Would you like to study Luke’s gospel? Whether you do it for your own edification or to lead a group of friends or students, you must grasp the big picture. Fail to grasp the big picture, and you will get the pieces wrong.
Too often, we study the Bible like we’re United States Navy SEALs. We infiltrate the book via HALO—high altitude, low opening—jump (learn just enough about the book’s basic historical background). We parachute in to the landing zone (the chosen text) and conduct our mission to secure the asset (a nugget of truth or practical application). We then pursue extraction under cover of darkness and radio HQ with the “all clear” (bridging contexts from the ancient world to today).
And we do this week after week, chapter after chapter, without coming away with any real grasp on the argument made by the author, or his intentions for his original audience. Therefore, like Navy SEALs, we can accomplish a narrowly-defined mission. But we haven’t taken the time to assimilate to the culture we’re infiltrating. We don’t understand that foreign nation’s political process, class consciousness, economic aspirations, folk tales, or hopes and dreams for the future. We’re not able to represent the interests of this foreign land (in this case, the book of Luke) nor serve as competent ambassadors to our own (as we seek to apply this ancient text in our setting).
What’s at Stake
You’ve probably got some favorite or familiar passages from Luke. Maybe you’ve taught or preached them to various audiences.
- The Christmas story
- Simeon’s and Anna’s testimony regarding the infant Jesus
- Jesus’ preaching of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth
- Simon’s great catch of fish
- The good Samaritan
- Martha serving while Mary sits at Jesus’ feet
- Sending out the 70
- Repent or perish
- The prodigal son
- The rich man and Lazarus
- The disabled woman healed
- The Last Supper
- The crucifixion
- The resurrection
- Walking down the road to Emmaus
- Explaining the Old Testament to the disciples
But can you confidently or competently explain what Luke meant by these episodes? Can you explain how they fit into his structure, or how they drive his main idea home? Can you identify why Luke cared enough to include these stories, or why Luke’s take on them differs from that of other gospel writers?
If the answer to any of those questions is “no,” how can you be certain you haven’t been using these stories the way a drunk uses a lamppost—more for support than for illumination? Can you be sure these words have been speaking to you, and you haven’t been dictating to them?
Rounding Up the Data
This is why I’ve spent many weeks overviewing this lengthiest of all New Testament books. That length can be daunting enough to dissuade us from a full-book overview and make us more comfortable to simply parachute in to a chapter here and a chapter there.
So here is where we’ve been so far in this overview:
- The genre of Luke
- Who was Theophilus?
- The circumstances behind the writing of Luke
- How the charges against Paul frame Luke’s purpose
- Luke’s treatment of the Jews
- Luke’s secondary audience
- The structure of Luke
- The usefulness of Luke
Let me remind you of the train-of-thought outline I proposed for the book:
- Christianity is on trial, and this orderly account will help you to be certain regarding what you’ve heard about the movement – 1:1-4
- The Defendant’s Credentials – 1:5-4:13
- The Salvation of God – 1-2
- The Son of God – 3:1-4:13
- The Defendant’s Fundamentals – 4:14-9:50
- His Teaching – 4:14-6:49
- His Offer of Salvation Through Faith – 7:1-8:56
- His Followers – 9:1-50
- The Defendant’s Goals – 9:51-19:27
- Proclaiming His Kingdom – 9:51-10:37
- Growing His Kingdom – 10:38-13:21
- Numbering His Citizens – 13:22-17:10
- Timing His Kingdom – 17:11-19:27
- The Defendant’s Vindication – 19:28-24:53
- Judaism is Guilty – 19:28-21:38
- Jesus is Innocent – 22:1-23:56
- Israel’s Salvation has Arrived – 24:1-53
Proposing a Main Point
All that work leads me to the following main point:
The hope of Israel, God’s plan of salvation for the world, has arrived in Jesus.
Now I’m not saying that I’ve found the perfect or the absolute best way to state Luke’s main point that couldn’t be improved upon. It’s still possible that I’ve missed something or could refine this further. This sentence simply represents an effort to pull together all the data and be as clear and succinct as possible.
But as far as I can tell from my study, this statement captures the essence of what Luke aims to communicate. It encapsulates the entire train of thought from the book’s structure. It takes account of both primary (Theophilus) and secondary audiences (children of Abraham). It fits with the very purposes we can reconstruct from Luke’s intentions.
As we now study any and every passage within the gospel, we should be able to see how that passage advances Luke’s agenda. Some passages will riff on the hope of Israel. Others will expound on that hope as God’s plan of salvation. Others will direct our attention to see this hope of Israel being not merely for Israel but for the world. And yet others will land on the person of Jesus being himself the arrival point for all these hopes.
But when we consider each passage’s placement in the structure of the argument, and how that placement serves the overall agenda—we’ll be in the best place possible to grasp the author’s intent in that passage. Let’s not read our favorite stories from Luke in a vacuum, as though they were dropped from heaven for our next Sunday school lesson.
Let’s make sure we’ll have no need to be ashamed, because we handle these words of truth rightly.
Gary says
Why should we take “Luke’s” writings seriously when he admits that he wasn’t an eyewitness? Even if he was, how reliable are his writings. Not very. Check this out:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/why-we-should-not-believe-the-resurrection-stories-even-if-they-were-written-by-alleged-eyewitnesses/
James says
We should take his writings even More seriously because he was a historian who investigated fully and therefore would have checked with Multiple eyewitnesses, not just one(himself). I wonder why it is that you are so angry Gary and that you have devoted so much energy to being so, and against Christians. Do you cruise Christian sites to bring your own message, and link to more of it? What life events affected you in that way? There are lots of people who call themselves Christians. Some of them do not do as Christ asked- love God, and love others. I’m sorry that you may have spent hurtful time with one or some of the Christians who either were not sincere or were not obeying our Lord. Or was it something else? Perhaps an unwillingness to yield? Only God knows you fully. I hope you find the genuine freedom that Christ offers. I hope you don’t think this is merely a self-serving comment. It is about a wonderful hope for and beyond you and us all. I posted this on your site:
One day you, Gary, and the rest here will realize that there is far more that is real than meets your physical eyes and touches your physical skin, and computes in your physical brains. The thing is, at that point, you probably won’t remember my reply, because all you will be thinking- yes thinking- is about the shock, and then the panic. You could avoid that ‘one day’, but it seems you are determined to stay blind, angry, and prideful. I wonder if Gary will leave this comment up. If he does- well, then congrats on his remaining ethics (both the ‘notify’ boxes will remain unchecked- hopefully his ethics extend to there also). Although I realize that the reason for showing my comment could be to give convenient opportunity for some vehement backlash/sarcasm on the part of the other commenters who need the outlet. I happened upon this site while searching for something else. But my hope, in lingering to comment, is that among you there may be even one that will consider my thoughts. Why do you think that it’s true about the Christian ‘story’ that, in the words of one commenter- ” this time it caught on”? Do we really think humans a mere 2,000 years ago were stupid and gullible? Do we really think they didn’t value their lives then as well. Would all Christ’s disciples give up their lives for a lie? Was Jesus a “complete nut job”, as Gary asserts, yet all those apostles were still so sure of what they observed that they died with that belief? If God is God, do we really expect to understand all supernatural events fully?