Acts | Knowable Word

The Genre of Luke’s Gospel

August 2, 2019 By Peter Krol

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.

The Shocking Judgment of Ananias and Sapphira

May 8, 2019 By Peter Krol

Matthew Boffey takes a look at the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to see what Luke’s point may be in this compact and impactful narrative.

Boffey observes the text well, marking comparisons and contrasts, repetition, and climax. He asks good interpretive questions, answering only those which are assumed or addressed in the text. He lets the rest of his questions go. And he applies the text personally from its main point. Do you fear God?

This is a great example of skilled Bible study, and I commend it to you.

Check it out!

Making Sense of Prophecy

October 3, 2018 By Peter Krol

In his article “How to (Mis)Interpret Prophecy,” Michael Heiser illustrates one weakness with over-generalizing our interpretive principles. He mentions the principle: “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” And then he examines the use of Amos 9 in Acts 15 to show one place where the principle needs more nuance.

He concludes:

Comparing these passages illustrates important lessons: Interpreting biblical prophecy cannot be distilled to a simple maxim, and not everything can be taken literally. The New Testament shows us otherwise.

His concise analysis is worth your time. Check it out!

Keep in Touch

May 27, 2016 By Peter Krol

When we train apprentices or delegate tasks, sometimes we’re too slow to hand things off. I’ve written about this danger over the last few weeks, but we must consider another danger as well: being too quick to hand things off.

Yee Leng (2009), Creative Commons

When we hit stage 4 for training new Bible study leaders (“You do; I watch”), we may feel tempted to simply send them out and commend their souls to God. We might even be relieved to have someone to take on some of our responsibility. We have complete trust in the person to serve and full confidence in God to work. But sending out new leaders must not flick like a standard light switch, on or off. It should transition more like a dimmer switch with increasing shades of brightness.

So when you send out your apprentice to lead a new group, you’re not yet finished as a trainer. You still should check in with that person from time to time to see how things are going. You’ll want to encourage the leader with evidence of God’s grace. You’ll want to expose areas of potential blindness. You’ll want to stimulate the leader’s thinking about ways to excel. And you’ll want to make sure the new leader considers finding his or her own apprentice to train and launch.

We can see this approach in the Apostle Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. Paul’s chief aim on his first missionary journey was to appoint and train leaders for fledgling churches: “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23). But he didn’t merely set them up and forget about them. Notice the impetus behind his second missionary journey: “And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are” (Acts 15:36). That second trip covered the same ground before going farther and deeper into Rome’s empire. His third trip then revisited the same places as the second trip.

He kept visiting the same places to strengthen and correct the leaders. He didn’t control them or take those churches back over. He let the leaders lead, but he made sure to check in and offer help. There’s much for us to learn from this approach.

First, don’t forget your apprentices, even after they’ve gone to lead their own groups.

Second, you don’t need a curriculum or detailed training agenda. Just visit occasionally to “see how they are.” You might want to ask about what’s going well and what could be better. You may also want to make your own observations.

Third, decrease your involvement as they continue to develop.

Fourth, make sure your former apprentices take note of potential new apprentices they can train.

Fifth, rejoice in the Lord, who is multiplying your ministry and your influence before your eyes. Keep those eyes fixed on Christ so you can represent him well.

Why It’s Hard to Delegate Responsibility

January 29, 2016 By Peter Krol

Peter Rasmussen (2014), Creative Commons

In family life, we call them helicopter parents, because they hover close and swoop in when their wards need rescue. They keep younglings caged and well-padded. They argue over grades with college professors. They sit in on job interviews. They expect daily phone calls and pre-decision consultations.

And these “helicopter parents” run rampant also in Christian ministry. I confess: I am prone to be one of them. But by way of contrast, let me tell a few stories.

Eighteen Months

I know one guy who served the Lord in a previously unreached part of the world. This community tolerated monotheism, and some folks had been influenced by Jewish ideas. But they had never heard of Jesus or his saving work until this man arrived. His ministry got kicked out of its meeting place several times. He made a remarkable number of enemies. He was even abducted and brought before the local judge on charges of anarchy (thankfully, he was acquitted). But he stayed there for a total of 18 months, preaching and making disciples. When God called him elsewhere, he left a thriving church with regular worship services, a reputation for strong teaching, and a group of pastors and elders to shepherd them.

Did you hear that? This guy trained and launched leaders from unbelief, through conversion, and into competent shepherding in 18 months! If someone new came to my Bible study, I might not even let them lead a prayer time in 18 months. I care too much to allow such reckless indiscretion.

On-the-Job Training

Another fellow in my acquaintance focused on itinerant ministry. He gathered a few trainees about him and poured himself into them, while he hit the preaching circuit. I was amazed by his ability to turn absolutely anything into an object lesson. He coached, explained things, served people, and let his apprentices participate and practice. Within a few years, he began booking his apprentices to preach on his behalf.

While I appreciated the multiplying ministry, I also had significant concerns here. A few of these apprentices didn’t yet have a clear Christology (doctrine of Christ). They hadn’t gone to seminary or received any other formal theological training. But this missionary was convinced their syllabus for learning needed a good proportion of teaching to help them progress faster in their training. It was pretty risky and almost created a disaster.

What Holds Us Back

Why is it so hard for me (and perhaps for you) to let people go, to send them out and let them try their hand at ministry? Why do we hover, hang on to responsibility, and pass things off with stalwart reluctance?

Of course, there are many possible answers. But the main reason for me is that I fear failure. It’s the same reason I hated group projects as a student. It’s why I carry burdens I don’t need to carry. It’s why I find it easiest to do something myself.

Can you relate?

Do you ever feel like an unskilled apprentice would reflect negatively on your leadership?
Do you think the stakes are too high for the people you minister to, for a newbie to make mistakes in caring for them?
Do you believe you’re caring for weaker brothers or sisters when you cushion their fall?

One of the best ways people learn is by feeling the pain of their mistakes. If we are serious about training others to lead Bible studies (or do any other kind of ministry), we must take risks. We must launch apprentices quickly, bring them back to debrief, and send them out to try it again. We need to give them real authority to try things. We must be okay with imperfection. We have to make peace with some people’s needs going unmet while the apprentice figures out how to meet them. We can’t jump in and fix it.

We should be okay with mistakes in the Bible study, mistakes in the small group, mistakes in the pulpit. We should never hammer ministry apprentices for trying and failing, though we might need to admonish them for not really trying.

I was not ready to lead my first Bible study, but I needed that first one so the second one could be better. Someone trusted me enough to let me try it. If I were that leader, training up that younger me, I might not have taken the risk. But I praise God for the courageous leaders in my life, and I want to be more like them.

Postscript: I want my argument to be biblical and not merely anecdotal, so allow me to introduce my two missionary friends from the case studies above. You may find them in Acts 18:1-18 and Luke 10:1-24.

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.

Get to Know the Word this Year

December 20, 2013 By Peter Krol

Rob Pongsajapan (2006), Creative Commons

In my home office, there’s a fireproof safe where my wife and I keep our most precious possessions. While we partly use the safe for legal papers, we’ve filled most of it with the 45 love letters that document the development of our romance. This bundle of letters is more than a memento; it’s our story.

The story begins with a question mark. A love-struck young man composes a poetic thank-you note to a sweet girl who has done a nice thing for him. He ends the note with a simple question—a question clear enough to give her reason to write back, but vague enough to prevent any guilt should she choose not to. Either way, the presence of the question mark is indisputable, and with it, he takes a chance.

Thana Thaweeskulchai (2008), Creative Commons

She chooses to write back, asking her own vague question in return. Queen’s knight to c3. Game on.

The remaining details will remain private, but I’m willing to share this much: We pored over those letters. We wrapped our hearts in them, and we squeezed every juicy jot and tittle for another drop of meaning. We didn’t read those letters because we had to, though I admit there was a sense of compulsion. We didn’t read those letters to learn about each other, though it’s true each delivery brought more information. Technically, what we did with those letters wasn’t exactly reading. It was more like fixating or indulging.

And all for what? We sought this one thing: to get to know each other. We wanted a relationship.

Similarly, you and I get to read the Bible to build our relationship with the God who wrote it. He already knows us, and he wants us to get to know him. He became a man to reconcile us to himself and live with us forever, and he left a book documenting the whole affair. “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

Sometimes we think we need a special encounter to know God. We seek a mountaintop experience where we can behold his glory and see him face to face. We want to hear his voice speak with clarity and power. We long to be wowed from on high.

The Apostle Peter had such an experience with Jesus, and he concluded that you and I don’t need to share it:

We were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place. (2 Peter 1:16-19)

The text isn’t clear whether the prophetic word is more sure than the mountaintop experience, or more sure than it would have been without the mountaintop experience (does the word trump the mountaintop, or is it confirmed by the mountaintop?). Either way, Peter says this word is sure. We don’t need the mountaintop; we need to pay more attention to the word that has already been spoken.

That’s why, when Paul wanted to introduce people to Jesus, he introduced them to the Bible (Acts 17:1-3). The apostles were clear that Jesus was the main point of the Bible (John 1:45, 5:39-40, Luke 24:44-49, 1 Peter 1:10-12).

We study the Bible to know Jesus and to help others know him.

Maybe you’ve never studied the Bible without a tour guide or commentary, and you want to learn the basics. Perhaps you know the basics but want to make them instinctive, like an athlete perfecting a skill through endless repetition. Or perhaps you already teach the Bible, but you do so intuitively, unsure of how to take what you do and package it up for wholesale distribution among your flock.

Whatever your situation, a simple and sensible Bible study method will help. This year, how can you be more intentional about both learning to study the Bible and teaching others to study it? Do you think it would be worth it to get to know the Word who is the Truth?

« Previous Page