Knowable Word

Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible

Copyright © 2012–2024 DiscipleMakers, except guest articles (copyright author). Used by permission.

You are here: Home / Archives for Sample Bible Studies

The Structure of Luke’s Gospel

By

Luke wrote a two-volume history of the early Christian movement to Theophilus, a Roman official who likely had some role in Paul’s trial before Caesar. The charges against Paul guided Luke in his selection of themes, and led him to appeal to the Jews to turn around before their doom fell upon them.

So how does Luke structure his gospel? How does he arrange his material in order to persuade both the Romans to acquit Paul and the world (including Jews) to receive God’s salvation?

Major Divisions

Matthew uses five major speeches to shape his gospel. Mark uses disciples and predictions. John uses signs and conversations. But Luke’s primary mechanism for signaling literary divisions is his use of setting, especially geography.

After a short preface (Luke 1:1-4), Luke opens with a statement of time and place (Luke 1:5). Since he’s presenting an “orderly account” (Luke 1:3), he goes out of his way to refer to his sources and extensive research. So we ought to expect such organization to continue.

In Luke 4:14-15, Luke tells us that Jesus returned to Galilee, and he gives us a summary statement of Jesus’ work there (“he taught in their synagogues”). Such summary statements appear to serve as Luke’s main signals that a section is beginning or ending. And Jesus remains in Galilee until Luke 9:50.

In Luke 9:51, Jesus sets his face to go to Jerusalem. From here until Luke 19:27, Luke peppers his narrative with reminders that Jesus was “on the way” (Luke 10:38, 13:22, 17:11).1

In Luke 19:28, Jesus finally goes up to Jerusalem, and he remains there until the end of the book.

So Luke’s geographical markers give us the following major divisions for the book:

  1. Preface (Luke 1:1-4)
  2. Groundwork for ministry (Luke 1:5-4:13)
  3. Ministry in Galilee (Luke 4:14-9:50)
  4. Ministry on the way to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-19:27)
  5. Ministry in Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-24:53)

Now Luke is a long book. Can we subdivide these major sections any further?

Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

Luke 1:5-4:13

The early chapters begin with scenes that alternate between John and Jesus:

  • Prediction of John’s birth – Luke 1:5-25
    • Prediction of Jesus’ birth – Luke 1:26-38
      • Celebration of the two coming children, who will bring salvation – Luke 1:39-56
  • John’s birth – Luke 1:57-80
    • Jesus’ birth – Luke 2:1-20
      • Celebration of Jesus’ coming, which brings salvation – Luke 2:21-52

Then we get another major statement of setting (Luke 3:1-2) and another alternation between John and Jesus:

  • John’s baptism and credentials, preparing for the true son of God – Luke 3:3-20
    • Jesus’ baptism and credentials as the Son of God – Luke 3:21-4:13

So Luke’s first major division has two subdivisions:

  1. The salvation of God – Luke 1:5-2:52
  2. The Son of God – Luke 3:1-4:13

Luke 4:14-9:50

I’m frankly uncertain regarding how to subdivide this section. I’ve come across two schemes that both make sense.

One framework divides the text thematically:

  1. Jesus’ teaching – Luke 4:14-6:49
  2. Jesus’ offer of salvation through faith – Luke 7:1-8:56
  3. Jesus’ followers – Luke 9:1-50

This framework fits with the content of the material. The statement, “After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people” (Luke 7:1), sure sounds like a concluding transition statement into a new section. And it’s exactly the sort of thing Luke would say to “order” his account. But there is no clearly corresponding transition statement at Luke 8:56 or Luke 9:1 to suggest a division there. But “faith” is certainly a major theme in chapters 7-8. And Luke 9 appears to switch topics.

So a second possible framework is worth considering:

  1. Jesus’ first tour of Galilee – Luke 4:14-7:50
  2. Jesus’ second tour of Galilee, with his disciples – Luke 8:1-56
  3. Jesus’ third tour of Galilee, sending his disciples – Luke 9:1-50

The best evidence in favor of this framework is the presence of clearer literary signals in the text (Jesus’ “going out” or “sending out” at the beginning of each of the three sections). The downside to this framework is that it can be difficult to see a unified message in each of the sections.

So I prefer the first framework, but I could easily be persuaded to reconsider.

Luke 9:51-19:27

In this part of the book, it’s easier to identify clear subdivisions, because of Luke’s reminders that Jesus was “on the way” (Luke 10:38, 13:22, 17:11).1 These are not incidental statements without purpose. They serve as literary markers for the sections. In addition, each of the four sections opens with a question from someone for Jesus, and the rest of the section proceeds to answer the question.

  1. Do you want us to call down fire to consume them? – Luke 9:51-10:37
  2. Do you not care that I’m left to serve alone? – Luke 10:38-13:21
  3. Will those who are saved be few? – Luke 13:22-17:10
  4. When will the kingdom of God come? – Luke 17:11-19:27

The outline will be more memorable and concise, though, if we use the answers instead of the questions:

  1. Proclaiming his kingdom – Luke 9:51-10:37
  2. Growing his kingdom – Luke 10:38-13:21
  3. Numbering his citizens – Luke 13:22-17:10
  4. Timing his kingdom – Luke 17:11-19:27

Luke 19:28-24:53

Once again, we ought to expect some signals from Luke to show us the “orderly” nature of his account. So what do we find?

First, Jesus draws near to Jerusalem by drawing near to Bethphage and Bethany, at “the mount that is called Olivet” (Luke 19:28-29). So as we look for structural markers, we should look for a corresponding summary statement of setting. And we find it in Luke 21:37-38, where Jesus was “teaching in the temple” every day, but retiring to “the mount called Olivet” every night. So Luke 19:28-21:38 make up the first subdivision. In between these bookends, we see the content of Jesus’ “teaching in the temple”—a condemnation of Israel’s current generation.

Second, the next verses tell us that the Passover drew near, and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how to put him to death (Luke 22:1-2). This setting reaches its completion, of course, when Jesus is dead and seemingly done away with on the feast’s Day of Preparation (Luke 23:54-56). In between, we’re told repeatedly that Jesus was innocent and undeserving of this conspiracy (Luke 23:4, 14, 22, 41, 47, etc.).

This leaves us with chapter 24, the grand climax, where the living is not to be found among the dead (Luke 24:5), where the hope of Israel (Luke 24:21) is found in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27, 32, 44-46), and where the worship of Jesus is found at Bethany (Luke 24:50-52) and the blessing of God is found at the temple in Jerusalem (Luke 24:53).

To summarize, we’ve got the following subdivisions:

  1. Israel is guilty – Luke 19:1-21:38
  2. Jesus is innocent – Luke 22:1-23:56
  3. Israel’s salvation has arrived – Luke 24:1-53

Summary and Conclusion

To summarize, the structure shows us the following train of Luke’s thought:

  1. Christianity is on trial, and this orderly account will help you to be certain regarding what you’ve heard about the movement – Luke 1:1-4
  2. The Defendant’s Credentials – 1:5-4:13
    1. The Salvation of God – 1-2
    2. The Son of God – 3:1-4:13
  3. The Defendant’s Fundamentals – 4:14-9:50
    1. His Teaching – 4:14-6:49
    2. His Offer of Salvation Through Faith – 7:1-8:56
    3. His Followers – 9:1-50
  4. The Defendant’s Goals – 9:51-19:27
    1. Proclaiming His Kingdom – 9:51-10:37
    2. Growing His Kingdom – 10:38-13:21
    3. Numbering His Citizens – 13:22-17:10
    4. Timing His Kingdom – 17:11-19:27
  5. The Defendant’s Vindication – 19:28-24:53
    1. Judaism is Guilty – 19:28-21:38
    2. Jesus is Innocent – 22:1-23:56
    3. Israel’s Salvation has Arrived – 24:1-53

1I’m grateful for William Taylor’s Read, Mark, Learn volumes on Luke, which persuaded me of Luke’s structural use of these “on the way” statements. The Amazon link is an affiliate link. If you click it and buy anything, you’ll provide a small commission to this blog at no extra cost to yourself.

Luke’s Secondary Audience

By

Upon analyzing Luke’s treatment of the Jews in both Luke and Acts, I concluded that neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Luke gleefully wished doom on the Jews. Paul says as much regarding himself, in both Acts (Acts 28:19-20) and his own letters (e.g. Rom 9:1-3, 10:1). Yet he remains confident in the justice of that coming doom as retribution for the way the Jews treated both their God and his message (1 Thess 2:14b-16).

So throughout both Luke and Acts, we ought to notice a consistent thread of appeal to the Jews to turn around before it’s too late. Though Luke’s primary audience is Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1), a “most excellent” Roman official, Luke extends persistent invitations to a secondary audience, the Jewish people, to repent while they still can.

Image by 정훈 김 from Pixabay

Luke’s Appeal to the Jews

Luke wants the Jews to repent and turn to Jesus.

We see this appeal in Jesus’ tearful regret over his people (Luke 19:41-44). We see it in Jesus’ stern warning after they try to implicate Pontius Pilate (Luke 13:1-5). Luke follows that warning with a parable (Luke 13:6-8) and healing episode (Luke 13:10-17) whose allusions to the rotten vine of Isaiah (Isaiah 5:1-7) and the subsequent ethical condemnation (Isaiah 5:8-25) must not be missed.

We see the appeal in Jesus’ inaugural sermon in Luke, where he offers himself to the people of Israel, for the sake of their liberty, sight, and reception of God’s favor (Luke 4:17-21). We see the appeal in one of Jesus’ final discourses, where he foretells the precise signs that generation should look for to recognize the doom before it hits (Luke 21, especially Luke 21:29-33).

We see the appeal in the words of Peter when he begs his fellow Jews to save themselves from “this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). We see it again when Peter exposes once again the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah, even while once again offering the ignorant a chance to trust the Prophet whom God sent to give them life (Acts 3:12-26).

We can see the appeal in the words of Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon, who offer help to Israel (Luke 1:54-55), mercy to Israel (Luke 1:72), and glory to Israel (Luke 2:32). It is the unrequited hope in this redemption for Israel that has crushed the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:21). This hope in the restoration of Israel is on the minds of Jesus’ disciples even in their last days with him (Acts 1:6-7). This same hope, sometimes labeled as hope in the resurrection, inspires Paul at every step (Acts 23:6, 24:15). Paul’s hope in these promises have put him in chains (Acts 26:6-7, 28:20).

Through both volumes, Luke constantly appeals to the Jews—perhaps even the same Jews who now accuse Paul before Caesar—to find the very hope they seek (Acts 26:6-7). But to find it, they must stop doing what they are doing (Luke 3:7-8) and receive cleansing on the inside from the mighty one (Luke 3:15-16).

An Appeal for Salvation

And this hope which Luke, Jesus, and Paul share for the Jews, this “hope of Israel” for which Paul is in chains (Acts 28:20), can be summarized in a single word which Luke uses more than any other gospel writer: salvation.

Besides Luke, only John uses the noun, and only once (John 4:22). Luke uses it 5 times in his gospel (Luke 1:69, 1:77, 2:30, 3:6, 19:9) and 6 times in Acts (Acts 4:12, 7:25, 13:26, 13:47, 16:17, 28:28). Luke alone includes Isaiah’s line about all flesh seeing “the salvation of God” in his description of John the Baptist’s ministry (Luke 3:6). Simeon sees this salvation in the infant Jesus (Luke 2:30), and it can come to any house of Abraham’s true children (Luke 19:9)—those who repent and believe.

Luke uses the verb form “save” (sometimes also translated “made well” or “healed”) more times than any other gospel writer. And he is the only one beside John (again, only once, in John 4:42) to use the personal title Savior (Luke 1:47, 2:11).

Luke is deeply concerned with salvation. It’s the thing a Savior effects when he saves people. This salvation is something the Jews can find nowhere but in Jesus the Savior (Luke 2:11, Acts 4:12).

And yet, when they reject it, God offers it freely to the Gentiles instead (Acts 28:28). “They [the Gentiles] will listen” are Paul’s last words in Luke’s body of writing. They are the last words put in the mouth of any character. They represent Luke’s parting shot, his fourth-quarter Hail Mary pass. His desperate appeal to the Jews, motivating them through jealousy (Rom 10:19).

Image by Keith Johnston from Pixabay

Conclusion

Though we have good reason to read Luke (and Acts) as a trial-brief to help exonerate the Apostle Paul from the charges laid against him by the Jews, that defense of Paul before the Roman official Theophilus is clearly not Luke’s only purpose. Luke also seeks to win the Jews who accuse Paul—and Jews around the world—to receive their own Messiah, and with him the salvation of God. That Messiah rose from the dead to make it possible.

Yet even if the Jews don’t receive their Messiah, God remains eager to save (Luke 14:15-24). Therefore his offer of “salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:77) will find a warm reception among the other nations of the world (Luke 2:30-32, 4:25-27, 11:29-32, Acts 8:5-8, 10:1-5, 13:48-51, etc.).

We could therefore possibly identify a tertiary audience for Luke’s gospel in the Gentiles of the world who likewise need and will receive God’s salvation offered in Christ. But I find it simpler to see them as part of the same “secondary audience.” In other words, faithful Jews are not those who are Jews merely outwardly—via ancestry—but those who are Jews inwardly, with circumcised heart (Rom 2:28-29). True Jews are those who repent and believe in Jesus the Messiah. And God is able to raise up such children for Abraham from the stones if he pleases (Luke 3:7-8).

So while Luke addresses Theophilus directly, he also implicitly writes his book for all of Abraham’s children, be they Jew or Gentile, to lead them to repentance and faith in the risen Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Luke’s Treatment of the Jews

By

The themes of Luke and Acts are shaped by the charges brought against Paul by the Jewish leadership. So in continuing our overview of Luke’s gospel, we ought to look at how Luke portrays the Jews, and especially the leadership. In this post, I’ll land on the key points in Luke’s gospel, but I’ll end with a few comments from Acts as well.

The Jews in Luke’s Gospel

Of course, no people group is monolithic. So authors rarely treat them as such. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see a variety of portraits of Jewish people in Luke’s gospel.

  • While some of the greatest acts of faith, in Luke’s gospel, take place among foreigners (Luke 7:8-9, 17:17-19), many Jews still demonstrate sincere faith in the identity or promises of Jesus: the paralytic’s friends (Luke 5:20), a sinful woman (Luke 7:50), a bleeding woman (Luke 8:48), a synagogue ruler (Luke 8:50), and a blind man (Luke 18:42).
  • Jesus’ own mother is in many ways a faithful, model Israelite, trusting the Lord’s word (Luke 1:38), ruminating on God’s ancient promises (Luke 1:46-55), and obeying everything written in the law of Moses (Luke 2:22-24, 39).
  • A few select witnesses understand who Jesus is and what he came to do (Luke 2:15-17, 34-35, 36-38).
  • While multitudes of Jews seek Jesus out for teaching and healing, at least 11 stuck close to him (Luke 6:13-16).
  • A number of marginalized Jews play key roles in making Jesus’ ministry possible (Luke 8:1-3).
  • Yet notwithstanding these positive examples, Jesus wonders whether he will, in the end, find faith among those who ought to be faithful (Luke 18:1-8). This leads him into severe criticism of the Jewish leadership (Luke 18:9-14).
Image by MoneyforCoffee from Pixabay

Jewish Leaders in Luke’s Gospel

Luke’s portrayal of the Jewish leaders is quite bleak. This ought not surprise us, as this is likely the very group of people Luke must defend Paul against.

  • It’s no coincidence that Luke’s opening scene, after his preface, describes a Jewish priest inside the temple of God in Jerusalem. And this holy man on a holy task can’t recognize the holy word of God when he hears it. The angel Gabriel must defend his credentials to this priest before cursing him with muteness (Luke 1:18-20)—if you won’t trust God’s word, you’ll have nothing of your own to say. So while this priest comes around by the end of his story (Luke 1:63-64, 67-79), he has a rather inauspicious beginning. It’s as though Luke wants us to be suspicious from the start of Jewish priests serving in the temple!
  • When Jesus first arrives at the temple, as an infant, the two people who recognize his identity are not priests (Luke 2:25, 36-37)!
  • The civil leader closest to being Jewish refuses to repent of his sin (Luke 3:18-20), thereby finding himself utterly unprepared to meet the King of the Jews (Luke 23:8-12).
  • Unlike Matthew (Matt 3:7) and John (John 1:19), Luke doesn’t mention any Jewish leaders going out to visit John the Baptist (Luke 3:7, 10-14).
  • Luke’s first mention of the Pharisees has them questioning Jesus’ identity (Luke 5:17-21). It doesn’t take them long to start plotting his downfall (Luke 6:7, 11). Luke tells us outright that they rejected the purpose of God for themselves (Luke 7:29-30) and were lovers of money (Luke 16:14).
  • The Pharisees repeatedly extend hospitality to Jesus (Luke 7:36, 11:37, 14:1), yet Luke always uses the episode to expose their mistaken beliefs and evil motives.
  • They ask him questions under false pretenses (Luke 5:30, 6:2, 13:31, 17:20), and they lie in wait for him (Luke 11:53-54).
  • Of course, they arrest Jesus under cover of darkness and on trumped-up charges (Luke 22:52-53, 23:2).
  • They play the primary role in manipulating Pilate to execute Jesus (Luke 23:10, 13-18). We know of only one of their number who did not agree with the council’s decision to condemn Jesus (Luke 23:50-51).

Jewish Crowds in Luke’s Gospel

Under such poor leadership, it’s inevitable that the rot would likewise infect the masses.

  • Jesus’ own townspeople try to kill him (Luke 4:28-29).
  • As in all the gospels, the crowds come out to hear him teach (Luke 5:1) and to get healed (Luke 5:15).
  • However in Luke, it’s only “the multitude of his disciples”—not a broadly Jewish crowd—who acclaims his entry to Jerusalem (Luke 19:37). The Pharisees ask Jesus to shut them up (Luke 19:39-40).
  • A theme unique to Luke is Jesus’ surprising sorrow over the coming fate of the people. He weeps for them while riding his donkey (Luke 19:41-44). On the way to his own death, he ominously advises the daughters of Jerusalem to weep not for him but for themselves and their children over their coming doom (Luke 23:28-31).
  • The coming doom on that generation of Jews is a major theme for Luke (Luke 12:49-59, 13:1-9, 13:27-30, 13:34-35, 21:5-36).

Hope for Jews

Notwithstanding all the negativity toward the majority of Jews who reject or oppose Jesus, Luke presents tremendous hope for the people of Israel.

From the beginning of Luke’s history, there is much hope extended to Israel:

  • John will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God (Luke 1:16).
  • Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob forever (Luke 1:32-33).
  • In Mary’s pregnancy, God has helped his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy to Abraham and his seed (Luke 1:54-55).
  • The prophetic calling of John involves giving knowledge of salvation to God’s people in the forgiveness of their sins (Luke 1:76-79).
  • In the baby Jesus, Simeon sees God’s salvation, which is glory for Israel (Luke 2:29-32).
  • Anna speaks of the baby Jesus finally bringing to pass the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38).

This theme of hope for Israel leads Luke to recount Jesus’ patient exposition of the Old Testament to show that he, in fact, is the one who will redeem Israel (Luke 24:21, 25-27).

Jewish Leaders in Acts

In the book of Acts, we see the Jewish leaders continuing their opposition to Jesus by escalating their opposition against Jesus’ followers. The Jewish leaders:

  • are annoyed at the apostles’ teaching (Acts 4:1-2)
  • arrest the apostles (Acts 4:3, 5:17-18)
  • ask questions under false pretenses (Acts 4:7)
  • can’t figure out what to do (Acts 4:15-17: 5:33-39)
  • command the apostles to stop speaking (Acts 4:18, 5:28, 5:40)
  • beat the apostles (Acts 5:40)
  • allow themselves to be manipulated into prosecuting Christians (Acts 6:12-14)
  • persecute the church (Acts 8:1, 9:1-2)
  • plot to kill Paul (Acts 9:23-24, 14:5, 18:12-13, 20:3, 20:18-19, 21:11, 23:12-15, 23:20-21, 23:27, 24:2-9, 25:2, 25:7, 25:15, 26:21)
  • are pleased with the death of James (Acts 12:3)
  • whip up lynch mobs (Acts 13:50, 14:19, 17:5, 17:13, 21:27-30, 22:22-24)
  • remain doggedly resistant to receiving Gentiles into the church, even after coming to faith in Christ (Acts 11:2-3, 15:1-2)

Yet even in Acts, there is hope for the Jews.

  • A great many of the priests come to faith (Acts 6:7).
  • The first converts in many towns are Jews (Acts 13:43, etc.).
  • “More noble” Jews in Berea consider Paul’s teaching in light of the Old Testament Scripture (Acts 17:11).

There is hope for the Jews precisely because Paul’s mission, all along, has been to bring the Jews their promised hope (Acts 26:6-8, 28:18-20).

Conclusion

Across the entire two-volume history of Luke and Acts, all these observations boil down to a few key assertions:

  1. Jesus came to fulfill all God’s promises to the Jews, putting Israel at the center of God’s work in the world.
  2. The apostles (especially Paul) preached a message consistent with Jesus’ mission to fulfill God’s promises to the Jews.
  3. A few Jews received and participated in that message.
  4. Many Jews, especially leaders, rejected that message and tried to squash it out by any means necessary.
  5. Because of this rejection of their own Messiah, Luke expects the first century Jews to suffer a terrible doom on their temple and nation.
  6. In the first century AD, the Christians are not disturbers of the Roman peace; the Jewish leaders are. Therefore Rome will herself serve as the agent of God’s vengeance on the Jewish people (Luke 21:20-24). Jesus—and Paul, for that matter—is like a new Jeremiah, weeping over a new calamity coming upon Jerusalem and its temple at the hands of a new Babylon.

Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Luke gleefully wish this doom on the Jews. Perhaps this trial-brief could have another purpose besides simply persuading Theophilus of Paul’s innocence…?

How the Charges Against Paul Frame Luke’s Purpose

By

Last week, I presented evidence from both Acts and Luke to argue that Luke wrote his two-volume history of the early Christian movement to the Roman nobleman Theophilus as a trial-brief for the Apostle Paul’s first hearing in Rome. Part of that evidence is the excessive amount of space Luke dedicates to Paul’s legal situation and to 5 defenses of his innocence (Acts 22-26). I believe this material presents the framework of Luke’s purpose, providing an outline of Luke’s essential thesis regarding Paul’s innocence.

The Charges

In particular, the third of Paul’s five defenses (and the one that presents itself most clearly as a legal/courtroom drama) is preceded by a listing of the charges against Paul, as recounted by Tertullus, the prosecuting attorney hired by the Jewish leaders (Acts 24:4-8).

In particular, through Tertullus the Jews make the following three charges against Paul:

  1. He is a disturber of the Roman peace: “We have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world” (Acts 24:5).
  2. He is in charge of a new, and non-Jewish, religion: “This man…is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).
  3. He has committed a capital offense under Roman law: “He even tried to profane the temple” (Acts 24:6).
Image by succo from Pixabay

What’s At Stake

If charge #1 is true, then Paul is a threat to the Pax Romana. He cannot be trusted with freedom in the public sector. And in light of charge #2, Paul is not the only threat to the public welfare; all “Nazarenes” (Christians) everywhere are equally threatening.

If charge #2 is true, then Paul, and his Nazarene followers, ought not to be granted the religious exemptions granted to the Jewish people. The Roman Empire, you see, compelled all citizens, colonists, and conquered peoples to offer not only allegiance but also worship to the emperor. They gave an exemption to only one people group: the Jews. Rome had learned the hard way not to mess in any way with the religion of Israel lest they cause more rioting and upheaval than they bargained for. So they had learned to leave the Jews alone, as far as their religion was concerned. By disassociating from Paul and “the sect of the Nazarenes,” the Jews are bringing this exemption into question for the newfound Christian movement.

If charge #3 is true, then, by nature of the religious freedom Rome has granted to the Jews by law, they must allow the Jewish leaders to put Paul to death.

In summary, with Paul on trial, Christianity is on trial. Luke probably seeks to exonerate Paul because he is a dear friend (he is both “beloved” to Paul—Col 4:14—and the only one who stuck with him to the end—2 Tim 4:11). But he also likely wants to prevent the newborn Christian movement from being suffocated before it can truly take off.

How This Frames Luke’s Gospel

Nearly every commentator and overview article highlights a number of major themes that receive exceptional emphasis in Luke’s gospel: the poor, women, Gentiles, outsiders, prayer, the word, and the Holy Spirit. The charges against Paul explain why these themes mattered so much to Luke.

Luke highlights the roles of the poor, women, Gentiles, and outsiders to show time and again, with respect to charge #1, that Christianity is not a threat to the Roman peace. In fact, Christianity is the opposite: a tremendous blessing to the public welfare! In both Luke and Acts, the ones who stir up public turmoil and instigate riots are usually the Jewish leadership (and sometimes pagans who feel personally threatened by the Christians’ extreme monotheism). The Christians—particularly Jesus himself, Peter, and Paul—are supporting the needy in local communities and calming things down.

Luke highlights the place of prayer and the word of God to show, with respect to charge #2, how closely connected the Christian movement is with ancient Judaism. Christianity is not a brand new religion; it is the fulfillment of the promises of God to Abraham and David, as recorded in Jewish Scripture. Luke begins his gospel with “ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2), and he ends it with Jesus explaining all the things written about him in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44-49). And the focus on prayer shows the Christians as pious believers in these promises to Israel; they are walking in the faith of the ancient faithful. It is the Jews who fail to recognize their own God when he visits them and who will suffer dearly for it (Luke 7:16, 19:44, etc.).

Luke highlights the Holy Spirit to show, with respect to charge #3, the early Christians (especially Jesus, Peter, and Paul) following the direction of their God and Father, as communicated by his Spirit. And they were already becoming new temples, with the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Paul was not some rogue who came to profane the temple and start a new world order; he was acting under orders (Acts 22:20-21) and clearly never profaned the Jerusalem temple (Acts 24:17-19). In the gospel, Luke portrays Jesus under similar orders (Luke 3:22, 4:1, 4:14, 4:18, 10:21) and acting in conformity to God’s intentions for the temple (Luke 19:45-46).

Conclusion

How does knowing all this help us to study Luke’s gospel? I haven’t yet laid enough groundwork to propose a main point for the book, but I can list a few ways Luke’s purpose helps us to read his book.

  1. We can have tremendous confidence in the evidence Luke presents for the historicity of these events. Here we have two books, inspired by God, where God was willing to go on record in the Roman court system regarding “the things that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1).
  2. We’ll get a lot of help from this book to embolden us to face direct opposition.
  3. By fitting this text within its time-and-space circumstances, we’re more likely to read it the way Luke intended it.
  4. Finally, we’ll see how Luke, in contrast to the other 3 gospels, focuses not primarily on the person of Jesus, but on the Christian movement founded by him. We’re not “missing the gospel” if we teach this book accordingly.

What Circumstances Occasioned Luke’s Gospel?

By

I’ve argued that the genre of Luke’s gospel is history (in contrast to the genre of Matthew, Mark, and John, which is biography). And I’ve discussed the commonly accepted likelihood that Luke’s primary recipient, Theophilus, was a Roman nobleman.

What more can we conclude regarding the occasion of Luke’s writing? In other words, why did Luke write this two-volume history to this Roman nobleman at this time?

Let me state this post’s thesis up front: In his excellent overview articles on Luke and Acts, Daniel Wallace argues that these books were composed as a trial-brief for the Apostle Paul’s first hearing in Rome.

Image by David Mark from Pixabay

Evidence from Acts

Wallace is not the only one to propose this thesis, but he articulates it clearly and concisely, especially in his introduction to Acts. Since Luke and Acts go together as two volumes, the occasion for Acts is highly relevant to the occasion for Luke.

Wallace brings 8 pieces of evidence to the argument (in his article, you’ll find these under point E: “Occasion and Purpose”):

  1. Not only is Theophilus called “most excellent” in Luke 1:3, but it occurs in the vocative case (direct address). This term in the vocative case can be found in ancient literature only in petitions.
  2. The unusual and extraordinarily anti-climactic ending to Acts strongly suggests that Luke is writing while Paul is still in custody awaiting trial. No other theory of dating or composition has satisfactorily accounted for the petering-out and inconclusive nature of Acts 28.
  3. The mention of Paul’s house arrest having lasted two years (Acts 28:30) suggests that his right to a “speedy trial” was soon to be fulfilled, and action must soon be taken on his behalf.
  4. The literary parallels between Peter and Paul, in the first and second halves of Acts, suggest an agenda to legitimize Paul’s professed apostleship by comparison with Peter’s already-acknowledged apostleship.
  5. Peter’s story ends with his release from prison (Acs 12:17), thus implying a petition for a similar end to Paul’s story.
  6. Acts 1-20 covers 24 years of history, but then Acts 21-28 slows down to cover only four years. In particular, the narrative crawls through Paul’s legal drama, clarifying the facts of Paul’s case through 5 detailed defenses (before the Jewish feasters, the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, and Herod Agrippa).
  7. The Greek word for “first” in Acts 1:1 cannot be used to support a theory that Luke intended to write a third volume, which was either never completed or simply lost to us.
  8. The shipwreck narrative of Acts 27 fits with an ancient pagan belief that survival in shipwreck implies innocence.

While point #8 fits with Luke’s narrative clues (Acts 28:4-6), Wallace confesses that Acts 27 “ostensibly does not fit with the trial-brief idea.” However, that shipwreck narrative goes out of its way to show Paul complying with the Roman authorities and not once entertaining either seditious or escapist motives. The one who had every reason to flee, and every opportunity to do so surreptitiously, chose quite the opposite. Only one who was confident in his innocence would behave in this way. This certainly fits with the trial-brief idea as Luke nears the conclusion of his history, in real time, with Paul still in custody.

Further Evidence Within Luke

In his Logos Bible Software course on The Gospel of Luke, Andrew Pitts, who argues the same thesis as Wallace, proposes one further significant piece of evidence: Luke’s positive portrayal of Roman officials.

When compared to the other three gospels, Luke has a surprisingly positive view of Roman officials.

  • In Luke alone, there is no scene with Roman soldiers beating and mocking Jesus, putting a crown of thorns on his head, or asking him to prophesy about who is hitting him. There is a scene where Jesus’ Jewish captors mock him (Luke 22:63-65). And there is another scene with Herod’s soldiers mocking Jesus (Luke 23:11), but they would have been Jews or Idumeans, not Romans.
  • In Luke alone, there is a scene where people ask Jesus about Pilate’s brutality toward the Jewish people (Luke 13:1-5). We’d expect at least a critical assessment of Pilate, if not a full-blown denunciation of such wickedness. But no. Instead of criticizing Pilate, Jesus responds with a dire warning for those present to repent of their own sin before they too suffer as their countrymen did.
  • In both Matthew (Matt 8:5-13) and Luke (Luke 7:2-10), we’re told of Jesus marveling at the faith of a Roman centurion, which surpassed the faith of any in Israel. But Luke alone adds this fascinating characterization: Though the elders of Capernaum consider this military officer “worthy” of Jesus’ attention, the man himself has the humility to confess, “I am not worthy” (Luke 7:4-6).
  • In Luke alone, Pilate does not look like a buffoon at Jesus’ trial. He labors to give Jesus justice for his evident innocence. He doesn’t lose his cool and relents only when the crowd is on the verge of all-out riot (Luke 23:15-25).

Acts continues this positive portrayal of Roman officials. Just read the book and count how many times a governor or judge in some town declares a Christian or group of Christians to be innocent of any wrongdoing. And notice how the first Gentile convert to Christ is another Roman centurion.

Conclusion

I confess that, since Luke doesn’t tell us his purpose, we cannot be certain. And because no early church fathers declared clearly that Luke wrote to help exonerate Paul, some Bible dictionaries say things like: “Still’s theory that Theophilus was Paul’s defense attorney during his audience with Caesar in Rome lacks evidence (Still, St. Paul on Trial, 84)” (Lexham).

I am making an inductive argument, which is an argument where the conclusion most likely follows from the premises. It’s not a deductive argument, where the reasoning is either valid or invalid, and where true premises make the conclusion certain.

But induction is what we use almost all the time when we piece together the historical circumstances of biblical books. It is not for us to be deductively certain regarding our theories of composition. The question is one of strength: How strong is the conclusion in light of the premises?

I won’t go as far as to say that Theophilus must have been Paul’s defense attorney. Perhaps he was a lower court judge, a clerk, an expert witness, or an investigator of some sort, connected to the courts. But regardless of Theophilus’s precise role, the evidence suggests that Luke wrote his two-volume history to Theophilus as a petition for Paul’s exoneration.

Who Was Theophilus?

By

Luke addresses his two-part history of the early Christian movement to a man named Theophilus.

…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach… (Acts 1:1)

Who was this person, and how does knowing help us to understand the purpose of Luke and Acts?

Nonspecific Address

The early church father Origen (ca. 185-254) was the first to suggest that “Theophilus” was not a particular individual, but simply a way of addressing all believers. The name literally means “lover of God,” and therefore could become a pseudonym for all Christians everywhere, almost like composing an open letter today with the address “Dear Christian.”

While this is possible, it seems unlikely, and very few scholars today hold this opinion. If Luke wanted to address believers generally, it would have been very unusual for him to speak to “Theophilus” in typical grammatical forms that signal a communication to an individual (such as second person singular pronouns). He would have been more likely to do something along the lines of what Peter does in his first epistle: “To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). Or he could have signaled his intentions with something more symbolic, such as John’s “to the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1).

Particular Individual

The name “Theophilus” is well attested in the time period in which Luke wrote. It was a common name, over a few centuries, all over the Roman empire. Josephus even mentions a Jewish high priest with the name a few decades before the temple fell. So it’s highly credible to conclude that Luke was writing to a specific person.

But what other clues can we find regarding the identity of this Theophilus?

Image by Couleur from Pixabay

Most Excellent

The most significant clue is Luke’s use of the phrase “most excellent” when addressing Theophilus the first time (Luke 1:3). This is not a casual California-surfer-dude sort of greeting. It has a ring of formality to it.

The address “most excellent” appears in Scripture only in Luke’s writings, and only in very formal settings.

1. A court appearance, spoken by the prosecuting attorney:

“Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation…” (Acts 24:2)

2. Another court appearance, spoken by the defendant:

“I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words.” (Acts 26:25)

3. And, though translated differently, the same Greek term appears also in a prisoner transfer order written by a Roman centurion to the governing official:

“Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.” (Acts 23:26)

For this reason, it seems likely that Theophilus is at least a Roman noble with means of some sort. Our understanding of the title is rather limited, so many scholars are hesitant to conclude any more than this.

Additional Evidence

However, additional evidence from within Luke and Acts may help us to identify Theophilus with greater precision. In additional posts, I will take up more of this evidence.

The Genre of Luke’s Gospel

By

I’ve been studying Luke these days, to prepare for a new sermon series at our church. And this Sunday, I’ll kick off the series with a book overview.

To help me grasp background matters, I’ve been working my way through a course with Logos Bible Software on Luke’s gospel, taught by Dr. Andrew Pitts. The course has been outstanding, and Pitts’s comments on the genre of Luke have been particularly stimulating.

Overall Genre

Certainly, Luke belongs to the genre of historical narrative. However, there are many sub-categories of genre that fall under the umbrella of historical narrative. On a large scale, there are epics, histories, and biographies. On a small scale, there are miracle stories, confrontation stories, healings, teaching, parables, and origin stories.

Regarding Luke, Pitts argues that there is a difference between ancient biography and ancient history. Biographies focus on one individual, the subject, who is praised or lifted up in some way, and readers are called to imitate or follow that figure. Histories, however, focus more on events than on any particular person, and they are concerned with explaining why something is the way it is, or with making a political or social point in light of the relevant history.

jean louis mazieres (2018), Creative Commons

Comparing the Four Gospels

I have always presumed Luke to be the same genre as the other gospels. Of course, it’s closer to Matthew and Mark, which is why those three are often referred to as the “synoptic” (similar perspective) gospels. John is unique, with a completely different style and method of narration.

However, Pitts argues that, at least with respect to genre, the oddball among the four gospels is really Luke. He suggests that Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies, but Luke is a history.

Why does he conclude this?

  • Ancient biographies tend to introduce their subject in the first sentence (or very close to the first sentence). Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, and John 1:1 all reference Jesus as the book’s subject. But Luke doesn’t even mention Jesus until Luke 1:31, and then only in predictive speech. Jesus doesn’t become a character or subject until Luke 2:7, or even Luke 2:11. This late mention of the chief subject would be very unusual for a biography. But such late mention of a major protagonist fits right with the expectations for a narrative history.
  • Compared to ancient histories, ancient biographies have a much higher density of citation of authoritative sources to support the portrait of the biography’s subject. Matthew, Mark, and John all fit the parameters of citation density (quoting the Old Testament, in their case) expected from biography. Luke’s density of OT citation is much lower, fitting more closely the parameters of ancient history. (Though Luke cites the OT more times than Mark does, Luke is much longer than Mark, thus making his density of citation significantly lower than Mark’s.)
  • When Luke does introduce his subject matter in the first verse, he terms it “the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). He doesn’t speak of a person, but of a series of events. This is what we’d expect from a history, not a biography.
  • Luke is the only gospel with a sequel (the book of Acts), so we need to read Luke and Acts as a single work in two parts. And Acts clearly moves well beyond the life of Jesus of Nazareth, telling the tales of a number of Jesus’ followers. It might be possible to say that Luke-Acts is a collection of biographies, with Jesus’ life being the first subject. But compendiums of biographies were also known in the ancient world, and there is no other example of such a collection following a single narrative thread (from the first subject, to the second, to the third, etc., instead of treating each biography as a completely separate narrative). If Luke-Acts were a collection of biographies, it would be the only ancient document to take this meta-narrative approach. However, Luke-Acts does follow the standard expectations of an ancient history, moving from one event, to another, to another, in a seamless overarching narrative.

What Difference Does It Make?

What difference does it make whether Luke is biography or history?

Simply that we’ll better observe Luke’s focus, which enables us to focus there with him. Since Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies of Jesus, we read them rightly when we focus on the person of Jesus. Of course, we can’t ignore what Jesus did or what resulted from his work. But with the emphasis on who he was, the other things fall into place as implications of the main idea (Jesus himself).

But if Pitts is right that Luke-Acts presents itself as history, then we’ll better understand Luke-Acts if we focus on what that two-volume work says about the Christian movement. Of course, we can’t ignore who Jesus is when we read Luke-Acts; the movement’s founder is, well, the movement’s foundation. But the identity and character of Jesus, in Luke’s case, are more the implications than the main idea.

Another way to state the hypothesis is that the biographies of Matthew, Mark, and John are meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Jesus. And the history of Luke (along with Acts) is meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Christianity.

This understanding of Luke’s genre is one piece of the puzzle that is Luke’s purpose in writing, along with his main point. In future posts, I may revisit Luke with yet more pieces of that puzzle.

How Plot Structure Helps with John 4

By

I led a Bible study this week on John 4. Not only the woman at the well (John 4:1-42), but the entire chapter. And I once dared to call plot structure the most import tool for observing the structure of a narrative. So I decided to put my money where my mouth was, and invest my limited mental energy in exploring the plot structure of this chapter.

The results got me farther down the road than any other tool I tried. Not only was this tool the most important one for observing the structure. It ended up also being the most important tool for helping me to interpret the narrative and determine the author’s main point.

Let me show you how it worked.

Stuck in the Details

Without handrails, John 4 is the sort of narrative that makes Bible students feel like they’re swimming in details. And great is the temptation for premature application. There is much in this chapter to provoke, stimulate, and inspire. All you have to do is pick your favorite from among the proffered topics and you’re free to camp there as long as you like.

We could focus on the satisfaction Jesus promises with living water (John 4:13-14). We could focus on sexual morality (John 4:17-18) or Jesus’ omniscience (John 4:16, 19). We could focus on true worship (John 4:21-24). We could focus on evangelism (John 4:28-29, 39-40). We could focus on spiritual dullness or failure to evangelize (John 4:35-38). We could focus on Jesus’ obedience to his Father (John 4:34). We could focus on Jesus’ experience of rejection (John 4:44-45) or his power to heal at a distance (John 4:50-53). We could focus on the nature of belief (John 4:39-42, 48, 50, 53) or the authority of Messiah (John 4:25-26).

So many goodies. So much raw material for theological exploration. And all of it would be true, biblical, practical, and engaging.

But why did John include all these things? What was his main idea?

Getting Unstuck

The best way to see how all these goodies fit together is to analyze the text according to its plot structure.

  • The first conflict is introduced in John 4:7-9. It must have been important to John that his readers understand the conflict, because he chooses to pop us on the nose with two parenthetical statements (the disciples were gone, and Jews don’t deal with Samaritans). Perhaps without the explanation, the nature of the conflict would have been subtle enough that his audience might have missed it. In short, the conflict, as John introduces it, is Jesus vs. cultural expectations of identity. Jesus does what nobody would have expected him to do: Speak to this woman, alone.
  • If that is the conflict, this suggests that John 4:1-6 is simply the setting to paint the picture for us. Jesus wishes to escape the Pharisees, who might compel a competition between him and John. And he “had to” pass through Samaria to get away.
  • So where is the reversal? Where are the cultural expectations of identity flipped around? John 4:26: “I who speak to you am he.” Here is the first climax.
  • Therefore, we can consider the intervening verses (John 4:10-25) as part of the rising action intended to heighten the tension and build toward climax.
    • These verses are not unimportant. There is deep and significant teaching here. But, according to the way John has chosen to tell his story, this material is subordinate to the climax of verse 26.
    • In John 4:10-15, Jesus has asked her for a drink, but he clarifies that, really, she should have asked him for a drink.
    • In John 4:16, the conflict expands. Now Jesus is taking on not only the cultural expectations of his identity but also this woman’s worship. He shines light to expose her evil deeds (John 3:20-21), likely to see whether she’ll come out or withdraw further into cover of darkness.
    • In John 4:17-25, the action rises as they now discuss true and false worship. Again, this material is valuable; I don’t think it’s unimportant. But for John, it’s part of a narrative device intended to heighten the tension and build to climax. We must keep in mind what he’s building toward: Who is Jesus, with respect to what his culture expects of him?
  • After the climax in John 4:26, the situation resolves into a new setting (John 4:27-30), a new state of affairs: One where Jesus’ own disciples marvel at his behavior (again, completely in conflict with their cultural expectations), and the woman testifies to Jesus’ new-found (to her) identity.

So John 4:1-30 gives us one full cycle of plot structure, with a sense of resolution and a new state of affairs. I’ll abbreviate my commentary on the remaining two cycles.

Second plot arc (John 4:27-42):

  • John 4:27-30: setting, described above.
  • John 4:31-32: next conflict introduced. Jesus vs. disciples’ perception of the world.
  • John 4:33-37: rising action. Q&A. Jesus takes their eyes off physical food to the spiritual reality of harvest.
  • John 4:38: climax. Disciples’ mistaken perception reversed as they enter into another’s labor (as they now reap that for which they did not labor).
  • John 4:39-42: new setting. Samaritans believe that Jesus is savior of the world; they ask him to stay.

Third plot arc (John 4:39-54):

  • John 4:39-42: setting, described above.
  • John 4:43-46: more setting. John raises the question of response. We ought to expect, with Jesus, a poor response to him from his own people (cf. John 1:11, 4:44).
  • John 4:47-48: next conflict introduced. On the surface, we might think the conflict is Jesus vs. illness. But with Jesus’ first response (John 4:48) John highlights a different conflict instead: Jesus vs. unbelief (defined as trusting more in signs than in the savior). The surface conflict with illness is merely the literary mechanism for presenting the true conflict with unbelief.
  • John 4:49-50a: rising action, where the Roman official requests Jesus’ presence but receives his word of promise instead.
  • John 4:50b: climax. The official believes Jesus’ word, even without a visible sign. He goes on his way without Jesus’ company.
  • John 4:51-53a: resolution. The official gets proof of his son’s healing, to confirm the word of promise from Jesus.
  • John 4:53b-54: new setting. Belief spreads in Roman official’s household.

Implications

Let me close with a few principles for mapping plot structure:

  • Because the categories and lines can seem fuzzy in any given story, I find it most helpful to identify first the conflict and climax. The conflict is the point at which the narrative introduces tension. The climax is the point at which that tension is fixed or reversed. Those two points are typically the clearest elements of the plot.
  • Then the material in between the introduction of the conflict and the climax falls into place as rising action, serving to expand on or intensify the tension produced by the conflict.
  • Almost everything that comes before the conflict is simply setting. The details matter for the sake of the story, but they will likely not be as crucial to the text’s theology or application.
  • And the payout for interpretation comes when we focus our attention on the climax and resolution to determine the author’s main point.

In John 4, we see three arcs with climaxes:

  • The first arc climaxes (John 4:26) with the immoral Samaritan woman hearing and, in the resolution, trusting in Jesus’ identity as Messiah.
  • The second arc climaxes (John 4:38) with the disciples entering into Jesus’ labor, to reap the harvest with him.
  • The third arc climaxes (John 4:50b) with the powerful Roman official trusting Jesus’ word of promise, without any visible sign.

How does this help with discovering John’s main point? The religious insiders need help to perceive God’s salvation extending to religious outsiders. This Jesus is not only King of the Jews. He is the Savior of the world (John 4:42), rejected by his own but believed on in the world. Not even Nicodemus the Pharisee is described as believing just yet (John 3); but any outsider of any race or status who trusts Jesus’ identity and word of promise can become his child. This chapter illustrates, with flamboyant color, the truth that God so loved the world (John 3:16-17).

This main point fits perfectly with the flow of thought in this section of the gospel:

  • In John 2, the messianic kingdom has arrived!
  • In John 3, we see how to enter the kingdom.
  • In John 4, we see who enters the kingdom.

I find it is well worth my time to simply draw a plot arc and use it to help me grasp biblical narratives. Perhaps it can be useful to you as well.

More on Walking Through Walls

By

When we repeat a particular idea often enough that it becomes part of the air we breathe for years, or even generations on end, it accumulates a gravitas, an authority, that soon goes unexamined. It’s easy for us to see other cultures or communities doing this; it’s difficult to see ourselves doing it. That’s why I’ve sought to expose numerous unquestioned mantras (such as: Jesus’ ministry lasted 3 years, judge not, your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, forgetting what lies behind, and Jesus never broke a bruised reed) that have become unassailably axiomatic in evangelical Protestant circles. I am deeply grateful when others show me that what I’ve always heard and assumed isn’t actually supported by the text of Scripture.

So with all due respect to commentator D.A. Carson and the countless others who have always believed Jesus walked through walls, I raised the question last week: Do John 20:19 and John 20:26 truly claim that Jesus walked through walls? Is the matter as obvious as we typically assert?

Alyosha Efros (2008), Creative Commons

The Testimony of the Ancients

John Calvin would disagree, and with flair:

And while the doors were shut. … We ought, therefore, to believe that Christ did not enter without a miracle, in order to give a demonstration of his Divinity, by which he might stimulate the attention of his disciples; and yet I am far from admitting the truth of what the Papists assert, that the body of Christ passed through the shut doors. Their reason for maintaining this is, for the purpose of proving not only that the glorious body of Christ resembled a spirit, but that it was infinite, and could not be confined to any one place. But the words convey no such meaning; for the Evangelist does not say that he entered through the shut doors, but that he suddenly stood in the midst of his disciples, though the doors had been shut, and had not been opened to him by the hand of man. We know that Peter (Acts 10:10) [sic Acts 12:10] went out of a prison which was locked; and must we, therefore, say that he passed through the midst of the iron and of the planks? Away, then, with that childish trifling, which contains nothing solid, and brings along with it many absurdities! Let us be satisfied with knowing that Christ intended, by a remarkable miracle, to confirm his disciples in their belief of his resurrection.

Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentary on the Gospel according to John (Vol. 2, p. 264). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Augustine read the text to say that Christ “appeared” within the room, without speculating on how exactly he got there:

When he appeared with all the members of his body and used their functions, he also displayed the places of his wounds. I have always taken these as scars, not as actual wounds, and saw them as the result of his power, not of some necessity. He revealed the ease of this power, especially when he either showed himself in another form or appeared as his real self to the disciples gathered in the house when the doors were closed.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. IVb, Elowsky, J. C. (Ed.). (2007). John 11–21 (p. 356). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Gregory of Nyssa reads the text similarly:

After his resurrection he showed himself whenever he wanted to his disciples. When he wished to be present with them, he was in their midst without being seen, needing no entrance through open doors.… All of these occurrences, and whatever other similar facts we know about his life, require no further argument to show that they are signs of deity and of a sublime and supreme power.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. IVb, Elowsky, J. C. (Ed.). (2007). John 11–21 (p. 357). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Regarding the grave-clothes left in the empty tomb (John 20:6-8), Chrysostom seems to think they were simply stripped off and laid aside:

They see the linen clothes lying there, which was a sign of the resurrection. For if they had removed the body, they would not have stripped it first, nor, if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin and roll it up and lay it in a place by itself apart from the linens. They would have taken the body as it was.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. IVb, Elowsky, J. C. (Ed.). (2007). John 11–21 (pp. 340–341). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Eusebius of Caesarea hears the text saying the grave-clothes were simply left lying:

The cloths lying within seem to me at once to furnish also a proof that the body had not been taken away by people, as Mary supposed. For no one taking away the body would leave the linens, nor would the thief ever have stayed until he had undone the linens and so be caught.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. IVb, Elowsky, J. C. (Ed.). (2007). John 11–21 (p. 341). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Now my point is not to say we must agree with whatever the commentators write. That would go against a fundamental principle of this blog.

Rather, my point is that the notion of Jesus’ resurrected body passing through solid objects is by no means required of the text. Many Bible readers, in cultures and times different than ours, saw nothing of the sort. Or at least, if they did, not many saw reason to say so.

Eyes Back On the Text

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

John 20:19

What is plain is that the disciples were in a room with the doors locked. And John’s explicit reason for mentioning the locked doors is to highlight not Jesus’ miraculous entry but the disciples’ great fear of the Jews. And then at some point, Jesus came and stood among them. He may have entered the room in a miraculous way (which would be consistent with the views of the older commentators quoted above), but again, John doesn’t say so outright.

John doesn’t want us to focus on how exactly Jesus got into the room, though it may have been miraculous. And there is no reason to believe John wants us to think Jesus could pass through solid objects (but as I stated last week: It’s possible he could have!).

John wants us simply to see the risen Christ, in the flesh, offering peace to his fearful followers and sending them to bear witness to these things (John 20:20-23). Those are the facts of which we can be certain, and they ought to be the focus of our attention as we strive to understand and teach John’s message in this text.

Did Jesus Walk Through Walls?

By

Jesus accused the Pharisees of holding to traditions which had been added to the Word of God. We may accuse those outside our tribe of doing the same today. But could there be extra-biblical traditions to which we hold steadfastly within our own circles? Oral traditions repeated often enough to now appear nearly self-evident?

I propose one such tradition is the notion that Jesus walked through a wall. If we can suspend our familiarity with the tradition and observe the text carefully, we’ll find the tradition far from evident.

The Text

We find the tradition’s source in John 20:19 and John 20:26:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’

Francis Mariani (2008), Creative Commons

Examples of the Tradition

D.A. Carson’s commentary on John’s gospel is a masterpiece, which I am happy to recommend. But no-one is perfect, and in his comments on these verses, Carson reflects the tradition:

But the function of the locked doors in John’s narrative, both here [v.19] and in v.26, is to stress the miraculous nature of Jesus’ appearance amongst his followers. As his resurrection body passed through the grave-clothes (v.6-8), so it passed through the locked doors and simply ‘materialized.’

Carson, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991, p.646.

Carson simply asserts that Jesus’ body “passed through locked doors and simply ‘materialized'” as he did with the grave-clothes. So I turn to his comments on the grave-clothes for further textual evidence of the phenomenon:

The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Clearly John perceives these details to be important, but their exact meaning is disputed. Some have thought that the burial cloth still retained the shape of Jesus’ head, and was separated from the strips of linen by a distance equivalent to the length of Jesus’ neck. Others have suggested that, owing to the mix of spices separating the layers, even the strips of linen retained the shape they had when Jesus’ body filled them out. Both of these suggestions say more than the text requires. What seems clearest is the contrast with the resurrection of Lazarus (11:44). Lazarus came from the tomb wearing his grave-clothes, the additional burial cloth still wrapped around his head. Jesus’ resurrection body apparently passed through his grave-clothes, spices and all, in much the same way that he later appeared in a locked room (vv. 19, 26). The description of the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head does not suggest that it still retained the shape of the corpse, but that it had been neatly rolled up and set to one side by the one who no longer had any use for it.

Carson, p.637

So we see Carson first exposing a few baseless traditions (that the grave cloths were shaped liked a hollow mummy) because they “say more than the text requires.” This standard for evaluating traditions is eminently reasonable. However, Carson goes on to link the grave-clothes with the entering of the locked room. And he says more himself than the text requires by suggesting that Jesus’ body must have “passed through” solid objects.

C.S. Lewis offers another way one can grasp the tradition of Jesus walking through walls. In his novel Perelandra, as well as in The Great Divorce, he grapples with the idea that heaven is in fact more real than earth. The heavenly grass pokes at the sensitive feet of spiritual tourists, and heavenly rain drops threaten to crush those who lack substance. Lewis challenges the standard tradition in that he wants us not to see Jesus’ resurrection body as less “real,” or more “ghostly” than ours. He wants us to see Jesus’ body as more real and ourselves as the ghosts.

Both Carson and Lewis have important points to make on this topic, but both require us to look more closely at the text: Did Jesus walk through those walls? Did his body pass through the grave-cloths?

Observe the Text

I’ll start with the grave-cloths:

[Simon Peter] saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

John 20:6b-7

John tells us that Peter saw the grave-cloths “lying there.” He does not say they were shaped like a hollow mummy. And he does not say they looked as though the body had Disapparated and the cloths had fallen flat without being unwrapped. He says they were “lying there,” but he says nothing about the condition in which they were lying (except for the face cloth being folded).

They could have been ripped off like one of The Incredible Hulk’s shredded garments. They could have been removed and tossed aside like dirty laundry. They could have been rolled or folded neatly. John says the face cloth was “folded up in a place by itself,” so with confidence we can declare that piece of cloth as folded. But the rest? John simply doesn’t tell us. He doesn’t say nearly enough to require us to conclude the body must have passed through the garments.

Now look again at the locked room:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’

john 20:19, 26

We know the doors were locked, with the disciples inside. We know the disciples were afraid of the Jews. We know that Jesus then stood among them within the room and spoke to them. But John doesn’t tell us how Jesus got from outside the room to inside the room.

Perhaps he walked through the walls. Perhaps. Or perhaps he knocked on the locked door until they heard his voice, opened up, and let him in. Or perhaps he spoke by the word of his power and made a section of the wall collapse. Or perhaps he found some others to open a hole in the roof and let him down on a pallet. Or perhaps he teleported from one location to another. I intend no irreverence whatsoever; I only wish to highlight that which we simply don’t know.

Please note: I am not saying that Jesus could not have walked through the walls or passed through the grave-cloths. He certainly could have. He is the Lord.

I am saying only that it is not self-evident, from John’s narrative, that he must have walked through walls. John is not nearly as clear about metaphysical post-resurrection ontology as we might wish him to be.

Conclusion

Why does it matter whether Jesus walked through a wall or not? What is at stake here?

Simply the fact that traditions snowball over time, with the end result of making void the Word of God (Mark 7:13). In this case, the tradition has led many to speculate on the physical properties of either the resurrection body or the new heavens and the new earth. This can lead many to make too sharp a division between the “natural” and the “spiritual”—and then we use those adjectives more like Plato than like Paul, which promotes unbiblical asceticism (Col 2:20-23), among other things.

May our thinking and our doctrine be increasingly rooted in vigilant observation of the God-inspired text, that we might be complete, equipped for every good work.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed.