Why Luke? Well, on a personal note, over the past year God has spoken rather clearly and palpably to me through Luke about the cost of discipleship and surrendering all to him, especially in regard to starting this church plant.
Furthermore, a Gospel is a good place for a new church to start and get grounded in the historical person and work of Jesus our Lord (and many newly planted churches do so). The New Testament tells us that as the church, Jesus Christ is our Head of whom we are his Body, our Groom to whom we are engaged as his Bride, and our living Cornerstone on which we are being built as his House/Temple (e.g. Colossians 1; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 2). In John 15 Jesus tells us that he is the Vine and we are the branches and so apart from him we can do… nothing. Without being rooted in Christ we will never become a local church, a fresh work of God in the world. (Of course, each book of the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments points to Jesus to one degree or another as Jesus himself says in Luke 24. But I’m sure you can see why a Gospel is a prime place to start.)
‘Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.’ (Colossians 2:6-7, English Standard Version)
Also, I should note that the Gospel of Luke is volume 1 of his epic two-part work, the Book of Acts being volume 2. (It may surprise you to learn that Luke in his epic ‘Luke-Acts’ wrote more of the N.T. than any other writer, even Paul.) Acts moves into the birth and growth of the church, which is also a good place for a new church to start and I would love it if we were able to go on into it next year when we’ve finished the Gospel. (We’ll see!)
1:1
Introductions were also important in ancient writings, so we should pay careful attention to what Luke tells us he is trying to accomplish in this book. Doing so will set us up for a good and fruitful reading of his work.
We first learn that ‘many have undertaken’ this task before Luke – he is in a tradition. He acknowledges it, draws from it, and builds on it his own unique contribution. Books of the Bible never come ‘out of nowhere’. They always find their place in an ancient, ongoing, communal, providential flow of unfolding ‘Salvation Narrative’.
Note: ‘“many” here follows a widespread practice both in oral and in written beginnings, where “many” is used for its rhetorical effect without necessarily implying “a great number.”’ (Green, p. 38. See ‘Works Cited’ at the end of this post.) And it wouldn’t have taken more than a handful of written works about Jesus to count as ‘many’ in a time and culture where books and writing were comparatively scarce measured by today’s output and availability.
Luke uses the word ‘accomplished’ (ESV; but ‘fulfilled’ is a better translation) to very strategically signal one of his main themes. (I don’t want to over-anticipate the themes Luke will unfold in his own good time, but at the same time that’s part of good biblical interpretation: to see each part in light of the whole.) He uses terms like ‘fulfilled’ again and again throughout Luke-Acts to rather quietly but steadily imply God’s sovereign and holy ‘control’ or ‘providence’ or ‘plan’ for the history of the world. Luke’s God is not aloof or indifferent, but very active and involved in his creation. Nor is Luke’s God caught by surprise and wondering what he’ll do next, wishing he’d thought all this through a bit better.
‘Luke’s words, “that have been fulfilled among us,” indicate his concern with how the events narrated in the Gospel and Acts are understood as divine affairs. This indicates, first, that these events are incomplete in themselves and must be understood in relation to a wider interpretive framework… In his opening phrase, Luke signals his understanding that the events he will narrate are related to God’s purpose, evident in the OT and the history of God’s people, as its culmination. This same affirmation is continued throughout the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, where Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and the shape and progress of the Christian mission are understood as manifestations of God’s will… Luke is… concerned to affirm that in these events God’s purpose is realized. But this is already to mention, secondly, that this modifier “have been fulfilled” suggests God as its unspoken subject. These are events by which God accomplishes his purpose.’ (Green, p. 39)
Now, on the one hand that ‘God has a plan’ may strike us as a bit twee or sentimental, like something printed on a Christian Bookstore poster or knick-knack. But when the Bible talks about God’s plans and purposes (which it talks about A LOT in both Testaments), it is not like this at all. It is a profound, deep, wide, wondrous, glorious concept about God’s character and ways with the world he created.
On the other hand we may struggle with the idea of a ‘powerful’ God in ‘control’ of all things, because the only ‘absolute control’ or power we’ve seen in this world tends to be oppressive and turns people into insignificant automatons. But again, this is not the Bible’s picture at all. Luke will again and again be inviting us into this ongoing divine-human narrative to participate with God and his ways with the world he created. He sovereignly made us in his own image to be able to respond to him and cooperate with him and his Spirit is ever drawing us by his grace to surrender and obey.
We must grasp and believe that God’s sovereignty and his plan for the world are things that are good… wise… creative… beautiful. (Think through each one of those words carefully in relation to God’s ‘control’ of his creation.) God is always going to be good and holy and just and loving in all his ways, but this does not mean he will not surprise us in his divinely ingenious creativity (think of the cross!). Luke wants us to eventually see that God is a purposeful God working out his plans for his glory. And that means God is working for our deepest, lasting joy, for God invites us into participation in his plan and ways and glory for eternity.
And as the quote above says, Luke is also here giving us a theistic Old Testament (thus, ‘Yahwistic’ as the Bible scholars say) framework for interpreting the ‘bare facts’ of Jesus he records from history. We are not meant to just investigate and figure all this out strictly on our own but in prayerful dependence on God and in light of the whole revelation he has given us. (Incidentally, Paul and Luke are a great tag-team in terms of this framework of God’s purposes being fulfilled—Paul usually argues from and for this perspective by direct reference and quotation of O.T. Scripture in his letters whereas Luke narrates this perspective usually through more indirect allusions and echoes to the O.T.)
These things were fulfilled ‘among us’, Luke says. Since Luke is clearly not one of the first generation of disciples who physically saw and walked with Jesus and yet considers himself an immediate part of that community, he shows that all subsequent believers are included in the ‘us’ among whom Jesus was incarnated and fulfilled the purposes of God. ‘Luke has in mind the Christian community, with its organic unity across generations’ (Green, p. 40).
1:2
In this next phrase of his long opening sentence, Luke shows the firsthand oral tradition these written narratives of his predecessors were based on:
Words like ‘eyewitnesses’ and related phrases are used a number of times in the N.T. and such terminology does indeed tell us that the authors intend to be recording history as witnessed by firsthand observers of the events themselves.
‘Luke’s stress here is the credibility of the sources, since they saw firsthand what has been described in the tradition. Luke makes a key point—the tradition about Jesus had roots in the experience of those who preached about him. These witnesses were with Jesus from the beginning.’ (Bock, 31)
We here see that there are irreducibly reasonable and evidential elements to the Christian faith and discipleship to Jesus. Reason and faith are not antithetical to each other in the Bible (whatever popular critics may say), nor are they confused with each other either. It’s all part of being human in the image of God and having our humanity redeemed by Christ. God made us to think and use logic on the one hand as well as experience and feel and commit and step out in faith that surpasses mere human logic on the other hand. (We’ll see more about this in v. 4.)
Among other concerns, Luke does indeed want us to be assured by his writings that our faith is grounded in a reliable telling of real history. For the record, I have studied some of the historical evidences for the faith and I do find them very credible, plausible, and persuasive and it has been very helpful for me to be somewhat familiar with this historical case in the face of sceptical attacks on Christianity and in times of my own questions or doubts. (See, for example, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig Blomberg, revised edition, IVP, 2010.)
Luke calls his sources eyewitnesses, but he also adds that they were ‘ministers of the word’ and so signals that this is more than just an ‘unbiased’, ‘objective’ testimony. (It is often pointed out that ‘biased’ people cans sometimes be the people most concerned to accurately preserve historical accounts – for example, holocaust survivors. Furthermore, it has been established that no history writing is unbiased because historians have to choose what they will and will not record from the infinite events of history, and from what angle. They do so on the basis of values and interests they have before they research and write. This simple fact does not at all call into question the historian’s ability or willingness to tell the truth fairly from an informed awareness of the facts. In that sense, what the Gospel writers in the N.T. do is no different than any modern historian. Each historian’s reliability, ancient or modern, must be judged on criteria other than whether they were ‘involved’ in the events they record or have a particular ‘point’ to make – criteria such as their soundness of mind evidenced in their existing writings, the corroboration of their records with other known facts, the level of expertise and accuracy displayed in their writings, their ability to be in touch with primary sources, and characteristics such as these.)
Luke shows us that the eyewitnesses relaying this tradition of information consider themselves to be Spirit-empowered servants of God who are handing on an inspired message of what God has done in history. They are not autonomous but are dependent on God’s power and authority to commission and enable them to proclaim this message. While this Gospel is purporting to be a true, reliable, historical account, it is a thoroughly and self-consciously theistic narrative report. (This too has persuasive power for me. When you think about it, if God is real and has intervened in this world, then you wouldn’t expect that the message is going to come to us strictly through human intellectual investigation and communication alone with all its room for gross error, but that God himself is going to be involved ensuring the message is faithfully and powerfully made known, causing people to enter into the life he gives through this good news.)
Through the abiding Holy Spirit we are still ministering out this word today and in each generation. I, for example, like Luke, am not an eyewitness, but I get to pass this word and testimony on to others in my place and time. (The ‘triumph’ of the spread of God’s ‘word’, the gospel of Jesus, is another major theme throughout Luke-Acts.)
1:3
Luke quietly introduces himself through the phrase ‘it seemed good to me also’. Early church tradition unanimously cites Luke, whom Paul calls a ‘beloved physician’ in Colossians 4:14. (Paul also mentions Luke as his steadfast companion in 2 Timothy 4:11 and Philemon 1:24). The writer of Luke-Acts was also a companion of Paul on some of his travels in Acts (see the ‘we’ passages from Acts 16:11 onward). We can tell from his writing style (eloquent Greek and technical knowledge) as well as his well-attested skill at accurately knowing the socio-political situation he records that ‘He was an educated and cultured man, the first real historian to write about Jesus’ (Wright, p. xii).
In his claim that he decided, ‘having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you’ Luke is not only claiming to write history but to do so accurately, responsibly, and skilfully—and he makes good on his claim as scholars have confirmed, both literarily and historically. Though he was not himself an eyewitness, he travelled and took time to interview those who were and to get in touch with the oral and written traditions about Jesus. He has personally gotten involved in this narrative and taken time to really get to know the facts of the case, investigating and pondering and finding a fresh rendering of the story (as God guides him). He spent much time with his subject and thought long and deep about it.
All that effort shows in his ‘orderly account’ – the carefully crafted literary work that Luke has produced, a fresh and highly engaging portrait of Jesus that is one of the great pieces of world literature (just think of such famous scenes as the ‘Christmas’ narrative and the parable of the good Samaritan or the prodigal son).
This ‘orderly account’ is the same word as ‘narrative’ in v. 1 – unlike N.T. letters, which teach us theology (truth and knowledge about God and his ways and our relationship to him) through ‘propositional’ argument, this work teaches us theology through story, through an unfolding plot full of characterisation and drama. (Of course, the letters argue out of the biblical narrative and are full of imagination, imagery, and drama – and the Gospels are very much persuasive ‘arguments’ that contain propositional elements.)
This is what some have called ‘narrative theology’ (though we don’t pit this against more propositional theology as some do). This makes for a very interesting approach to learning about just who Jesus is:
'Luke builds his Christology from the earth up... The Gospel starts its portrait of Jesus in categories that are familiar to Luke's readers and then moves into deeper and more elevated aspects as the story unfolds, much as a person experiences Jesus. This allows readers to grow in their understanding of who Jesus is. Luke makes his case for Jesus a step at a time... Luke tells the story in a "seeker-friendly" way. He starts with descriptions of Jesus that reveal him to be a teacher, prophet and king--all categories we understand. Only as the story progresses and deepens does it become obvious that Jesus is more than any of these categories. Hearing or reading the story one step at a time, just as it was written, allows a person to grow gradually in his or her understanding and appreciation of Jesus. Too often we try to tell the story all at once and thereby overwhelm some who are just getting to know Jesus. Luke gently takes us on the journey one step at a time. There are hints of the finish, but he reveals them in such a way that the joy of discovering Jesus resembles that of finding a lost treasure.' (Bock, pp. 21-23)
‘For Luke, “narrative” is proclamation. Luke has in mind the use of history to preach, to set forth a persuasive interpretation of God’s work in Jesus and the early church, and the medium of that proclamation is the narrative account whose “order” is crucial for our understanding of that interpretation.’ (Green, p. 38)
And it should be noted that Luke’s ‘order’ is not necessarily of a chronological nature, but is more literary-artistic-theological, to paint a particular, innovative, but faithful portrait of Jesus:
‘There is a geographic flow to the order: Galilee through Samaria to Jerusalem. But above all, the order seems to be redemptive-historical. Luke is concerned to trace the progress of God’s redeeming work in Jesus, especially by highlighting his teaching and the rise of opposition to him. The emphasis on promise-fulfilment also suggests this sort of order. The Gospel is roughly chronological, but not precisely so. More important to Luke is revealing how God worked through Jesus. This is “sacred history” revealing the order of God’s plan.’ (Bock, p. 33)
‘Theophilus’ is probably a believer, perhaps a fellow-Gentile with Luke, and probably aristocratic and influential.
While we’ll see in the next verse that Luke is addressing pastoral concerns for Theophilus in particular, the very nature of this preface indicates that Luke is also intentionally locating his work in the class of world literature ultimately for a wider audience than this one man: ‘Although this narrative is directed toward Theophilus by Luke, the prologue-form itself indicates that it is being released for wider public dissemination’ (Green, p. 35). ‘Luke knows of other writings that have begun the task of putting it down on paper, but he has a wider audience in mind, an educated, intelligent, enquiring public’ (Wright, p. 3).
1:4
The word ‘certainty’ (or ‘truth’ in other translations) potentially takes us into concerns of ‘epistemology’, which is a discipline of philosophy that seeks to construct a theory of knowledge: how we know things. Is this the Cartesian ‘indubitable’ rational certainty of the Enlightenment and Modernism that I’ve been studying in philosophy, that starts with ourselves and only ourselves, where we intellectually ‘pull ourselves up by the bootstraps’ and ‘prove’ the reality of our own existence and God and the soul and so on? These are deep epistemological waters and I’m certainly out of my depth in them, but I think I can responsibly offer some provisional thoughts (and I’m happy to discuss this with anyone outside of Sunday mornings too). This statement of Luke’s predates Descartes by 1500 years or so, so it seems to me safe to assume his concern is of a somewhat different order (though it no doubt has some overlap).
Luke indicates to Theophilus that this certainty is ‘concerning the things you have been taught’. So this work in many ways is a Gospel of reassurance for uncertain or doubting believers. Theophilus may have been a fellow Gentile who was wondering, in light of the overall Jewish rejection of Jesus and the Christian community, whether he really had a place in the people of God or not. He may have been feeling the pressure of persecution for Christians and wondered whether it was a movement truly inaugurated, blessed, and guided by God or not. You see, his concerns were not merely historical – did these events take place or not – but more so about whether the Christian faith was true in a more ‘existential’ sense: is this God’s way of salvation or not?
In relation to the question of Theophilus being a Gentile, it is significant that Luke is apparently the only Outsider (non-Jew) author in the N.T. He thereby brings a ‘pluralistic’ and ‘inclusive’ perspective, which is very relevant to our time and place (and is actually central to the gospel in any time and place). (Of course, we’re not talking about a pluralistic perspective that is relativistic, undermining all claims to ‘objective’ or ‘absolute’ truth, but rather an all-embracing, welcoming sort of truth or orthodoxy that is aware of and takes into account the diversity of ethnicities and cultures in the earth. These are evident interests throughout his two-volume work. Here again we encounter a major theme for Luke: concern for outsiders, outcasts, and the marginalized. It’s actually rather amazing that an outsider wrote a book of sacred Scripture at all! This is an example of God’s unpredictable creativity, here manifested in the history of the inspiration and canonisation of the Scriptures.
When we realise this we can see that Luke’s concern and project, though he is an excellent historian, is larger than a merely factual historical apologetic. ‘Theophilus has at least some familiarity with “the events that have been fulfilled among us,” but he requires additional instruction in order to know their truth. Luke writes to persuade Theophilus to embrace their certainty.’ (Green, p. 45) There is probably a spectrum of people in the church, from closer to the centre right out to the frayed edges, who not unlike Theophilus may know of Jesus and the events surrounding him, but who need ‘additional instruction’ to enter more fully into the truth of the gospel. (And certainly we all need to be travelling toward that centre; none of us have arrived and now need no more theological/experiential journeying.)
‘“Certainty” or “truth,” in the Greek text, appears in the emphatic position as the final word of this long and involved sentence. It has been easy to find in this concept Luke’s affirmation of the historical veracity of his narrative. Luke’s terminology here suggests “the convincing nature of his presentation” or “the certainty of these things.” So, while the Christian message is inseparably tied to the historical events related to its origins and progression, and Luke must therefore necessarily be concerned with “what happened,” it is the question of interpretation that is vital for him. Luke wants Theophilus to be assured about what he has heard, that these events lead to “this” interpretation—that is, the interpretation Luke will present in his narrative.’ (Green, p. 45)
In light of his stated aim to assure Theophilus of the truth about Jesus, Luke’s work has been called ‘pastoral apologetics’: a fresh rendering of the person and work of Jesus and the birth and growth of the church that reassures believers that their faith in Christ is not misplaced or in vain by showing the holistic truth of the Christian faith through the theologically-shaped narration of the real-life story as it unfolded, highlighting how that history answers certain troubling questions – and how it is true, rational, good, and beautiful.
‘Luke himself raises the question of “truth” or “certainty”, and suggests that a primary ingredient that will lead to certainty for Theophilus is the order of the narrative. Luke’s purpose was apparently not to provide an historical foundation for the Christian message… For him, the narrative is not the basis of proclamation; rather, narration is proclamation. For Luke, an “orderly account” is concerned above all with persuasion. He has “ordered” the events of his narrative so as to bring out their significance, to persuade Theophilus—who is not so much concerned with the issue, Did it happen? as with the queries, What happened? and What does it all mean? By providing a more complete accounting of Jesus in his significance, Luke hopes to encourage active faith.’ (Green, p. 36)
So I do think Luke’s stated aims and intentions at the beginning of his Gospel urge us to expect that we will receive reassurance from reading and pondering his account. But can we do this passively, expecting the mere mental exposure to his Gospel to ‘magically’ assure us? No. If we listen rightly to his narrative we will see that we are being drawn in, being invited to participate, being provoked to respond.
This is how it is different from Cartesian or Modern or Humanistic dreams and projects of obtaining ‘certainty’. The kind of certainty about the Christian faith that Luke offers to help us obtain requires our whole-life response and involvement, not only our intellect. It admits from the start that we are not alone, that there is a Creator who has made us in his image for life-giving relationships and community with him first, and with others and our environment out of that Godward priority. It appears to be an invitation to a frankly theistic epistemology that requires us to ‘taste and see that the Lord is good’ through the narrative journey. It involves historical reliability and existential poignancy, both. We will use our minds, hearts, and wills to encounter God, if he is there. We will both ‘test’ the truth-claims of the Bible, and be tested by them.
But all in good time! There’s no ‘sales close’ here: sign on the dotted line today or you may miss your chance forever! I trust that the Lord is graciously taking you on a journey and will lead you faithfully to your destination and neither I nor yourself nor anyone else needs to manipulate that process. We each simply have to do our best with God’s help to faithfully respond to the light he is giving us in this moment.
‘All the care Luke gives to the task, as noted in his preface, is designed to reassure Theophilus, who has been taught on such matters previously. Whatever pressure this believer is under, he should be confident that God has moved to fulfil his plan through Jesus. Luke is carefully building on precedent to tell anew the story of Jesus. Like a pastor comforting a believer under siege by the world, so Luke wishes to encourage his readers. Theophilus may well be asking, “Is Christianity what I believed it to be, a religion sent from God?” Whether it is internal doubt, persecution or racial tension with Jews that has caused this question to be raised, Luke invites his reader to consider the story of Jesus again and know that these indeed were events that have been fulfilled among us.’ (Bock, p. 33)
Works Cited
Darrell L. Bock (1994), Luke, IVP
Joel B. Green (1997), The Gospel of Luke, Eerdmans
Tom Wright (2001), Luke for Everyone, SPCK
0 comments:
Post a Comment