custody awaiting trial. No other theory of dating or composition has satisfactorily accounted for the petering-out and inconclusive nature of Acts 28.
The mention of Paul’s house arrest having lasted two years (Acts 28:30) suggests that his right to a “speedy trial” was soon to be fulfilled, and action must soon be taken on his behalf.
The literary parallels between Peter and Paul, in the first and second halves of Acts, suggest an agenda to legitimize Paul’s professed apostleship by comparison with Peter’s already-acknowledged apostleship.
Peter’s story ends with his release from prison (Acs 12:17), thus implying a petition for a similar end to Paul’s story.
Acts 1-20 covers 24 years of history, but then Acts 21-28 slows down to cover only four years. In particular, the narrative crawls through Paul’s legal drama, clarifying the facts of Paul’s case through 5 detailed defenses (before the Jewish feasters, the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, and Herod Agrippa).
The Greek word for “first” in Acts 1:1 cannot be used to support a theory that Luke intended to write a third volume, which was either never completed or simply lost to us.
The shipwreck narrative of Acts 27 fits with an ancient pagan belief that survival in shipwreck implies innocence.

While point #8 fits with Luke’s narrative clues (Acts 28:4-6), Wallace confesses that Acts 27 “ostensibly does not fit with the trial-brief idea.” However, that shipwreck narrative goes out of its way to show Paul complying with the Roman authorities and not once entertaining either seditious or escapist motives. The one who had every reason to flee, and every opportunity to do so surreptitiously, chose quite the opposite. Only one who was confident in his innocence would behave in this way. This certainly fits with the trial-brief idea as Luke nears the conclusion of his history, in real time, with Paul still in custody.

Further Evidence Within Luke

In his Logos Bible Software course on The Gospel of Luke, Andrew Pitts, who argues the same thesis as Wallace, proposes one further significant piece of evidence: Luke’s positive portrayal of Roman officials.

When compared to the other three gospels, Luke has a surprisingly positive view of Roman officials.

In Luke alone, there is no scene with Roman soldiers beating and mocking Jesus, putting a crown of thorns on his head, or asking him to prophesy about who is hitting him. There is a scene where Jesus’ Jewish captors mock him (Luke 22:63-65). And there is another scene with Herod’s soldiers mocking Jesus (Luke 23:11), but they would have been Jews or Idumeans, not Romans.
In Luke alone, there is a scene where people ask Jesus about Pilate’s brutality toward the Jewish people (Luke 13:1-5). We’d expect at least a critical assessment of Pilate, if not a full-blown denunciation of such wickedness. But no. Instead of criticizing Pilate, Jesus responds with a dire warning for those present to repent of their own sin before they too suffer as their countrymen did.
In both Matthew (Matt 8:5-13) and Luke (Luke 7:2-10), we’re told of Jesus marveling at the faith of a Roman centurion, which surpassed the faith of any in Israel. But Luke alone adds this fascinating characterization: Though the elders of Capernaum consider this military officer “worthy” of Jesus’ attention, the man himself has the humility to confess, “I am not worthy” (Luke 7:4-6).
In Luke alone, Pilate does not look like a buffoon at Jesus’ trial. He labors to give Jesus justice for his evident innocence. He doesn’t lose his cool and relents only when the crowd is on the verge of all-out riot (Luke 23:15-25).

Acts continues this positive portrayal of Roman officials. Just read the book and count how many times a governor or judge in some town declares a Christian or group of Christians to be innocent of any wrongdoing. And notice how the first Gentile convert to Christ is another Roman centurion.

Conclusion

I confess that, since Luke doesn’t tell us his purpose, we cannot be certain. And because no early church fathers declared clearly that Luke wrote to help exonerate Paul, some Bible dictionaries say things like: “Still’s theory that Theophilus was Paul’s defense attorney during his audience with Caesar in Rome lacks evidence (Still, St. Paul on Trial, 84)” (Lexham).

I am making an inductive argument, which is an argument where the conclusion most likely follows from the premises. It’s not a deductive argument, where the reasoning is either valid or invalid, and where true premises make the conclusion certain.

But induction is what we use almost all the time when we piece together the historical circumstances of biblical books. It is not for us to be deductively certain regarding our theories of composition. The question is one of strength: How strong is the conclusion in light of the premises?

I won’t go as far as to say that Theophilus must have been Paul’s defense attorney. Perhaps he was a lower court judge, a clerk, an expert witness, or an investigator of some sort, connected to the courts. But regardless of Theophilus’s precise role, the evidence suggests that Luke wrote his two-volume history to Theophilus as a petition for Paul’s exoneration.

Who Was Theophilus?

August 16, 2019 By Peter Krol

Luke addresses his two-part history of the early Christian movement to a man named Theophilus.

…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach… (Acts 1:1)

Who was this person, and how does knowing help us to understand the purpose of Luke and Acts?

Nonspecific Address

The early church father Origen (ca. 185-254) was the first to suggest that “Theophilus” was not a particular individual, but simply a way of addressing all believers. The name literally means “lover of God,” and therefore could become a pseudonym for all Christians everywhere, almost like composing an open letter today with the address “Dear Christian.”

While this is possible, it seems unlikely, and very few scholars today hold this opinion. If Luke wanted to address believers generally, it would have been very unusual for him to speak to “Theophilus” in typical grammatical forms that signal a communication to an individual (such as second person singular pronouns). He would have been more likely to do something along the lines of what Peter does in his first epistle: “To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). Or he could have signaled his intentions with something more symbolic, such as John’s “to the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1).

Particular Individual

The name “Theophilus” is well attested in the time period in which Luke wrote. It was a common name, over a few centuries, all over the Roman empire. Josephus even mentions a Jewish high priest with the name a few decades before the temple fell. So it’s highly credible to conclude that Luke was writing to a specific person.

But what other clues can we find regarding the identity of this Theophilus?

Most Excellent

The most significant clue is Luke’s use of the phrase “most excellent” when addressing Theophilus the first time (Luke 1:3). This is not a casual California-surfer-dude sort of greeting. It has a ring of formality to it.

The address “most excellent” appears in Scripture only in Luke’s writings, and only in very formal settings.

1. A court appearance, spoken by the prosecuting attorney:

“Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation…” (Acts 24:2)

2. Another court appearance, spoken by the defendant:

“I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words.” (Acts 26:25)

3. And, though translated differently, the same Greek term appears also in a prisoner transfer order written by a Roman centurion to the governing official:

“Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.” (Acts 23:26)

For this reason, it seems likely that Theophilus is at least a Roman noble with means of some sort. Our understanding of the title is rather limited, so many scholars are hesitant to conclude any more than this.

Additional Evidence

However, additional evidence from within Luke and Acts may help us to identify Theophilus with greater precision. In additional posts, I will take up more of this evidence.

The Genre of Luke’s Gospel

August 2, 2019 By Peter Krol

I’ve been studying Luke these days, to prepare for a new sermon series at our church. And this Sunday, I’ll kick off the series with a book overview.

To help me grasp background matters, I’ve been working my way through a course with Logos Bible Software on Luke’s gospel, taught by Dr. Andrew Pitts. The course has been outstanding, and Pitts’s comments on the genre of Luke have been particularly stimulating.

Overall Genre

Certainly, Luke belongs to the genre of historical narrative. However, there are many sub-categories of genre that fall under the umbrella of historical narrative. On a large scale, there are epics, histories, and biographies. On a small scale, there are miracle stories, confrontation stories, healings, teaching, parables, and origin stories.

Regarding Luke, Pitts argues that there is a difference between ancient biography and ancient history. Biographies focus on one individual, the subject, who is praised or lifted up in some way, and readers are called to imitate or follow that figure. Histories, however, focus more on events than on any particular person, and they are concerned with explaining why something is the way it is, or with making a political or social point in light of the relevant history.

jean louis mazieres (2018), Creative Commons

Comparing the Four Gospels

I have always presumed Luke to be the same genre as the other gospels. Of course, it’s closer to Matthew and Mark, which is why those three are often referred to as the “synoptic” (similar perspective) gospels. John is unique, with a completely different style and method of narration.

However, Pitts argues that, at least with respect to genre, the oddball among the four gospels is really Luke. He suggests that Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies, but Luke is a history.

Why does he conclude this?

Ancient biographies tend to introduce their subject in the first sentence (or very close to the first sentence). Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, and John 1:1 all reference Jesus as the book’s subject. But Luke doesn’t even mention Jesus until Luke 1:31, and then only in predictive speech. Jesus doesn’t become a character or subject until Luke 2:7, or even Luke 2:11. This late mention of the chief subject would be very unusual for a biography. But such late mention of a major protagonist fits right with the expectations for a narrative history.
Compared to ancient histories, ancient biographies have a much higher density of citation of authoritative sources to support the portrait of the biography’s subject. Matthew, Mark, and John all fit the parameters of citation density (quoting the Old Testament, in their case) expected from biography. Luke’s density of OT citation is much lower, fitting more closely the parameters of ancient history. (Though Luke cites the OT more times than Mark does, Luke is much longer than Mark, thus making his density of citation significantly lower than Mark’s.)
When Luke does introduce his subject matter in the first verse, he terms it “the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). He doesn’t speak of a person, but of a series of events. This is what we’d expect from a history, not a biography.
Luke is the only gospel with a sequel (the book of Acts), so we need to read Luke and Acts as a single work in two parts. And Acts clearly moves well beyond the life of Jesus of Nazareth, telling the tales of a number of Jesus’ followers. It might be possible to say that Luke-Acts is a collection of biographies, with Jesus’ life being the first subject. But compendiums of biographies were also known in the ancient world, and there is no other example of such a collection following a single narrative thread (from the first subject, to the second, to the third, etc., instead of treating each biography as a completely separate narrative). If Luke-Acts were a collection of biographies, it would be the only ancient document to take this meta-narrative approach. However, Luke-Acts does follow the standard expectations of an ancient history, moving from one event, to another, to another, in a seamless overarching narrative.

What Difference Does It Make?

What difference does it make whether Luke is biography or history?

Simply that we’ll better observe Luke’s focus, which enables us to focus there with him. Since Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies of Jesus, we read them rightly when we focus on the person of Jesus. Of course, we can’t ignore what Jesus did or what resulted from his work. But with the emphasis on who he was, the other things fall into place as implications of the main idea (Jesus himself).

But if Pitts is right that Luke-Acts presents itself as history, then we’ll better understand Luke-Acts if we focus on what that two-volume work says about the Christian movement. Of course, we can’t ignore who Jesus is when we read Luke-Acts; the movement’s founder is, well, the movement’s foundation. But the identity and character of Jesus, in Luke’s case, are more the implications than the main idea.

Another way to state the hypothesis is that the biographies of Matthew, Mark, and John are meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Jesus. And the history of Luke (along with Acts) is meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Christianity.

This understanding of Luke’s genre is one piece of the puzzle that is Luke’s purpose in writing, along with his main point. In future posts, I may revisit Luke with yet more pieces of that puzzle.

Did Jesus’ Ministry Last 3 Years?

June 21, 2019 By Peter Krol

Protestants sometimes accuse Roman Catholics of holding to traditions not found in the Bible (e.g. Mary’s immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, etc.). But even Protestants must be careful with their judgment, as they will certainly be measured by the same measure with which they measure others (Matt 7:1-2). Certainly they don’t irrationally hold on to traditions unsupported by Scripture, do they?

We could explore a number of such traditions that Protestants ought to be willing to reconsider in light of the biblical data. In this post, I’ll tackle the typically unexamined maxim that Jesus’ ministry lasted for 3 years. A related assertion is that Jesus was 33 years old when he was crucified. Careful observation of the scriptural data will show us that these assertions could be true, but they are far from certain.

Reasons for the Tradition

If you research an article or book that examines the question, and doesn’t merely assert the 3-year timeframe, you’ll find the answer typically hinges on a few pieces of biblical evidence:

Luke says Jesus began his ministry at “about 30 years of age” (Luke 3:23).
John records three Passover events during Jesus’ ministry (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55). That third Passover is drawn out also in John 12:1, 13:1, and John 19:14.

From this evidence, the conclusion is drawn: He began at age 30, he ministered for 3 years (through 3 annual Passover feasts), and therefore he died at age 33.

St. Paul’s Timeline, Heidi Blanton (2010), Creative Commons

Familiarity vs. Observation

But please don’t allow your familiarity with the tradition to blind you from careful observation of the text!

Luke clearly says that Jesus was “about” 30, not “exactly” 30. Perhaps Luke wants us to think of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as analogous to the “coming of age” of priests (Num 4:1-3) and rulers (Gen 41:46, 2 Sam 5:4) at age 30. Or perhaps he has other reasons for rounding the number.
Though John records three Passover events, we have no proof that he intends his narrative to be literally chronological. Some scholars argue that the first Passover (chapter 2) was the same Passover as the one during which he was crucified, and that John bumps it early in his narrative to make a theological point. Others argue that the Passover of John 6:4 refers to same Passover of the year Jesus was crucified (and therefore, that John 6:4 and John 11:55 are referring to the same event).
But regardless of whether John tells us about three Passovers, two Passovers, or even one—he never says that these were the only Passovers Jesus attended during his ministry. To assert or assume these 3 Passover references mean Jesus’ ministry lasted 3 years is to argue from silence.

Conclusion

Now I hope this analysis doesn’t generate seismic repercussions in anyone’s faith. My guess is that most people reading this explanation are not shaken to their core by it. If your reaction is along the lines of, “Who cares whether Jesus’ ministry was 3 years, or 2 years, or even 6 years long?”—I would like to buy you a drink and bless you in the name of Christ.

So why do I care enough to point it out?

Because these things snowball across generations. It’s not difficult for an angel’s legitimate blessing of Mary (Luke 1:28) to evolve over time into sacred legends about her moral perfection, perpetual chastity, or extraordinary origin. In the same way, who knows when or how the mistakenly assumed “three-year ministry of Jesus” might evolve into a three-year master plan for discipleship, or a three-year sacred tradition for church planting, or a set of uncompromisable three-year expectations for how God must work to build his kingdom?

Most spurious traditions have their origin in something true and good. But we cannot add to that truth without, in the end, compromising the very truth we sought to uphold. For example, it is a good and right thing to love God more than your parents (Luke 14:26). But it’s an altogether wicked thing to add traditions to that truth which end up undermining the obligation to care for your aging forebears (Mark 7:9-13).

The Bible doesn’t tell us exactly how many years Jesus spent with his disciples, going about doing good and healing. So we ought not to casually assert a three-year timeline as though it were self-evident.

Are All Who Laugh or Have Wealth Cursed?

April 17, 2019 By Peter Krol

Luke 6:20-26 appears to make no qualification whatsoever:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God…Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied…Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh…Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

We may be inclined to race to Matthew’s parallel passage so we can qualify the text with “poor in spirit,” “hunger for righteousness,” etc. But that would violate a fundamental principle of observing and interpreting Luke’s intended message for his audience.

So what should we make of these extreme statements?

In a recent episode of the Ask Pastor John podcast, John Piper masterfully demonstrates why context matters. He takes up this question on this text, and he observes the context of Luke’s argument to help us understand and apply these verses as Luke intended.

The podcast would be a great use of 11 minutes of you day. Check it out!

Does Jesus Commend Dishonesty?

February 6, 2019 By Peter Krol

If you’ve ever read the parable in Luke 16:1-9 about the fraudulent servant who gets fired, further cheats his employer, and is commended—you might have wondered what in the world was going on. When Jesus criticizes the sons of light for failing to be as shrewd as as the sons of this world (Luke 16:8), is he expecting his people to act like the crook?

John Piper answers this question for us by looking carefully at the text, within the context of Luke, and by drawing application from the parable’s main point. He shows us how to answer difficult questions with good Bible study skills.

Check it out!

The Resurrection of Jesus According to Luke

April 3, 2017 By Ryan Higginbottom

Why did Jesus rise from the dead? We’ve previously looked at Matthew’s account, and today we turn to Luke.

The Purpose of Luke

Luke’s purpose is evident from the first verses of his book (Luke 1:1–4). He is writing an “orderly account” for Theophilus, that he would “have certainty concerning the things [he had] been taught.” Luke writes as a historian.

Following Daniel Wallace, I take this as Luke’s theme: Jesus is the Son of Man, rejected by Israel, offered to the Gentiles.

(See also Peter’s look at Luke for a previous series.)

The Witnesses

Luke 24 opens with three women approaching Jesus’s tomb at dawn (Luke 24:1), expecting to anoint his body with spices they prepared (Luke 23:56). They had seen Jesus’s body laid in the tomb (Luke 23:55), so when they find the stone rolled away, they know where to look. They are “perplexed” to find no body.

As the angels tell the women that Jesus has risen, they emphasize Jesus’s own words.

Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise. (Luke 24:6–7)

The women then remember (Luke 24:8) and tell the apostles what they saw (Luke 24:9). But the apostles don’t believe them (Luke 24:11), so Peter checks it out himself. He leaves the tomb convinced (Luke 24:12).

Remember that Luke is a historian, so he presents his readers with evidence and testimony about this miraculous discovery. We have not one, but two heavenly witnesses declaring, “He is not here, but has risen” (Luke 24:6). All three women who saw the empty tomb are named (Luke 24:10), perhaps for the purpose of verification. The angels point to Jesus’s prophecy about himself (Luke 9:22) as more evidence.

Peter gives the final testimony. It is significant that Peter saw the linen wrappings (Luke 24:12) instead of an empty tomb. Grave robbers would have taken the body with the cloth; a resurrected Jesus would shed his wrappings.

Peter’s previous appearance in Luke did not end well. Jesus looked at Peter after the rooster crow marked Peter’s third denial (Luke 22:61). After being absent at the crucifixion, he was desperate for another chance to see the Lord. He had to see the evidence for himself, and we see it through him.

Who is this Risen Jesus?

Luke doesn’t just present the empty tomb. He teaches us about Jesus in the process.

Through the account of the crucifixion, Luke highlights Jesus’s innocence. Pilate proclaims Jesus innocent three times (Luke 23:4, 23:14, 23:22). Herod can find nothing in Jesus worthy of death (Luke 23:15). One of the crucified criminals recognizes Jesus has done nothing wrong (Luke 23:14). And after Jesus breathed his last, the centurion praised God, knowing Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:47).

In Luke’s gospel, the phrase “sinful men” (Luke 24:7) is unique to this passage. He uses it here as a contrast: Jesus was unlike the men that carried out his death. In his resurrection, Jesus was vindicated, declared righteous and innocent. (See also 1 Timothy 3:16.)

Secondly, in Luke 24:7 the angels refer to Jesus as the “Son of Man.” This was Jesus’s favorite title for himself; the angels confirmed that Jesus used the title rightly. So what does that title mean?

At first glance, the title “Son of Man” seems ordinary, as though Jesus just meant he was a human. But Luke has far more in view.

The title “Son of Man” comes from Daniel 7. In a vision, one “like a son of man” appears before the Ancient of Days and is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom. Strikingly, “all peoples, nations, and languages” will serve him and “his dominion [will be] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13–14). Instead of an earthy, human title, “Son of Man” is heavenly and kingly, with worldwide consequences. (For more on Jesus as the Son of Man, see here or here.)

Beyond Israel

A few more details from the surrounding chapters will help us firm up the main point.

Jesus prayed that his Father would forgive those who crucified him (Luke 23:34). He promised one of the criminals that he would be with Jesus in paradise (Luke 23:43). Additionally, when the resurrected Jesus meets with his disciples, he says that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in [the Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). Jesus came for Jews and Gentiles.

What’s the Main Point?

Here is Luke’s main point.

Believe this: Jesus is the innocent Son of Man, raised from the dead for the whole world.

In the resurrection passage, Luke aims for the head, so let’s focus our application there. Do you believe in Jesus’s resurrection? How does that affect your thinking about forgiveness, God’s power, and God’s promises?

Luke also wrote the book of Acts, and there we see that Jesus’s resurrection changed the apostles and turned the world upside down. Be careful, or it will have the same effect on you.

« Previous Page