Luke's Gospel

Who was Luke? Why did he write a gospel? This small investigation encompasses the first four verses of the first chapter of the gospel of Luke. It is a brief introduction to the gospel that follows but provides specific points of information. While Luke does not identify himself, as such, since it is worded specifically to one Theophilus, Luke must have been sufficiently known to him so that no personal accreditation was needed.

Let us discover who Luke and Theophilus were believed to be. Thought to have been both a physician and an apostle of Paul, Luke is considered the author of the gospel that bears his name as well as the book of Acts. Scholars consider Luke to have written most of the new testament, more even than Paul.

Actual facts about Luke are few and far between. Scholars think that he is either a Greek physician who lived in Antioch or a Hellenic Jew that resided in Troas. Being a student of Paul and sometimes traveling with and ministering to, Luke is likely to have obtained the bulk of his knowledge about Jesus from Paul.

This comes from Wikipedia. “Theophilus is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Both Luke and Acts were written in a refined Koine Greek, and the name "θεόφιλος" ("Theophilos"), as it appears therein, means friend of God[2] or (be)loved by God or loving God[3] in the Greek language. No one knows the true identity of Theophilus and there are several conjectures and traditions around an identity.”

Coptic tradition and John Wesley believe Theophilus to be a person of importance from Alexandria. Some argue that Theophilus was a Roman official. Academia maintains that Theophilus was an honorary title.

More from Wikipedia: “Some believe that Theophilus could have been Paul's lawyer during his trial period in Rome. To support this claim people appeal to the formal legalese present in the prolog to the Gospel such as "eyewitnesses", "account", "carefully investigated", "know the certainty of things which you have been instructed".”

“The conclusion of The Book of Acts ends with Paul still alive and under arrest awaiting trial, suggesting it was the intention of the author to update Theophilus on Paul's history to provide for an explanation of his travels and preaching and serve as evidence in support of his innocence under Roman law. Some also point to the parallel between the account of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate narrated in Luke's Gospel with the account of Paul's trials before Roman judges in the Book of Acts. In total, Jesus was declared innocent 3 times by Pontius Pilate as was Paul before various judges.”

“A growing belief[6] points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41 In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple. Adherents claim that Luke's Gospel was targeted at Sadducee readers. This might explain a few features of Luke. He begins the story with an account of Zacharias the righteous priest who had a Temple vision of an angel(1:5-25). Luke quickly moves to account Mary's purification (niddah), Jesus' Temple redemption (pidyon ha-ben) rituals (2:21-39), and then to Jesus' pilgrimage to the Temple when he was twelve (2:46), possibly implying his bar mitzvah.”

“He makes no mention of Caiaphas' role in Jesus' crucifixion and emphasizes Jesus' literal resurrection (24:39), including an ascension into heaven as a realm of spiritual existence (24:52; Acts 1:1). Luke also seems to stress Jesus' arguments with the Sadducees on points like legal grounds for divorce, the existence of angels, spirits, and an afterlife (Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead). If this was the case then Luke is trying to use Jesus' rebuttals and teachings to break down Theophilus' Sadducean philosophy, maybe with the hope that Theophilus would use his influence to get the Sadducees to cease their persecution of the Christians. One could also look at Luke's Gospel as an allegorical (רֶמֶז remez) reference to Jesus as "the man called the Branch" prophesied in Zechariah 3:8; 6:12-13, who is the ultimate high priest foreshadowed by the Levitical priesthood.”

All of this, even if conjecture, is enlightening. To sit down and write, by hand, two lengthy documents is no small chore. What reason would Luke have for such an undertaking? In the short opening to the gospel of Luke, Luke tells us why in his own words. He tells us he thought it seemed good to throw in his own two cents worth. Much more information does Luke give us.

Luke may have been inspired to try his hand by the “many” who had already “taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things.” It could have been, as some scholars accept that he was providing necessary information to Paul's attorney. He could have been attempting to ease the persecution of Christians via the Sadducees. He could have simply wanted to recount all that he had learned from Paul and believed sincerely. There is also the possibility that he was contracted to write his works by a wealthy patron.

Luke identified himself with those who “most surely believed.” Those declarations that had been set forth in order by so many others were, in his own words, “delivered.” Perhaps his work in the gospel of Luke was to bring about a synthesis of fragmentary eyewitness accounts. The “many” included not only a cloud of eyewitnesses, in the common sense of the word, but also, as we might term them today, 'credible witnesses', 'expert witnesses', 'character witnesses', etc.

Here is how one Wikipedia article describes witnesses (those who might have 'delivered' information to or for Luke's gospel): “A witness is someone who has, who claims to have, or is thought, by someone with authority to compel testimony, to have knowledge relevant to an event or other matter of interest. In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the matter before some official authorized to take such testimony.”

Here is what those of us who study the gospels understand: in the three and a half year public ministry of Jesus, he was followed almost daily by an innumerable cloud of eyewitnesses. There were the multitudes – those who sought to hear him speak and those who sought a miracle. There were the disciples and other apostles. One scripture verse (Luke 10:1) states that he sent out seventy of them, two by two, preaching and healing the sick. There were the women that followed his ministry from the beginning, possibly with children in tow. There was Mary Magdalene, possibly Jesus' own mother, Salome, and Peter's wife and mother to name a few: (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25).

Finally, there were the chief elders, the scribes, the Pharisees and Sadducees that dogged his every step testing him, tempting him. One type of witness is actually named, possibly as the credible witnesses one would find hard to doubt. They were called the “ministers of the word.” Was Luke speaking plainly, or being cryptic? Did he mean 'word' as in Jesus, or did he simply mean the law, the communications of God, over which the above list of notable suspects exercised authority? Did Luke intend that we understand him to mean the disciples themselves?

Luke brought it all together, either for the beloved of God, or a lawyer, or other person of note. He was not making it up off the top of his head. He went to a great personal effort to produce the gospel. He took the steps needed to present the facts as they were. Luke, himself, was a 'minister of the word', bringing us the communication of the spirit.