The Gospel of Luke Page 2
m. Mishnah
NABRE New American Bible (Revised Edition, 2011)
NET New English Translation
NETS A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)
NIV New International Version
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NT New Testament
NTS New Testament Studies
OT Old Testament
PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
repr. reprint
RSV Revised Standard Version
SC Sources chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1943–)
v(v). verse(s)
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WSA The Works of Saint Augustine
ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Books of the Old Testament
Gen Genesis
Exod Exodus
Lev Leviticus
Num Numbers
Deut Deuteronomy
Josh Joshua
Judg Judges
Ruth Ruth
1 Sam 1 Samuel
2 Sam 2 Samuel
1 Kings 1 Kings
2 Kings 2 Kings
1 Chron 1 Chronicles
2 Chron 2 Chronicles
Ezra Ezra
Neh Nehemiah
Tob Tobit
Jdt Judith
Esther Esther
1 Macc 1 Maccabees
2 Macc 2 Maccabees
Job Job
Ps Psalm/Psalms
Prov Proverbs
Eccles Ecclesiastes
Song Song of Songs
Wis Wisdom
Sir Sirach
Isa Isaiah
Jer Jeremiah
Lam Lamentations
Bar Baruch
Ezek Ezekiel
Dan Daniel
Hosea Hosea
Joel Joel
Amos Amos
Obad Obadiah
Jon Jonah
Mic Micah
Nah Nahum
Hab Habakkuk
Zeph Zephaniah
Hag Haggai
Zech Zechariah
Mal Malachi
Books of the New Testament
Matt Matthew
Mark Mark
Luke Luke
John John
Acts Acts
Rom Romans
1 Cor 1 Corinthians
2 Cor 2 Corinthians
Gal Galatians
Eph Ephesians
Phil Philippians
Col Colossians
1 Thess 1 Thessalonians
2 Thess 2 Thessalonians
1 Tim 1 Timothy
2 Tim 2 Timothy
Titus Titus
Philem Philemon
Heb Hebrews
James James
1 Pet 1 Peter
2 Pet 2 Peter
1 John 1 John
2 John 2 John
3 John 3 John
Jude Jude
Rev Revelation
Introduction
In countless ways, Luke’s Gospel has been the source of inspiration for Christians for almost two thousand years. Because of Luke, hymns of praise such as the Gloria and the Magnificat were introduced into Christian worship, prayers such as the Hail Mary were developed, St. Francis of Assisi began the custom of the Christmas manger, and painters such as Rembrandt and Caravaggio produced some of their great works of art.
Luke’s Gospel is itself a great work of art, as the human author used all of his literary and narrative skills to write the longest of the four Gospels (over 19,000 words, about 1,100 more than Matthew). In telling us the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, Luke’s Gospel is also a work of history, written down after careful investigation and on the basis of eyewitnesses and other reliable sources (1:1–3). Moreover, it is a work of theology, written so that readers may know that the teachings of Christianity are true (1:4): Jesus Christ is indeed Savior, Messiah, Lord, and Son of God (1:35; 2:11). Luke’s Gospel is all these things, and it is also divinely inspired, communicating to us what God wanted written for the sake of our salvation (Catechism 107).
Authorship
The titles found at the beginning or end of the earliest extant manuscripts of the Gospel, including Papyrus 75, dated by scholars to around AD 200, attribute the work to “Luke.”1 Writing around AD 180, St. Irenaeus likewise ascribes it to “Luke,” who was “Paul’s follower” and “set down in a book the Gospel that was preached by Paul.”2 Irenaeus says that Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles and that Luke even accompanied Paul on some of his journeys, which he indicated by writing in the first-person plural, the so-called “we” sections (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16).3 In the same place, Irenaeus also refers to two verses in Paul’s letters that mention Luke, one saying that Luke is with him (2 Tim 4:11) and one describing him as “the beloved physician” (Col 4:14). There is also a third (Philem 24), in which Luke is described as one of Paul’s fellow workers. The Muratorian Fragment and Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine similarly note such details.4
Among modern scholars, the view that the same author wrote both the Gospel and Acts is widely accepted. Also, the explanation considered most probable for the “we” sections in Acts is still the view that the author was present at the events narrated and so was a companion of Paul. Moreover, the traditional identification of this companion with the Luke mentioned in Paul’s letters, though a contested issue, is still accepted by many.5 Luke’s relative obscurity also argues in favor of the traditional view; if the Gospel’s author were really unknown, it would have been attributed to a more famous person such as an apostle. Moreover, since the Gospel was dedicated to a named person—Theophilus (1:3; see Acts 1:1)—it is implausible that it was written anonymously.6
There are other interesting but more speculative details about Luke suggested by some Church Fathers as well as some modern scholars. For example, since Luke (Greek Loukas) is a diminutive form of Lucius (Loukios), he has at times been identified with the Lucius mentioned by Paul (Rom 16:21)7 and/or the Lucius of Cyrene who was with Paul and Barnabas in Antioch (Acts 13:1).8 Moreover, Antioch is mentioned by some ancient sources as Luke’s city of origin.9 Luke has also been identified as the unnamed disciple “whose praise is in the gospel” (2 Cor 8:18 KJV).10
Also of interest is the question of Luke’s ethnic background. Although it is often assumed that Luke was a Gentile, scholarly opinion on this question is actually divided,11 and there is little support among the Church Fathers that he was a Gentile.12 The main argument for considering Luke to be a Gentile comes from Colossians, where Luke (Col 4:14) is not included in the list of those like Mark “who are of the circumcision” (4:11). This is often interpreted as saying that Mark is Jewish and Luke is Gentile, but the phrase “of the circumcision” may instead refer to a subset of Jewish Christians—namely, the strict faction that was typically uncooperative with Paul (Gal 2:12). Paul would then be saying that from among this group, only a few, like Mark, are his coworkers.13 Luke did not belong to this group, but could still have been Jewish. Indeed, Luke’s extensive knowledge of the Old Testament and interest in the Jerusalem temple and Jewish priesthood suggest that he was Jewish. His good command of Greek is well explained if he was a Hellenistic Jew. Luke may thus have been like Paul, a Jew whose ministry was largely to the Gentiles. Likewise, his Gospel was probably written mainly for Gentile Christians.
Historical Context
Scholars who hold that Luke was indeed Paul’s coworker (in the 50s AD) generally set the 80s as the upper limit for the writing of Luke’s Gospel (or 90s at the latest).14 Most modern scholars indeed favor a date for Luke in the 70s or 80s AD. One reason supporting this majority view is that it seems certain to most that Luke relied on Mark’s Gospel, which is itself generally dated in the range AD 60 to 75. However, since Mark and Luke at
times were coworkers together with Paul (Col 4:10, 14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philem 24), it is not necessary to assume a long interval (of a decade or more) between the two Gospels.
Another reason for the majority position is that Luke’s account of Jesus’ prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem, an event that took place in AD 70, contains certain details (Luke 19:43; 21:20) that are more specific than Mark’s version (Mark 13:14), suggesting to some scholars that Luke wrote it down after the fact. This reason, however, has been rejected by other scholars, since the details in Luke use vocabulary typical for a siege of a city such as is found in various Old Testament prophetic texts, especially those about the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC.15 There is also no reason why Jesus himself could not have prophesied the fall of Jerusalem using such Old Testament prophecies.
Some scholars take the minority view that Luke’s Gospel was written before AD 70.16 In this regard, another factor to consider is the dating of Acts, which Luke wrote after his Gospel (Acts 1:1). Acts ends with Paul’s two-year Roman imprisonment (AD 60–62; Acts 28:30), saying nothing about Paul’s death (around AD 64 or 67). This seems surprising if Acts was written much later (in the 70s or 80s). The reason may be that the plan of Acts is to show that Christianity spread to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8), and this plan reaches completion when Paul arrives in Rome, the capital of the empire (28:14). However, a good case can also be made that Paul’s death had not yet occurred when Acts was written.17 Considering the numerous parallels between Jesus’ passion in Luke and Paul’s imprisonment in Acts,18 which illustrate the theological principle at work in Acts that the life of Jesus is the model for the life of the disciples (see the sidebar, “Parallels between Luke and Acts,” p. 376), Luke would have included Paul’s death if it had occurred before he wrote Acts. For scholars who accept this argument, Luke’s Gospel would therefore also have been written while Paul was still alive. Several Church Fathers held this view—for example, the Church historian Eusebius.19
As for the location where the Gospel was written, modern scholars propose many different places. Since Luke was Paul’s coworker, all of these proposals have a connection to Paul: the city where Paul began his missionary career and from which Luke may have originated (Antioch in Syria), cities evangelized by Paul (Corinth20 or Ephesus), or cities where Paul was imprisoned (Caesarea or Rome). Regardless of the place, the Gospel was probably originally intended for many church communities, in particular those that arose from Paul’s missionary activity.
Genre
Over the last several decades, “it has become much clearer that the Gospels are in fact very similar in type to ancient biographies (Greek bioi; Latin vitae).”21 This was the view of St. Justin Martyr in the second century, who referred to the Gospels as the “memoirs” of the apostles, using a term indicating a biography.22
More specifically, like other ancient biographies, Luke’s Gospel (1) begins with a brief preface that mentions both written and oral sources (1:1–4); (2) focuses on one individual—Jesus—especially his public life and death; (3) is within the typical range of ten thousand to twenty thousand words; (4) follows a basic chronological structure but with other material—for example, some of Jesus’ teaching and parables—arranged topically or thematically; (5) portrays the subject through a selection of his significant deeds and words (see 24:19); (6) includes information about his birth (Luke 1–2), ancestry (3:23–38), and one significant childhood event (2:41–52); and (7) has the purpose of confirming what has been taught about the subject (1:4) and of proposing him as an example to be imitated.23
As a kind of ancient biography, Luke’s Gospel was written with the intention of writing a historical account. This is evident from the preface (1:1–4), which mentions how Luke is writing a narrative about events, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, after careful investigation, and so that his readers can know the truth of what they have been taught. Luke’s work continues in Acts, whose genre is not specifically biographical but more generally historical.
Of course, besides being historical narratives, the Gospels are also theological because of the unique Christian claims about Jesus, claims that are rooted in the Scriptures and bring them to fulfillment (see 24:27, 44). Jesus is not only someone about whom it is important to know, or even someone whom it is important to imitate. He is also someone in whom it is important to believe: “Everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43).
Structure and Literary Features
After the four-verse preface (1:1–4), Luke begins his account with a selection of events regarding the birth of Jesus, which is paired with the birth of John the Baptist (1:5–2:52). This “infancy narrative” is a fitting introduction to both Luke’s Gospel and Acts—for example, through the titles used for Jesus that will be developed later: Son of God, Savior, Messiah, and Lord (1:35; 2:11). Also included in these two chapters are events that foreshadow Jesus’ passion and resurrection and that announce the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan. The Gospel continues with Jesus’ public ministry, following a general pattern similar to what is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. A short section presents the ministry of John the Baptist and other events that prepare for Jesus’ ministry (3:1–4:13). There follows a section of Jesus’ teaching and healing ministry in Galilee (4:14–9:50). Unlike the other Gospels, Luke begins this section with Jesus’ reading and sermon in the Nazareth synagogue, a passage that explains his mission (4:16–30). The main question in this section concerns the identity of Jesus, who is frequently presented using the technique of comparison—for example, with Old Testament prophets like Moses, Elijah, and Elisha—showing that Jesus is greater than these predecessors. The section culminates in Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah. The transition to the next section is made with Jesus’ first passion prediction and the transfiguration, where Jesus’ “exodus”—that is, death—in Jerusalem is announced. The long central section covers the journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:44). This physical journey is the setting for the journey of discipleship of Jesus’ followers, who learn from his teaching, including many of the famous parables found only in Luke. Jesus also teaches here about the kingdom of God, and indeed the section culminates with the acclamation of Jesus as king as he approaches Jerusalem. The ministry in the Jerusalem temple follows (19:45–21:38), in which opposition to Jesus intensifies, leading to the account of his passion and death (22:1–23:56) and then his resurrection, concluding with his ascension (24:1–53).
Luke is the most skilled Greek writer among the evangelists, using complex sentence constructions (e.g., the four-verse preface is one long sentence) and a wide vocabulary (e.g., words that occur only once in the New Testament). He can also write in different styles. For example, he writes the preface in classical Greek style, displaying his literary credentials, and then, beginning in 1:5, switches for the main story to a style typical of the †Septuagint, in order to show that the story of Jesus continues the story of God’s people in the Old Testament.
Relationship to Other Biblical Writings
Luke’s Gospel needs to be studied in relation to various other books or parts of the Bible.
Other Gospels. Luke says that many have already written a narrative about the events of Jesus’ life (1:1). Most scholars would agree that among these written sources for Luke is Mark’s Gospel. More than a third of the material in Luke is also found in Mark. Moreover, the outline of Luke largely follows the outline of Mark, except for the omission of some sections (such as Mark 6:45–8:26). Luke also interweaves other material into this basic outline (a large block of it, for example, in the central section). As for Matthew’s Gospel, scholars are in less agreement regarding Luke’s direct dependence on it. An additional quarter of material in Luke (i.e., not found in Mark) is also found in Matthew, but it usually occurs in different contexts. The remaining 40 percent or so of the material in Luke is unique, derived from his own sources. Besides the relationship b
etween Luke and the other †synoptic Gospels, there may also be some kind of relationship between Luke and John’s Gospel, written later. For example, only Luke and John mention the sisters Martha and Mary, Peter’s running to inspect the empty tomb, and Jesus’ resurrection appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem on the evening of Easter.
Acts. Luke is the only evangelist who provides a sequel to his Gospel—namely, the Acts of the Apostles. A common theological vision unifies the two works. Numerous parallels between them show that Luke presents the life of Jesus as the model for the life of the early Church, especially the lives of Peter and Paul. Moreover, passages in Acts may at times clarify or illustrate passages in Luke. For example, the Gospel’s emphasis on God’s salvation extending to the Gentiles (2:32; 24:47) becomes a reality through the apostles’ mission in Acts (Acts 1:8; 11:18; 28:28).
Paul’s Letters. Because Luke was Paul’s coworker, it can also be helpful to consider the possible relationship of his Gospel to some of Paul’s letters. One example that comes to mind is Luke’s account of the institution of the Eucharist (Luke 22:19–20),24 which is more similar to Paul’s account (1 Cor 11:23–25) than to those in Matthew and Mark. Moreover, with regard to their theology, some recent studies have emphasized what Luke and Paul share in common—for example, with regard to their understanding of Jesus as Lord and of justification.25
Old Testament. Luke’s Gospel highlights that in Jesus the promises made in the Old Testament have come to fulfillment (18:31; 24:44), thus showing the continuity in God’s plan of salvation. At times, this fulfillment is indicated by an explicit citation of an Old Testament passage (22:37, quoting Isa 53:12). However, many times Luke shows the fulfillment of the Old Testament by means of allusions (7:15, alluding to 1 Kings 17:23) and †typology. With the latter technique, he compares Old Testament figures like Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4:25–27) to Jesus, showing that Jesus’ deeds are similar to but greater than those of his forerunners (7:1–17).
Theological Teachings and Themes
Among the theological teachings and themes of Luke are the following: the fulfillment in Jesus of God’s plan of salvation announced in Scripture (4:18–21); the extension of the message of salvation to the Gentiles (7:1–10); the role of the Holy Spirit in disciples’ lives (11:13; 12:12); the proclamation of good news to the poor and marginalized (4:18; 6:20); the prominence of women disciples (8:2–3), including Jesus’ mother, Mary (1:26–56; 2:1–52); the recurrence of meal scenes (e.g., 14:1–24), which may point to the Eucharist (24:30–35) and the kingdom banquet (22:30); and the importance of the Jerusalem temple (1:9; 24:53).26