Purpose | 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.

10 Good (but not Great) Reasons to Join a Bible Study

March 28, 2014 By Peter Krol

Though the chief advantage of Bible studies (in contrast to sermons, classes, and personal study) is interaction, this advantage does not necessarily give us a strong purpose. We rightly ask, “Why should we interact together about the Bible?” What is our goal? What are we after? We could do many activities in groups; why might we choose to study the Bible instead of doing something else?

And while some people might join a Bible study for evil or foolish reasons—such as “to learn how to tear down the Bible and everything it stands for” or “to find someone to hook up with”—I think such motives are pretty rare. What’s far more common is for people to join Bible studies for pretty good reasons.

Good reasons are good reasons and not bad reasons (duh); that’s why they motivate reasonable people. They become problematic, however, when they supplant the best reasons. Thus, missing the bullseye, we give our time and attention (that is, we give glory) to things other than the Lord, and we become guilty of idolatry.

Brian Barnett (2007), Creative Commons

Beware these good reasons for holding or attending Bible studies:

1. To get to know people

2. To learn about the Bible

3. To support my church or the people in the study

4. To sit under a gifted leader

5. To be a part of something great

6. To make new friends, or to deepen existing friendships

7. To be in a supportive environment

8. To build a tightly knit community

9. To develop more theological insight or biblical understanding

10. To grow as a Christian

Let me repeat: these reasons are all good. We should have Bible studies for reasons like these.

But let’s keep the best reason front and center. The good reasons are good only when they serve the best reason. What is the best reason?

To know God through his Son Jesus Christ

God spoke his Word to show himself to us. And God’s Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Though God spoke in many ways to the prophets, he has now spoken his Word in these last days by his Son, the glory of God, the imprint of God’s nature, the only purification for sin, and the supreme power in all the universe (Heb 1:1-4).

We lead Bible studies to introduce people to Jesus (Acts 17:2-3). And we attend Bible studies to find eternal life by knowing God and his Son Jesus Christ (John 17:3). God has made himself knowable, and we study his knowable word so we might know Jesus, the living Word.

Winsome community and cogent education are beautiful recruiters. But let’s make sure we give people something that will last forever and address their deepest needs.