We begin this morning a massive undertaking. As the Lord wills and enables, we will progress verse-by-verse through this, the longest of the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.[1] By the time we finish, your preacher shall probably be eligible to retire, your children or grandchildren eligible to vote, and your patience, I suspect, sorely tested. If it required seven years to complete Matthew, we can only guess how long Luke will require.

The Greek title of this work is simply kata Loukan, “according to Luke,” and is not a part of the original text. The gospel itself is anonymous and provides no clues of its authorship. The tradition that Luke is the author of Luke and Acts dates to the first half of the second century and is “unequivocal,” says Marshall.[2] There are no rival candidates for authorship from the early centuries. Luke is probably a contraction of Lucilius. According to Jerome (c.347–420), translator of the Latin Vulgate, he was born at Antioch. Tradition identifies him as a well-educated Gentile proselyte to Judaism, who then was converted to Christianity under the ministry of the Apostle Paul. If so, he was the only New Testament writer who was not a Jew. He was Paul’s traveling companion after coming into Macedonia (Acts 16:10, where the first “we” reference is found), and is called by the Apostle “the beloved physician” (Col 4:14). Over the years commentators have noted the use of medical terminology in Luke and Acts, long thought to support Lucian authorship. He is the only gospel writer to pen a sequel, the book of Acts, making him the major author of the New Testament. According to Jerome, Luke died when he was 84 years old and was never married.

When did he write? There are two suggested dates: one in the early sixties, the other towards the end of the first century, the typical suggestion being around 80 A.D. But the absence of any interest in the fall of Jerusalem in Acts suggests that Luke and Acts may have been written before 70 A.D. The place of writing is uncertain, though Achaia (Greece), Rome, Antioch, and Caesarea all have been suggested.

Why did he write? Thankfully he tells us in his first four verses. Luke wrote that the church might have a reliable and comprehensive account of the life of Christ. We now will explore his aims.

Reliable

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us (Lk 1:1)

It would appear that there were a number of documents circulating in the early church that purported to present portions of the life of Christ. Luke doesn’t disparage those documents. Indeed he seems to build upon them, organizing the material they present and confirming their reliability. He writes his introduction skillfully, in a style reminiscent of classical Greek.[3] This leads Marshall to say that Luke wrote in particular for “an urban church community in the Hellenistic world.”[4] He means to “compile,” to “draw up” and record, an “account” (diēgēsis), or “narrative” (ESV), from which we get our English word “digest” (through the Latin digesta). He may be intending to contrast his written effort with the existing oral tradition.[5] He intends to write of “things accomplished,” that is, of the things Jesus said and did.

First, that it might be reliable, it is to be written. One cannot “compile” an oral tradition. Luke’s aim is to record “an account,” even as others had sought to do so. “It seemed fitting for me as well,” he says. He intends “to write it out” (v 3) that Theophilus might have “the exact truth” (v 4). Oral traditions, though faithfully passed on in the ancient world, are not and cannot be as reliable as written sources. Luke proposes to write down the stories of Jesus and confirm their accuracy. The church has been right to refuse to grant unwritten traditions the authority it recognizes in Scripture, however ancient those traditions might be. Implicit in Luke’s words is the recognition that oral traditions lack the reliability that is necessary for normative sources of truth. Teaching must be written down for it to be perpetually reliable and authoritative. The church’s perspective, as summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith, has been that God not only reveals His will to His people, but authorizes “for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary” (Westminster Confession of Faith, I.1., my emphasis). Likewise, Matthew Henry speaks of writing as “the surest way of conveyance to the ages to come.”

Reliability is what we have in our written sources. Textual scholars have fragments of New Testament Scripture that date to the late first and early second centuries. Textual science confirms the extraordinary accuracy of our current texts, where aside from typically trivial and slight textual variations, we can be sure that we have Scripture as it was written, uncorrupted by copyist errors or the alterations of enemies or even well-meaning friends. If one wants to claim reasons for one’s skepticism, textual unreliability will have to be dropped from the list. Luke’s Gospel, and the whole New Testament, are reliable, accurate, written sources of the knowledge of Jesus.[6]

Second, that it might be reliable, Luke’s Gospel is to be based on eyewitnesses’ testimony.

just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us (Lk 1:2)

Luke went back to “those who were from the beginning,” that is, to Jesus’ original disciples, who were “eyewitnesses,” and “servants of the word,”[7] and so were faithful and trustworthy. These reliable sources “handed down” (paradidōmi) their records and traditions to Luke. They spoke of the things they saw and heard (Acts 4:20). The Apostles Peter (2 Pet 1:16ff) and John (1 Jn 1:1-3) similarly are emphatic that they did not make things up, or “follow cleverly devised tales,” but were eyewitnesses of what they wrote, and ear-witnesses and touch-witnesses as well.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also . . . (1 Jn 1:1, 3a)

The Apostles bore witness to what they had personally “seen,” “heard,” and “handled.” “Christianity is a religion built upon facts,” says J. C. Ryle.[8] Luke continues the theme of reliability in verse 3:

it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus (Lk 1:3)

“It seemed fitting,” Luke says, to write his own account of the gospel. The writers of Scripture were moved by the Holy Spirit as reasonable beings, not as “mere machine(s),” as Henry puts it. Luke, he says, was moved “not only to the writing but in the writing of it.” The Holy Spirit made use of Luke’s scholarly gifts. He “investigated” or “tracked down”[9] his sources “carefully.” He did this “from the beginning” of his work.[10] He then wrote it out for Theophilus. Theophilus may or may not be an actual person. His name means “friend of God” or “lover of God,” and it may be that to all such lovers of God Luke is commending his gospel. On the other hand, he may be a particular person. Given that Luke gives him the title that the Apostle Paul gives to Festus the governor, “most excellent,” it may be that he is a high official of some sort (Acts 26:25). It “probably indicates a person of rank,” says Morris.[11] Tradition says that he, like Luke, was from Antioch.

Luke underscores his reason for writing his carefully researched gospel in verse 4:

so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Lk 1:4)

His aim is that Theophilus, and we with him, should know the “exact truth,” a word (aspháleia) which signifies firmness (Acts 5:23) or “safety, security” (1 Thess 5:3). From its root we get our word “asphalt.” It is that which is solid, therefore certain or reliable (Acts 2:36; 21:34; 22:30; 25:26). Theophilus already had been “taught” (katēcheō), from which we get our word “catechize.” Luke writes that Theophilus might know things already taught more accurately and more deeply. His words imply that Theophilus and we all should press on “to know not only what we believe but why we believe it,” says Henry. Luke’s goal is both to teach Christians and to evangelize the lost on the basis of a reliable gospel.

Luke’s account of the gospel, he is telling us, is not corrupted by fabrications. I’ve looked into it, Luke is saying. I went back to the eyewitnesses, plural, there were many of them (cf. 1 Cor 15:1ff). They “handed down” to us their accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching. I “investigated carefully.” We can “know the exact truth” about Jesus. One may choose to reject Jesus, but that rejection should not be on the basis of alleged faulty sources.

Luke and the New Testament writers are reliable witnesses. The Jesus of the gospels is the Jesus of history. Count on it. We may reject Him because we don’t want to change our lifestyle, or don’t want to give up our idols and lusts and false gods, or we don’t want to be ruled by another, or because we think we’re okay just as we are. Just don’t reject Jesus because we think Luke, as he provides a window into the process of inspiration and the other New Testament documents, is unreliable. These documents are divinely guided, trustworthy, and confront us with Jesus as He truly was and is. This is what Luke wants us to know.[12]

Comprehensive

Luke also aims to provide a comprehensive account of Jesus’ life. He considered “everything” (v 3). He then wrote an “orderly account” (v 3, ESV), from which nothing necessary was omitted. Luke is concerned to provide not only a reliable, but a complete account of the story of Jesus for the sake of people removed from his ministry by both time and space. “Of all the Evangelists he is the most conscious of writing as a historian,” observes I. H. Marshall.[13] His concern for comprehensiveness can be seen in his introduction to Acts of the Apostles, also addressed to Theophilus. He describes there his gospel as recording “all that Jesus began to do and teach,” the implication being that Acts itself is about “all” that Jesus continued to do and teach through His Apostles (Acts 1:1). “All” was recorded in his “accounts.” This doesn’t mean that he includes absolutely everything that Jesus said and did, for as the Apostle John said, “the whole world could not contain the books that would be necessary” (Jn 21:25). What he does provide is comprehensive in the sense that it is undistorted by omissions. Half-truths presented as whole truths are often complete untruths. Luke is careful to include everything that is necessary to have a comprehensive and accurate picture of Jesus’ life. William Barclay tells the story of the great Scottish theologian, James Denney (1856–1917), being asked if he could recommend a good life of Christ. He answered, “Have you tried the one that Luke wrote?”[14] Luke’s, indeed, is good!

Luke says he writes “an account of the things accomplished among us . . . in consecutive order” (1:1,3). The word translated “consecutive order” (kathexēs) can mean chronological order, but here probably indicates “in an orderly manner,”[15] or a “logical and artistic arrangement”[16] as opposed to a random collection of disconnected sayings and events. His arrangement is chronological, though not woodenly such, and it is thematic, though along chronological lines. His pursuit of comprehensiveness led him to include much that is not found elsewhere. Only Luke provides the background to the birth of John the Baptist (Lk 1:5-25), the angel’s announcement to Mary (1:26-38), the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth (1:39-45), the Magnificat (1:46-56), the birth of John and Zacharias’ prophesy (1:57-80), the announcement to the shepherds (2:1-20), the presentation of Jesus in the temple (2:21-24),  the Song of Simeon (2:25-35), and the story of Anna (2:26-38), the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 (2:38-52), all in the first two chapters. Only Luke contains the story of Mary and Martha (10:28-42), of Zaccheus (Lk 19:2-10), of the penitent thief (23:39-43), of the walk to Emmaus (24:13-35), and the parables of the Good Samaritan, Pharisee and the Publican, the Rich Man & Lazarus, and the Prodigal Son, among others (Lk 10:30-37; 18:9-14; 16:19-31; 15:11-32).

It may be helpful to contrast Luke’s gospel with the others in order to highlight its distinctiveness. Luke is one of three “synoptic” gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called “synoptic” (syn=same; optic=eye) because they present the life from the same basic point of view. They can be set side-by-side, their similar accounts of the words and works of Jesus being suitable for parallel study. They have been called synoptic since designated as such by the German scholar J. J. Griesbach in 1774. John’s gospel has little content that parallels the synoptics, hence the skeptic’s pejorative “bolt from the Johannine blue,” and consequently is often treated separately.

Each gospel has distinctive themes and content that it highlights. It has been traditional to associate each gospel with a symbol. Mark’s emblem is a man, as he emphasizes the humanity of Christ. The emblem of Matthew is a lion. He writes as a Jew for Jews, presenting Jesus as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Messiah, the One predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament. The emblem of John is the eagle. John soars to theological heights higher than the others. Only in John do we learn that Jesus is the bread of life, the resurrection and the life, the way, truth, and the life. Only in John does Jesus say, “I and the Father are one” and “to see me is to see the Father” (Jn 10:30; 14:9). The emblem of Luke is the calf, an animal for sacrifice. Luke presents Jesus as a sacrifice for the sin of the world. The theme of the cross dominates Luke, particularly beginning in 9:51 when the journey to Jerusalem begins. That journey takes up the next ten chapters (through 19:35), culminating with Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem, His arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection (through 24:53). Another author has said that the keynote in Matthew is royalty, in Mark it is power, and in Luke it is love, love centered in the events of the cross. Luke, like his traveling companion the Apostle Paul, is determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). There are other important themes, in addition to the cross, yet all in connection with the cross and revolving around the cross, that we may identify.

As to the distinctive theme of Luke: first, the gospel is universal. It is for everyone. Luke highlights Jesus’ concern for the various outcasts of the first century world. His gospel is for those who are the least likely candidates for salvation, for the “lost,” whom He came to “seek and to save” (19:10). This includes the Samaritans (9:51-59; 10:30-37; 17:11-19), the Gentiles (4:25-27), and the poor (2:24; 4:18; 6:20,30; 7:22; 16:19-31; 14:11-13,21). His is the “gospel of the underdog,” as some have said. It includes women, such as Mary, Elizabeth, and Anna, Mary and Martha (10:38-42), Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Susanna (8:2ff), and a number of women he doesn’t name (7:11f; 7:37ff; 13:11; 21:1-4; 23:27ff; see also in parables [15:8ff, 18:1ff]). “In the first century women were kept very much in their place. But Luke sees them as objects of God’s love and he writes about many of them,” observes Marshall.[17] It includes children (through the infancy stories), and the disreputable, “tax collectors and sinners” (15:1), as in Zaccheus (19:7), the feast at Levi’s (5:30), the sinful woman (7:36-50), and the prodigal son (15:1ff). If Mark emphasizes the human Jesus, Luke stresses the humanitarian Jesus. No matter who I am, or what I’ve done, or where I’ve been, this gospel is for me. The gospel is for all types, and all the world.

Second, the gospel is supernatural. Luke gives emphasis to the Holy Spirit and to prayer. The Holy Spirit is referenced in connection with John the Baptist (1:15), Elizabeth and Zacharias (1:41,67), Simeon (2:25-27), Jesus’ conception (1:35), Jesus’ ministry (3:16), Jesus’ baptism (3:72), His wilderness days (4:1), His ministry in Galilee (4:14), Jesus’ joy (10:21), and so on. Dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit is emphasized throughout.

In keeping with this, the theme of prayer is highlighted. At every great moment in Jesus’ life – before His baptism (3:21), his first encounter with the Pharisees (5:16), choosing of the twelve (6:12), before His first prediction of His death (9:18), at the Transfiguration (9:29), in the Garden of Gethsemane (22:40ff), and on the cross (23:40) – Jesus prays. In addition, only Luke tells us of Jesus’ promise to pray for Peter (22:32). The four gospels record fifteen of Jesus’ prayers. Eleven of the fifteen are found in Luke. Seven of these are found only in Luke. Luke shows “Jesus at prayer before each great crisis of His life,” says Morris.[18] Only Luke records the parables of the Friend at Midnight (11:5-13) and the Unjust Judge (18:1-8). Prayer is a prominent theme (cf. 1:16; 11:9-13).

This dependence upon the Holy Spirit and prayer has everything to say about how we go about living the Christian life and doing ministry. It is as we pray that the Holy Spirit moves. It is as we pray that the kingdom of God moves forward. It is as we pray that souls are saved and saints sanctified. Luke continues this theme in Acts, where again, as the people of God are praying the Holy Spirit is moving and the kingdom of God is moving forward. Pentecost, for example, is born in a prayer meeting (Acts 1:14,24; 2:1ff). The Apostle Paul and Barnabas are set apart for the First Missionary Journey as the Antioch church prayed (Acts 13:3), and so on (Acts 2:42; 6:4,6; 8:15; 9:11,40; 10:4,9,31; 12:5,12; 14:25; 16:25; 20:36; 21:5; 22:17; 28:5). Prayer “accomplishes much” (Jas 4:16).

Third, the gospel is good news and a cause of rejoicing. The angels in Luke 2:10 give to the gospels their title. “I bring to you good tidings” (KJV) or “good news,” euanggelizomai, gospel, as foretold by the prophet Isaiah (52:7; 61:1; cf. Lk 1:18). Gospel is an old Saxon word, as Henry explains, God’s spell, or word. It is His good word and therefore an occasion of “great joy” (2:10). The shepherds see the infant Christ and depart “glorifying and praising God” (2:20). Luke provides us with four hymns of praise found nowhere else, still known widely today by their Latin names and still widely used by the church: Mary’s Magnificat (1:40-55); Zacharias’ Benedictus (1:68-79); the angel’s Gloria in Excelsis (2:14); and Simeon’s Nunc Dimittis (2:29-32). Luke begins (1:14) and ends with praise:

And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple, praising God. (Lk 24:52,53)

“Luke’s is a singing gospel,” says Morris.[19] “Let those refuse to sing that never knew our God,” wrote Isaac Watts, “but children of the heavenly king may speak their joys abroad.”[20] Indeed we may. We “rejoice always” (Phil 4:4; 1 Thess 4:16). We “in everything give thanks” (1 Thess 4:18). Luke shows us why our lips are filled with the praises of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. May such praises ring forth as we devote ourselves to the study of Luke’s gospel in the years ahead.