The Gospel of Luke

Luke's account of the life and teaching of Jesus, together with its sequel in 'The Acts of the Apostles,' constitute an invaluable historical backbone to the New Testament.  Certain events in both books are dated in connection with what was taking place concurrently in the Roman world (e.g. Luke 2.1,2; 3.1; Acts 11.28; 18.2).  'The Acts' further provides a most useful framework into which (with a high degree of probability) we can fit the earlier letters of the Apostle Paul.

Luke's gospel is unique in several ways.  By virtually unanimous tradition, the writer was a Gentile (and if so, the only known non-Jewish writer of any part of scripture).  He was also a native of Antioch in Syria and a convert to Christianity long before he became Paul's travelling companion.  He is extremely self-effacing, and even in 'The Acts' his presence on certain journeys is only betrayed by the use of 'we' at various points in his narrative, instead of the usual 'they' (e.g. Acts 16.10; 27.1).

But Paul mentions him most appreciatively, in his letters, as his fellow-worker in preaching the gospel (Philemon 24), as 'our dear doctor, Luke' (Colossians 4.14 - The Translator's New Testament, British & Foreign Bible Society 1973), and finally just before his own execution: 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4.11).  How Paul must have valued his loyal friend's company in the last grim days of his imprisonment!

Both this gospel and 'The Acts' are addressed to an otherwise unknown recipient: 'most excellent Theophilus' (or, 'Excellency Theophilus,' as several modern versions render it) - a title indicating high office (Acts 23.26; 24.3; 26.25).  The name Theophilus means 'dear to God,' a most happy coincidence in that the matters which Luke has recorded are of the greatest interest to everyone belonging to God's family of believing Christians, a people very 'dear to Him.'

The third unique feature is the mention in Luke's introductory paragraph of other gospel accounts, with which he was, obviously acquainted (Luke 1.1,2).  Almost certainly he would have had access to Matthew and Mark's records, which he appears to have drawn on substantially in compiling his gospel.  The wording is often identical e.g. compare Luke 6.1-11 with Mark 3.1-6; 8.22-39 and Mark 4.35 with 5.20.  At the same time he has incorporated other material (parables, miracles and events in Jesus' life) which he had learned of, perhaps from his contacts with the Apostles when he visited Jerusalem (Acts 21.15-18).

No doubt he made good use of other sources too, in order to write his 'orderly account' of Jesus' earthly life and underline to Theophilus 'the certainty of the things you have been taught' (Luke 1.4 NIV).  This emphasis should be noted, for as a doctor, Luke would have been trained to carefully observe the symptoms, progress and outcome of various diseases.  This same attention to detail reveals itself in his writings.  For example it is only Luke who notes that it is the man's right hand that was withered, and that Malchus' right ear was healed (Luke 6.6; 22.50).

Even on the human level, therefore, Luke's words would have a strong claim to be reliable.  But above all this we have the Holy Spirit guiding this writer, like the others, 'into all truth' (John 16.13).  Paul set his seal on it, when in one sentence he quoted first from the Old Testament and then from this gospel, evidently regarding them both as having equal authority (1 Timothy 5.18, quoting Deuteronomy 25.4 and Luke 10.7).

If we compare the content of this gospel with that in Matthew and Mark, the most notable difference is the addition of two or three blocks of historical narrative not recorded elsewhere.  For example, the first two chapters tell us in detail of the circumstances surrounding the births of John the Baptist and of Jesus himself.  It also tells of the occasion when, during the Passover festival, the boy Jesus was found in the temple in deep discussion with the learned rabbis (Luke 2.41-51).  Did Luke learn these things direct from Mary?

Interestingly, these chapters form very close parallels with the earliest chapters of 1 Samuel.  For example it is worth comparing Luke 2.52 with 1 Samuel 2.26.  Both narratives are concerned with an old priest and a young child in the temple.  Subsequent sections of Luke's gospel reflect much other material in the books of Samuel and Kings, as cross-references will confirm.  It seems that the Spirit of God is quietly but clearly telling us that in Jesus we have the greatest of all the prophets and in particular the great antitype of the illustrious prophets Samuel, Elijah and Elisha.  As the crowd acknowledged after the raising of the widow's son at Nain: 'A great prophet has appeared among us' (Luke 7.16 NIV).

The most notable block of extra material, nearly nine chapters, begins after chapter 9 verse 50, and most of it consists of parables and discourses spoken by Jesus on his way up to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51; 13.22; 17.11).  This is recorded only by Luke.

On what must have been the last year of his three-year ministry (Luke 9.51), Jesus sent seventy disciples ahead of him to every town and place where he himself was about to go (Luke 10.1).  Then in a tremendous final-stage preaching campaign, he himself proceeded to cover the same ground.  He was doing his utmost to awaken in Jewish hearts the realisation that he, their promised Messiah, was now in their midst and that their national future and well being hung on whether they would accept or reject him.

It is important to note here that the seventy and the twelve before them were sent out by Jesus to preach the gospel (Luke 9.2-6; 10.9-11, i.e. the 'good news' of the coming kingdom of God on earth; Luke 4.43 RV).  At this stage they had no understanding of the sacrificial aspects of Christ's work (Luke 18.31-34).  What would self-styled 'evangelists' proclaim today if 'the cross' were omitted from their message?  Would they have anything left to preach?

The compassion of Jesus (which reflects that of God his Father), especially towards widows and the wayward, features very prominently in this gospel (Luke 7.12,13; 7.37-50; 18.3; 21.2).  Several parables in this central section make the point strongly, notably those of the Lost ('Prodigal') Son and of the Good Samaritan (Luke 15.11-32; 10.25-3).  In the latter parable, to take just this one out of so many delightful examples, we have a man (typical of mankind generally) 'going downhill' on his way to Jericho, a cursed idolatrous city (City of the moon goddess, cursed by Joshua - see Joshua 6.26).  He is attacked by robbers, stripped, beaten and left to die, comparable to our own frail mortal condition after the ravages of personal and inherited sin.

The Law of Moses, symbolised by priest and Levite, keeps its distance, ineffective because of human weakness (Cp. Romans 8.3; Hebrews 10.1-4).  Then the 'despised and rejected of (Jewish) men' (Isaiah 53.3; John 4.9; 8.48), the Samaritan, comes upon the scene, on his way up to the Holy City.  Significantly, this parable is in the section where Jesus is on his way up to Jerusalem.  Moved with compassion he binds up the victim's wounds, puts him on his own donkey and, gently supporting him, brings him to an inn to be cared for.

The next day he pays 'two pence' towards his keep, equivalent to the redemption money required for each person under Moses' law (Exodus 30.11-16; cp. Galatians 3.13).  Any extra expense would be met when he came again, yet another confirmation of the Redeemer's promise to return.  Thus Jesus is, above all others, the neighbour we are to love as ourselves (Luke 10.27, Leviticus 19.18).  His example of self-sacrifice and compassion towards others we are to imitate to the best of our ability (Ephesians 4.31 - 5.2).

This parable, again peculiar to Luke, is often quoted to prove that there is at death an immediate reward in heaven or a punishment with hell torments (Luke 16. 19-31).  In fact, it supports neither view!  Do 'disembodied spirits' have fingers and tongues, as depicted here?  And why is the original word for hell in Luke 16.23 'hades' i.e. the grave (in which Christ's soul was left for only three days - Acts 2.24-31) rather than the regular word 'Gehenna', the biblical term for the place appointed for the destruction of the wicked?

In any case, what crime had the rich man committed to suffer so, and what special virtue, apart from being poor, did Lazarus display to be rewarded with a place in 'Abraham's bosom'?  By comparing Scripture with Scripture we can obtain a clear and satisfying explanation to this parable, which is one of a series in which Jesus spoke out against Jewish claims of superiority over Gentiles.

It was the Jews who were rich - in their national inheritance of the Abrahamic promises (Romans 9.3-5; 11.17).  As a 'kingdom of priests, and an holy nation' (Exodus 19.6) they were (figuratively) dressed in royal purple and the 'fine linen' of God's righteousness (Cp. Revelation 3.18 and 19.8).  But they proved to be 'unjust stewards' of this divine favour, as a previous parable had demonstrated (Luke 16.1-13).  Their exclusiveness kept the 'leprous' Gentiles outside, like dogs, begging for the crumbs which dropped from so magnificent a feast.  Note how closely parallel the language at this point runs to that used by Jesus to the Syrophenician woman (Matthew 15.26,27).

What then did Jesus mean by 'Abraham's bosom,' in which Lazarus ultimately found refuge?  We have seen that the setting of the parable is feasting.  The simile is now continued, because it was indisputably at a feast (the 'Last Supper') that John, 'the disciple that Jesus loved,' reclined in the bosom of his Master (John 13.23-25).

The Jews have a longstanding tradition (based on Isaiah 25.6) that at Messiah's coming there will be a time of great rejoicing, which they call 'the Messianic Feast.'  Jesus clearly alludes to this in Luke 13.28-30.  He expressly says that people will come from all four quarters of the globe and take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but 'the sons of the kingdom,' (i.e. the Jews), will be thrown out' (cp. Matthew 8.11,12 RV).  The NIV rendering in Luke 13 brings out more clearly the fact that a feast is being promised.

Subsequent history confirms this interpretation of the parable.  By apostolic preaching 'a door of faith' was opened to Gentile believers on an equal footing with the Jewish Christians (Acts 11.18, 14.27 RV).  Many non-Jews throughout the Roman world and beyond made themselves fellow-heirs of the Abrahamic promises (Ephesians 2.12-19, 3.6).  They therefore became prospective guests in the 'feast of fat things' to be celebrated when Jesus returns to earth.

Yet what of the Jews?  While many individual Jews accepted Jesus' claims, as a nation they rejected him.  Forty years later the Romans overthrew their commonwealth and scattered them into all countries, where they have been persecuted and tormented for nearly two thousand years, just as Moses had foreseen (Deuteronomy 28.65-67).  Nationally they 'died' in AD 70, and it has been our privilege in the twentieth century to see the first steps of their 'resurrection' from this Gentile graveyard and their return to the land of their forefathers (Ezekiel 37.12,13).  This is a preparation for the time when the Spirit of God will be breathed into them, infusing them with a living faith in the Son of God whom their ancestors crucified (Ezekiel 36.27; Zechariah 12.10).

The words, which Jesus put into Abraham's mouth in the parable, are just as valid today:

'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead' (Luke 16.31 NIV).

John's account of a real Lazarus raised from the dead, and Jesus' own resurrection, show only too sadly the truth of this statement (John 12.9-11; Matthew 28.11-15).  How few today, even in the churches, really believe 'Moses and the Prophets'!  But for Jesus (Luke 19.46; 20.37; 20.17; 20.41-44 etc) and for Paul and the other Apostles (Acts 17.2,3; 24.14; 26.22,23) this Old Testament foundation was all-important and sufficient.

A practical example of how Jesus based his convictions on Moses and the Prophets will be found in the great discourse he gave to four of his disciples about the signs which would herald his return, and the end of the present age (Luke 21.5-36).  Matthew and Mark record the same prophecy (Matthew 24.5 to 25, Mark 13).  Jerusalem, Jesus said, would be besieged and taken, and her people scattered 'until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled' (Luke 21.24 RSV). He was speaking about the pre-ordained period during which, owing to the spiritual blindness of Israel, God would call a vast number of heirs to His kingdom from all nations.

Jesus then indicated two great signs of his coming again - both have dominated world politics during the half of the last century.  The first of these was the budding of the 'fig tree nation' (Luke 21.29-31) specifically Israel, as a previous parable had shown (Luke 13.6-9).  Secondly, there would be unprecedented distress of nations, in perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the waves, men fainting with fear as they contemplate what the future has in store for the world (Luke 21.25,26).  It is our generation that witnesses these signs which will also see their culmination in:

'... the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.' (Luke 21.27 cp. Daniel 7.13-14)

In the face of such terrible portents, the human reaction is 'let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die' (Isaiah 22.13; 1 Corinthians 15.32).  Jesus warns us to be on our guard against this folly.  Rather, we are to stay alert, and pray we may be permitted to escape all these things which must happen, peace conferences and pacts notwithstanding, and to 'stand' (i.e. be found approved) before the Son of man! (Luke 21.36; compare Ephesians 6.13).  This sober alertness is essential because everyone will be rewarded 'according to their deeds' (Matthew 16.27; Romans 2.6, compare Galatians 6.7,8) and a last-minute repentance is not an acceptable substitute for a life of dedication to God's service.  The following incident is no exception to this rule.

Again it is only Luke who records the remarkable conversation which took place between Jesus and one of two thieves who were being crucified with him (Luke 23.39-43).  Wrong inferences have been drawn from this account because readers have not paid proper attention to what was actually said.  The repentant thief had asked: 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom' (Luke 23.42 NIV).  Such a request demonstrated the man's firm conviction that Jesus would indeed return to earth in person and establish his kingdom here, as he had often promised (Luke 9.26; 12.35-40; 17.24-30; 18.8; 19.11-27 - and this is only the evidence in Luke's gospel!).

It is obvious too that this dying man was fully convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah in spite of all appearances to the contrary.  This was at a time when (apart from Jesus himself) not even the disciples retained any hope in the success of their Master's great mission.  The dying thief thus manifested a stupendous and unparalleled faith that both merited and received an unqualified response.  No so-called 'death-bed repentance' bears comparison with faith of this magnitude; it remains unique in history.

In this context the Lord's favourable reply suggests what in fact the Old Testament confirms, that his coming kingdom will be a veritable 'paradise'.  The word 'paradise' strictly means a beautiful, well-watered park or orchard, and was originally applied to the garden of Eden (Genesis 2.8 Septuagint).  The Hebrew word occurs only in Nehemiah 3.15; Ecclesiastes 2.5 and Song of Solomon 4.12.  The restored kingdom of Israel the nucleus of the future kingdom of God on earth will be 'paradise regained,' for so have God's prophets predicted (Isaiah 51.3).  Living permanently in it will be a new Adam (Jesus) and a new Eve (his collective bride, made up of all who have been faithful to him), exercising dominion over all the earth (1 Corinthians 15.45; 2 Corinthians 11.2,3; Ephesians 5.31,32; Hebrews 2.5-12; Revelation 2.7).

The one minor problem remaining is the use of the word 'today,' for it is clear that even Jesus himself did not enter his reward - any reward - on that day or the next.  For three days and nights he was in the grave of Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23.50-54; compare Matthew 12.40).  The difficulty vanishes once we realise that the punctuation depends on the decision (and religious prejudice) of the translators - the early Greek manuscripts did not have commas.  Put the comma after 'today' and all becomes plain. The thief had asked to be remembered when Jesus returned; the reply is:

'I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.' (Luke 23.43 NIV)

The thief did not have to wait until his resurrection for reassurance; he received it there and then (Contrast Joseph's disappointment - Genesis 40.14-23).

Once more we are (humanly speaking) indebted to Luke for this fascinating account of Jesus' appearance to two disciples very soon after his resurrection (Luke 24.13-35).  They were walking to this village, some seven miles from Jerusalem, feeling very sad and depressed.  A stranger joined them and induced them to voice their deep disappointment at what seemed to be the collapse of all they had hoped for (Luke 24.17).  The new-comer entranced them by his exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures, proving from these that it was essential that Israel's destined king should first of all 'suffer,'.  In other words he had become the sin-offering, the antitypical lamb to take away the sin of the world (Luke 24.26-46; John 1.29).

What fools they had been not to realise this!  How reluctant to believe all that the prophets had spoken! (Luke 24.25)  And then the stranger's identity was revealed to them as they sat down to a meal, and he vanished from their sight.  A little later he appeared again to the eleven disciples and told them that everything written about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms had to be fulfilled (Luke 24.44).

This last chapter of Luke's gospel ought to be compulsory reading for doubters, and especially for 'New Testament Christians' (those short-sighted people who deem the Old Testament to be of no great importance on doctrinal matters).  How transparently honest and convincing is this record of Christ's resurrection, the reality of his bodily presence among his disciples, even to the sharing of a meal with them (Luke 24.41-43; Acts 10.40,41).  How explicit is the support given by Jesus to the whole Old Testament as the firm foundation of the Christian hope!

And now, with these appearances of the risen Lord, the way was clear for the disciples to go out into all the world, to bear witness to the resurrection and to herald the great day of the Lord's return.  It is then that he will rule the earth in righteousness and reign over the house of Jacob for ever on the throne of his forefather David - just as the angel Gabriel had promised to Mary before his birth (Luke 1.30-33; Acts 3.18-21; 10.42; 17.30,31).