Luke
We owe to Luke a good deal of our information about Jesus. His first two chapters, for example, tell us almost all we know about the birth of John the Baptist and most of what we know about the birth and boyhood of Jesus. He alone tells us of the miraculous catch of fish and of its effect on Peter (Luke 5:1-11), the anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman (7:36-50), the women who helped Jesus (8:1-3), Jesus’ rejection by some Samaritans (9:51-56), the mission of the seventy (10:1-12, 17-20), Jesus’ visit with Martha and Mary (10:38-42), teaching on repentance (13:1-5), healing the crippled woman (13:10-17), Jesus’ teaching about Herod (13:31-33), the man with dropsy (14:1-6), the invitation to a banquet (14:7-14), Jesus’ teaching about unprofitable servants (17:7-10), the healing of ten lepers (17:11-19), Zaccheus (19:1-10), the lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44), the words about two swords (22:35-38), Jesus before Herod (23:6-12), the words to the daughters of Jerusalem (23:27-31), three of the “words” from the cross (23:34, 43, 46), and the whole section on the resurrection after the women at the tomb (24:12-53). Several of the parables are found in this gospel only: the Good Samaritan (10:25-37), the friend at midnight (11:5-8), the barren fig tree (13:6-9), the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (15:1-32), the unjust manager (16:1-9), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), the unjust judge (18:1-8), and the Pharisee and the publican (18:9-14).The sheer volume of what we owe to Luke is impressive. So is the beauty of his writing, such that Renan called this gospel the most beautiful book in the world. Luke has a good deal of what we might call human-interest material, which none of the other evangelists includes, such as the infancy stories of both Jesus and John the Baptist. We are fortunate Luke included parables such as those of the good man from Samaria and the prodigal son.
But we should not exclusively concentrate on material that no one else includes. When Luke is writing about stories we find elsewhere, he has his own way of going about it, and we owe a good deal to his presentation. He tells us in his opening words that he is writing about things that “have been fulfilled” (1:1), not simply things that have happened. He is concerned with the purpose of God that is worked out in the events he records and with the way those events impinge on the present. His theological interest leads him to bring out truths that are of permanent significance in the life of the church. This is the case with the point made at the close of the preceding section, Luke’s insistence on the primacy of the Word. Although he does not develop a theology of inspiration or say how the writings of the New Testament relate to those of the Old, Luke leaves the reader in no doubt that there is an authentic deposit of Christian truth and that this must be guarded zealously.
Luke has a good deal to say about salvation; he is the theologian of Heilsgeschichte, the linkage of salvation with historical events. It is a new and significant idea for Luke to see God’s salvation as worked out in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus also in the ongoing life of the church. He sets his story firmly in the context of secular history (Luke 2:1-2; 3:1), and he sees God at work in all that Jesus said and did. It was in Jesus that God worked out salvation for sinners. Conzelmann has pointed to an important truth in calling his book Der Mitte der Zeit : all history pivots on Christ, and in the coming of Jesus we see the action of the love of God. This gospel is a tender gospel, one in which it is impossible to miss the truth that God loves the sinners Jesus came to save. In the frequency of Luke’s use of words such as “today” (eleven times, vs. eight times in Matthew and once in Mark) and “now” (fourteen times, vs. four in Matthew and three in Mark), he unobtrusively brings out the truth that salvation has become a present reality with the coming of Jesus. Almost alone among the four gospels, Luke uses nouns translated “salvation”: four times he uses soteria (used in the other gospels only once in John), and twice he alone uses soterion, with another seven examples of the two words in Acts. Twice he calls Jesus “Savior” (with two more in Acts), and he has the verb “to save” more often than any other book in the New Testament. Salvation matters for Luke.
This salvation is open to all. While there is a deep interest in the Jews, there is nothing like Jewish particularism or a most-favored nation of any kind. Simeon sang of the Christ child as one who was “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32). In another significant early passage (3:4-6), Luke quotes from Isaiah 40. Matthew also quotes this passage, but Luke includes the words, “And all mankind will see God’s salvation” (Luke 3:6). There is a marked interest in a wide variety of people, including Samaritans (10:30-37; 17:16), the widow of Zarephath, and Naaman the Syrian (4:25-27). People will come from all directions to sit in God’s kingdom (13:29). The angels who announced the birth of Jesus spoke of peace to human beings in general, not specifically to Jews (2:14). Luke’s universalism is often commented on, though this should not be understood in the sense that all people will be saved. There remains a difference between “the people of this world” and “the people of the light,” and judgment is a reality (10:14; 11:31-32; 19:22; 20:47; 22:30).
J. Jervell has produced a novel view of the relation of Christians to the Old Testament people of God in this gospel. He sees Luke as differing from other New Testament writers in seeing the law as binding new believers, just as it bound ancient Israel. There is but one people of God; Jervell denies that Luke sees believers as “the new Israel.” For Jervell there is “only one Israel, one people of God, one covenant,” so that when Gentiles are evangelized, in some sense they join Israel. Jervell thinks of a “people” and an “associate people.” This idea has been subjected to searching criticism by M. M. B. Turner, who makes it clear that Jervell is not being fair to Luke. Luke certainly sees Christians as more than simply associates of the Jews. As Turner puts it, “The focus of redemptive revelation has shifted from the Torah to Jesus; adherence to His teaching and leading is the necessary condition of belonging to the Israel of fulfillment (Acts 3:22-23). By the Spirit, in His disciples, Jesus continues the rule announced in Luke 4:16-21. All of this amounts to a new kind of relationship between God and His people, mediated through Jesus.” Jervell is scarcely fair to this new relationship that Jesus established.
We should not overlook the fact that Luke’s gospel is the first part of a two-volume work. It is the one story of salvation that Luke tells, a salvation that rests on who Jesus was and what he did, but one that did not cease when Jesus died. It went right on in the life of the church, and through the church it went out to the Gentiles. The continuity of the work of salvation in God’s plan is a most important part of what Luke is telling his readers.
A notable feature of Luke’s gospel is its interest in those who were generally held as of no account in the first century: women, children, the poor, and the disreputable. The rabbis regarded it as a sin to teach a woman, but Jesus taught women as freely as he taught men. He brings out something of the importance of womankind with his infancy stories and his references to Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42), Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna (8:2-3). There are also women he does not name, such as the widow of Nain, to whom he restored her dead son (7:11-12), the crippled lady whom he healed (13:11), the sinner who anointed Jesus’ feet (7:37-50) and others (he refers to ten women others do not mention and has another three in parables). Luke does not engage in overt propaganda as though he were presenting some great new insight; he simply takes it for granted that women will feature largely in God’s plan, and that attitude is striking. So with children. This is seen in the infancy stories and also in references to “the only son” or “the only daughter” in some of his stories (7:12; 8:42; 9:38). He also tells us that when Jesus wanted to rebuke pride in the disciples, he “took a little child” (9:47; is it relevant that he did not have to send for one, that one was apparently there, where Jesus was?) and taught them to welcome little ones. He spoke of children a number of times as he taught the people (10:21; 17:2; 18:16). He had watched children at play and could use what he had observed when he wanted to make a point about the attitude of the people to John the Baptist and himself (7:31-35). Did any other of the world’s great religious teachers have such an interest in children?
A noteworthy feature of Luke’s presentation is his interest in the poor. This is evident at the beginning, for the offering made at the birth of the baby Jesus was that prescribed for poor people (Luke 2:24; see Lev. 12:8), which indicates that the family at Nazareth was poor. Then, at the beginning of his ministry in his programmatic sermon at Nazareth, Jesus quotes the prophecy of Isaiah to show that he was sent “to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18; there are, of course, other facets to his ministry). The message of Jesus to John the Baptist outlining his ministry includes the clause “the good news is preached to the poor” (7:22; for other references to the poor, see 1:53; 6:30; 14:11-13, 21; 16:19-31). This aspect of Luke’s contribution has aroused a good deal of interest in modern discussions, and it is seen more clearly now than has always been the case that Jesus had a deep concern for the poor. Liberation theology and other movements pay a good deal of attention to Luke’s teaching on the poor. This is as it should be, but we must exercise care. Jesus is concerned for the poor because of their greater need and their general helplessness, not because there is any particular virtue in poverty. Normally, nobody chooses to be poor; poverty is a condition forced on people against their will. It is impossible to hold that Jesus pronounces as blessed those in a socioeconomic situation not of their own choosing and from which they would escape if they could. But there is no doubting that the poor were generally despised in antiquity or that Luke shows a great interest in them and a deep compassion for them.
Luke also warns against riches, a very important part of his gospel for those who live in an affluent society. In the song of Mary we find that God has sent the rich away empty (Luke 1:53). Just as he records a blessing on Jesus’ poor followers (6:20), so Luke records a woe for the rich (6:24). Luke has parables full of warning for the wealthy: the rich fool (12:16-21), the unjust manager (16:1-12), and the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-35). There is an example of what a rich man might do in the story of Zaccheus (19:1-10), another example from a poor widow (21:1-4), and a warning in the case of the rich young ruler (18:18-27). Luke is far from accepting an order of society in which riches are esteemed as such and poverty despised. God has a way of upsetting our sociological distinctions and finding his saints in unexpected places.
We see this too in Luke’s interest in the disreputable. The shepherds who were the recipients of the angels’ message at the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:8-20) came from a despised class. Their job prevented them from paying much attention to the requirements of ceremonial cleanness, and as they moved round the country they had a distressing habit of pilfering. They were regarded as untrustworthy and were not permitted to give testimony in courts of law. There were “tax collectors and ‘sinners’” at the banquet Levi gave for Jesus (5:30), and Luke tells of the sinful woman who anointed Jesus’ feet after washing them with her tears (7:37-50). He has many references to the unrighteous in the parables (7:31-32; 12:13-21; 16:1-12, 19-31; 18:1-8, 9-14; the prodigal son should perhaps be included here). Clearly Luke had a deep interest in the fact that Jesus came to save sinners, and he records contacts with sinful people that shocked the respectable citizens of his day.
Luke has a deep interest in the Holy Spirit. We see this most clearly in Acts, but we should also notice it in his gospel, which has more references to the Holy Spirit than do Matthew and Mark combined. The Spirit was to be on John the Baptist “even from birth” (Luke 1:15), and both his parents on occasion were filled with the Spirit (1:41, 67). The Spirit was on Simeon, and the Spirit both revealed that he would see the Lord’s Christ and brought him into the temple courts at the appropriate time (2:25-27).
The Holy Spirit is linked with Jesus’ ministry in a variety of ways. The Spirit was active in bringing about Mary’s conception (1:35). Before Jesus began his work, the Baptist said that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:16). At Jesus’ baptism the Spirit came on him (3:22), and the Spirit both filled him and led him into the desert at the temptation (4:1). In due course Jesus “returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit” (4:14), and he began his sermon at Nazareth by reading the passage beginning “the Spirit of the Lord is on me” (4:18). Once Jesus was “full of joy through the Holy Spirit” (10:21), and his teaching that the Spirit would give his followers what they needed to say (12:12) implies that the Spirit did the same for him. He taught that the Father gives the Spirit to those who ask (11:13), and the very end of the gospel includes the promise that the disciples would be “clothed with power from on high” (24:49), which surely refers to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.
The people of God should constantly look to God for the supply of their need; Luke emphasizes the place of prayer. He records nine times when Jesus prayed (seven found only in this gospel); our Lord’s example is prominently brought home to the reader. There are parables about prayer, some teaching about the right kind of prayer, and one warning against the wrong kind of prayer (the Pharisee and the publican; see also Luke 20:47). Luke leaves his readers in no doubt about the importance of prayer in Christian living.
The third gospel is one of song and of joy. It is to Luke that we owe the preservation of some of the great Christian songs, such as the songs of Mary (Luke 1:46-55), Zechariah (1:68-79) and Simeon (2:29-32). Luke has more occurrences of the joy words...than any other book in the New Testament. People are often found rejoicing or giving glory to God or praising him (e.g. 1:14, 44, 47; 2:20; 7:16; 10:21; 13:13). Luke speaks of laughter (6:21), of an exuberant leaping for joy (6:23), of joy in the encounter Zaccheus has with Jesus (19:6), of joy in the finding of what was lost (15:6-7, 9-10), of merrymaking (15:23, 32), and much more. There can be no doubt that the Christianity Luke knew was a wonderfully joyful affair.
Even so, this is a gospel with emphasis on the passion. Quite early there is a reference to “God my Savior” (1:47), and the gospel proceeds to develop this thought. It is not uncommon for some contemporary scholars to miss this theme. They concentrate on the fact that Luke has omitted some striking sayings such as the ransom saying (Mark 10:45); they observe that he does not have some of the characteristic Pauline emphases on the way of atonement. Thus Conzelmann says that in this gospel there is no “direct soteriological significance drawn from Jesus’ suffering or death. There is no suggestion of a connection with the forgiveness of sins.” This gives a misleading impression. Although Luke does not specify the purpose of the cross in the way the other evangelists do, he devotes a good deal of space to the cross and its predictions (see Luke 5:35; 9:22, 43-45; 12:50; 13:32-33; 17:25; 18:31-33). As we saw earlier, he uses terms such as “Savior” and “salvation” much more than the other evangelists. Salvation from what? If he did not see the cross as soteriological, then what was its meaning? He certainly does not describe it as a martyrdom or as setting us an example. He records Jesus’ words, “The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (19:10), activities that involved the overcoming of the powers of evil. At the time of his arrest Jesus said, “This is your hour—when darkness reigns” (22:53), which means that the cross is the climax of the struggle. Elsewhere Luke views Jesus as accomplishing the new exodus (9:31, where “departure” renders exodus; 22:15-16). Luke is no pale shadow of Mark or of Paul; he has his own way of bringing out the importance of the cross. He makes it clear that the purpose of God is in it, and this surely points to soteriological significance.
All that the objections seem to prove is that Luke has his own way of making the point that the cross is central. We see this in the structure of the gospel, with the space it devotes to the passion narrative and to its foreshadowings. Note the time reference: “As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51). Luke records Jesus as saying, “I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!” (12:50). There are repeated predictions of the passion; 17:25 records a Q saying in which Luke, but not Matthew, has the reference to Jesus’ suffering. Another Lukan touch is the information that at the transfiguration the subject of the conversation between Jesus and the heavenly visitors was his coming death (9:31), the inclusion of which shows something of Luke’s interest in the cross. Luke brings out the purpose of God by referring to fulfillments of prophecy accomplished in the passion (e.g. 18:31; 20:17; 22:37; 24:26-27, 44, 46). All in all, he makes it quite clear that the passion effects God’s will for our salvation.
In all this there is nothing triumphalist. Luke is sure that there is victory in the cross, but he usually does not emphasize this. He says simply, “On the third day he will rise again” (Luke 18:33). Here there is nothing at all about triumph. Doubtless it is implied, but the point is that Luke does not stress it. For him the important truth is that Jesus died for sinners, even if he does not add things that would help those who are trying to formulate a theory of the atonement. It is enough for Luke that God saves through the work of Christ; he does not go into detail as to how this is worked out.
