AN INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
I. AUTHOR: LUKE Strictly speaking, The Gospel of Luke is
anonymous, but Luke the physician and companion of Paul is
probably the author of the Gospel by his name. He was also
the author of its companion work, the The Book of Acts.
Luke-Acts makes up 28% of the New Testament--more than that
written by either Paul or John
A. External Evidence: Early attestation from the second
century A.D. on uniformly identifies Luke as the author
of this Gospel
1. Irenaeus (c. 130-202)
2. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
3. Tertullian (c. 150-220)
4. Origen (c. 185-254)
5. Muratorian Canon (c. 170)
6. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke
B. Internal Evidence identifies Luke, a Gentile companion
of the Apostle Paul, as the author of Luke-Acts
1. The Author was the Author of the Book of Acts:
a. This is implied in Acts 1:1, "In the first
book ...."
b. "Theophilus" is probably the same person as
in Luke 1:1-4, "most excellent Theophilus."
c. There is close similarity in style and
language between Luke and Acts
d. The tone of Luke and Acts is similar:
worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles,
interest in woman, apologetic tendency
e. The end of Luke dovetails into the beginning
of Acts
f. Jesus only appears to his disciples in
Jerusalem in Luke and Acts
g. Themes left out of Luke as a synoptic are
incorporated into Acts by design (e.g.,
destruction of the temple [Acts 6])
h. Luke is the only Gospel which refers to
Jesus' appearance before Herod Antipas in his
trial (Luke 23:7-12), and this theme is
alluded to in Acts 4:27)
2. The Author Was a Companion of PaulThis is a
debated position, but there is good evidence for
its support:
a. See Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11
b. There are movements in Acts from the 3rd
person to the first person plural--the "We"
sections (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1--28:16).
It is most natural to understand these to
refer to the personal memoirs of one of
Paul's companions. There is no change in
style which demonstrate these to be an
external source.
c. The prologue to the double work of Luke-Acts
allows for Luke to have participated in some
of the events of Acts ("having followed all
things closely for some time past ..." Luke
1:3)
d. Luke's Paul is not necessarily different from
Paul's Paul. The differences can be
accounted for in style, and context.
3. The Author was Probably a Gentile:Luke is
distinguished from Jews (the circumcised) in
Colossians 4:10-14, and thus seems to have been
placed along with the Gentiles (Epaphras, Luke and
Demas)
4. The Author was Luke the Physician
a. The earliest traditions identify the author
with the expression of Colossians 4:14,
"Luke, the beloved physician"
b. He is distinct from those named in the "We"
sections: Silas/Silvanus, Timothy, Sopater,
Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius (of Derbe)
Tychicus, or Trophimus
II. THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE: A.D. 58/60
A. The Date of the Gospel of Luke is closely bound up with
the dates of Mark and Acts, and an understanding of
Luke's references to the fall of Jerusalem
B. Acts may well be dated around A.D. 64 or 65 requiring
that Luke, as the first of the double-work be written
earlier:
1. The earliest date for the book of Acts is the two
year imprisonment which is recorded in Acts 28:30-
31 which would have been around A.D. 60 and 61.
2. The latest date for the book of Acts is in the
second century writings of the church fathers
3. The abrupt ending of Acts allows for an early date
(around the time of the events), but could also be
understood theologically to emphasize the
continuance of Paul's mission through other
believers. Acts 20:25 may hint at Paul's death.
Therefore, it is not determinative.
4. The Neronian persecution of c. A.D. 64/65 probably
had not taken place by the time the book was
written. There is no evidence of oppression by
Rome, even if the Roman officials are less than
scrupulous. There is also no indication of
oppression in Rome (Acts 28). This is an argument
from silence and is not determinative.
5. The Jewish revolt of A.D. 66 and / or the fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is / are not indicated in the
book of Acts. This leads many to date the book no
later than A.D. 70. This is an argument from
silence and is not determinative. There may also
be indirect allusions to the fall of Jerusalem in
Luke especially (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:28-
31). But these cannot be limited to the fall of
A.D. 70. Rather, it is a part of a greater whole-
-the final judgment upon the nation (Luke
21:22,24).
6. Many subjects in Acts would have been prominent
before A.D. 70: Gentile admission to church
fellowship, coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in
the church, food requirements of the apostolic
decree
7. Many facts: "political, geographical, and social
fields," "nomenclature," "titles of officials,"
and "Roman citizenship" indicate that the work was
written not long after the events occurred
8. There are many "primitive" expressions of
theology: "the Christ," "the Servant of God," "the
Son of Man", Christians as "disciples," use of
"lao"" for Jews, and the use of Sunday as the
first day of the week.
C. The descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem in Luke 19:41-
44; 21:20-24; 23:28-31 need not be after the event in
A.D. 70. They are a part of a greater whole--the final
judgment upon the nation (Luke 21:22,24)--and 70 A.D.
is a foretaste of that final judgment so, it is
similar. 70 A.D. is topological of an end-time event
for covenant unfaithfulness (Lk. 19:41-44). One event
mirrors the other, therefore, it is difficult to tell
what is being talked about (A.D. 70, future, both?).
The Jerusalem destruction pictures and guarantees the
end time cataclysm. Jesus, and thus Luke, can speak
predictively.
D. Luke clearly used sources in his compilation of
material (Luke 1:1-4), but this does not necessitate
that he used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources:
1. If Acts has a 64/65 date, and Luke used Mark as a
source, Mark would have had to have been written
very early (c. A.D. 50)
2. However, it is possible that Luke used similar
sources as Mark (ur-Mark) as well as sources in
common with Matthew (if "Q" is a stream of oral
and written tradition), or Matthew itself
3. Therefore, a date of A.D. 58/60 for Luke does not
pose a serious problem for either Marcan or non-
Marcan priority
E. It is not possible to pin-point a date for Luke once
Luke 21:20 is not required to be post A.D. 70.1
However, if Acts is dated around A.D. 64/65, then it
does seem reasonable that The Gospel of Luke could have
been written a few years before Acts (A.D. 58/60)
III. PLACE OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION:
A. The place of origin is not revealed in Luke's Gospel
B. Some have suggested that Luke collected his material
while he was with Paul during his two-year, Caesarean
imprisonment ("We" in Acts 27:1), and then wrote Luke
shortly afterward (in Caesarea or Rome or even both);
while this is possible, it is difficult to substantiate
C. The destination is unknown except for the named
recipient of Luke-Acts known as Theophilus (Lk. 1:3;
Acts 1:1) who may well have been Luke's literary patron
assisting in the publication of Luke-Acts. It is also
possible that he was a Gentile (from his name and
title, "most excellent" [ kravtiste ] referring to a
Roman provincial governor), but this is also uncertain
IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOOK OF LUKE
A. Prayer (proseuxomai) is central to Luke (19 times) and
Acts (16 times)--especially around revelatory moments2
B. Luke has a universal emphasis for the Gospel:
1. Samaritans
2. Gentiles
3. Sinners
4. Poor
5. Outcasts
6. Women
7. Children
C. Luke emphasizes individuals:
1. In his parables: the good Samaritan; the lost
sheep, coin, son, etc.
2. Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon, Anna, Martha,
Mary, Simon, Levi, the centurion, the widow of
Nain, John the Baptist, Zacchaeus, Cleopas, Simon
the Cyrenian, Joseph of Arimathea, etc.
D. Luke emphasizes the fulfillment of God's word--what God
says, God does
E. Luke has a Gentile emphasis in his work hinting that
his primary audience may have been Gentile:
1. Jewish localities are explained (4:31; 8:26;
21:37; 23:51; 24:13)
2. The Genealogy goes back to Adam 3:23-38
3. Roman emperors are used to date Jesus' birth and
John's preaching 2:1-2; 3:1
4. Luke does not use some Hebrew or Aramaic words
used by the other gospels
5. Luke uses the LXX almost exclusively as he cites
the Old Testament
V. PURPOSES OF LUKE
A. The prologue overtly states the purposes of Luke:
1. To write about the life of Christ (the things
accomplished among us [1:1], in an orderly
sequence [1:3]
a. The term for orderly ( kathcevw ) does not
necessarily refer to chronological order
b. It can mean "orderly and lucid"; there is
continuity within a logical whole3
c. Luke's order is probably theological rather
than chronological as he develops salvation-
history (cf. John's imprisonment 3:19-21; The
temptation 4:1-13; Nazareth 4:16-30)
2. To write to Theophilus so that he might know (
ejpignwvskw ) the exact truth about the things he
had been taught 1:4
a. Luke wants to display before Theophilus
reliable information which was in accounts
which he had already heard
b. In view of the "exact truth" Luke may have
been writing to deal with a polemical issue
which false teachers were proclaiming; this
may become clearer by dealing with Luke-Acts
as a single unit
B. The purpose of Luke should not really be dealt with
apart from the purpose for Luke-Acts since they do form
one double-work
C. Suggested purpose: Perhaps the question which is
being asked by Theophilus (a Gentile-Christian) and
those with him is, "How is it that Christianity is
primarily Gentile in nature if it came from Judaism?"
Therefore, Luke writes Luke-Acts to argue that the
Christian Gospel is not anti-semitic, but is rooted in
the Hebrew Scriptures' promise of salvation to both the
Jews and the Gentiles. "The Way" shares in the
initiation of the spiritual promises to Israel. They
are the stewards of the promises to Israel. The reason
it is primarily Gentile in nature is because the Jews
rejected the message of Jesus as Messiah, and pushed
the church out. Nevertheless, the Jews as a people are
not rejected by God or his servant Paul. The promises
will yet be consummated for the nation through the
resurrected Jesus--the hope of Israel.
D. For a more direct discussion of purpose, see Robert
Maddox4
___________________________
1 Guthrie, NTI, p. 115.
2 See the following passages Lk. 1:10; 3:21; 9:28; cf.
22:43; Acts 9:40; 10:9f.,30f; 13:2; 22:17.
3 Marshall, Luke, p. 43.
4 The Purpose of Luke-Acts, edited by John Riches,
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982.
Report Problem