‘Behold, the Lamb
of God’
ide
o amnos tou theou
College Study
90th teaching
10.20.2014
“A Prelude to the
Gospel of Luke”
Review:
I’m very excited for tonight
because we’ve reached a new stage in our travels through Christology. Where
have we been and where have we gone? You’ll recall the several sections of
Christology we’ve passed through, beginning with the introductory section
wherein we asked the question “Who is Jesus Christ?” and then we entered a
second section called “the Nature of Christ” where we talked about the
hypostatic union of Christ’s two complete natures: the divine and the human;
thirdly, we entered a section which we are now still in, the section entitled
“the Life of Christ”.
We found that the life of Jesus Christ did not
begin at the manger in Bethlehem with His birth to a virgin. It began further
back, much further back, way before He was even ever known as Jesus or Christ,
back even before the dawn of man and the world and time itself in what is known
as the Pre-Incarnate State. We began there, in timeless eternity with the
description of Christ as the Logos of God. Then we moved through this
pre-incarnate part of the life of Christ by examining how He lived in the Old
Testament era, characterized by the words Appearing and Anticipated. Appearing,
He at times visually revealed Himself to people in the Old Testament in what
was known as Theophanies, or more properly Christophanies, visible appearances
of the Son of God. And Anticipated, we saw that prophecy played a major role in
the Old Testament anticipation of the coming Savior, in what is specifically
called Messianic Prophecy. Finally, we took a three-week survey of the content
and context of the Old Testament books themselves, structured a storyline for
the whole Old Testament and saw how each book fits into that storyline and how
each book further reveals the character of this coming Savior Jesus Christ.
So then, you remember that there are five sections
in the Old Testament beginning with…? (the Pentateuch, the Historical Books,
the Writings, the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets). Now it was the Minor
Prophets, aka the Twelve, that we studied last week, the twelve final books in
the modern Old Testament collection of books.
To nudge our noggins into thinking: Let’s ask some
questions. Can you name the twelve minor prophets? Who was the prophet of a
broken heart? Who was the prophet-farmer? Who was the prophet of the locusts?
Who was the reluctant prophet? Who was the prophet of the millennium? Who was
the red-prophet? Who was the prophet of fairness? Who was the prophet of
vengeance? Who was the prophet of encouragement? Who was the prophet of
Judgment Day? Who was the prophet of anticipation? Who was the prophet of the
future temple? What kind of men were these prophets?
Bonus: What do we call the time between the last
prophet, Malachi, and the New Testament time? The Intertestamental Period. How
long was it?
End
of Review
So
then, we’ve passed through several thousand years in the Old Testament, we’ve
followed the children of Israel through their history, their rise, their
downfall, their exile and their return into the Promised Land. Now we’ve
tip-toed through the 400 silent years of the Intertestamental Period. Hopefully
now we can fully appreciate all the hope and all the light of the New
Testament. To us it is a mere turn of a page and with that we gloss over four
centuries. But imagine 400 years of silence from God, 400 years of nothing but
strife and war and dead tradition, imagine all the darkness and failure and
idolatry of the Old Testament finally ending, light has appeared at the end of
the tunnel until at last there is a voice that is raised in the wilderness crying
out to prepare the way of the Lord, to repent for the kingdom of heaven is
near. And then, there He is: the long-expected Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah,
the Desire of Nations, the One that all of history has anticipated.
And we turn the page into the New
Testament.
Tonight, I’m excited to say, is a
milestone for our college group. Tonight marks our 90th study in
this series of Systematic Theology, and being a part of this has been one of
the greatest experiences of my life. But tonight also marks the first time
we’ll turn from typically topical studies to a measured expositional study,
meaning we’ll be going through a book of the Bible verse by verse.
We’re not abandoning our study through
the Life of Christ, but we’re moving into the New Testament and we’re going to
see the Life of Christ through the eyes of the Gospel accounts, into the
Incarnation, the Ministry of Christ, His crucifixion, burial, resurrection,
appearances and ascension. I think this transition from Old to New Testament
will be seamless, considering we’ve tracked the Life of Christ from book to
book and now we’re simply moving in, zooming in for a closer look in a specific
New Testament book. And that book is the Gospel according to Luke.
Tonight’s study is entitled: “A
Prelude to the Gospel of Luke”.
I chose Luke because it’s one gospel
that I think gets glossed over a lot more than the others. It seems to get less
attention, and I’ve never really studied through Luke myself or in any church
ever.
So turn to Luke 1:1-4.
“Inasmuch
as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which
have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to
me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to
write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know
the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
Matthew’s gospel begins with a
genealogy tracing back to the Old Testament. Mark’s gospel begins with the
ministry of John the Baptist. John’s gospel begins with a prologue about the
eternal Logos becoming flesh and dwelling among us. Luke opens with a prelude,
an introduction in these four short verses to everything that’s to come. Since
tonight is going to be our introduction to Luke’s Gospel, we’re going to take
it slow and lay down some foundations for our series in Luke.
Look again at v.1 which said “many have
taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been
fulfilled among us…” First fact to note: there were many gospels. In brief,
by the time Luke wrote this book, there were already people who had written
narratives about the life of Christ. The four earliest and most reliable
narratives are the four Gospel accounts in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John.
However, there are more than just
these four. There is for example, the infamous Gospel of Judas that caused
quite a stir a few years ago. The so-called Secret Gospels or Lost Gospels
include books like the controversial Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the
Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, and the Infancy Gospel of James. Obviously, none
of these gospel accounts are included in the Bible.
Why not? Why’re these Gospels called
non-canonical and excluded from the New Testament? Well, one reason is that
they are typically later accounts written many more years after the earlier,
and thus more reliable, gospels had been written down. The Gospels of Peter and
Thomas and Judas and James, for example, are said to have been written during
the 2nd century (that is after the year 100AD) whereas the four
canonical gospels of the New Testament are earlier, 1st century,
before 100AD, documents and thus closer to the actual events they record.
What’s more, since the Gospels of
Peter, Thomas, Judas and James are written so late, there’s no way they could
have been written by the actual
Peter, the actual Thomas or Judas or
James, since they would have already been long dead. Estimates put the death of
Peter, for example, in the year 64AD and the Gospel of Peter is dated around
the later part of the 2nd century, so… you can do the math. The
Gospel of Peter was in fact condemned as heretical around 200AD and CERTAINLY Old
Saint Pete wouldn’t have been around to do the writing for this pseudo-gospel
that bears his name.
Another good reason to reject the
non-canonical gospels is because they can be pretty ridiculous. There are clear
legendary developments and supernatural embellishments that are lacking from
the clear-cut, matter-of-fact nature of the four canonical gospels. For
example, the Gospel of Peter depicts the actual cross of Christ coming out of
the tomb after Jesus had risen and saying the word “Yes”. Another example is
the Gospel of Judas that depicts heretical gnostic concepts and theology
distinct from the theology of the four canonical gospels, and a depiction of
Christ instructing Judas Iscariot to betray him. Because of the wildly unique
claims that each of these pseudo-gospels separately make, we have good reason
to reject them. You can read them today for yourself and recognize what kind of
mythology really can develop in writings that are much more far removed from
the actual events than the four canonical gospels are.
But let’s ask a question: What is a
Gospel? We all know what the word gospel
means: good news, but what is a Gospel?
v.1
gives us the answer. A Gospel is “a
narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us.” Second fact
to note: a Gospel is a narrative of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
J.C. Ryle writes in his commentary on
Luke: “It is a narrative of facts about Jesus Christ. Christianity is a
religion built upon facts. Let us never lose sight of this. It came before
mankind at first in this shape. The first preachers did not go up and down the
world, proclaiming an elaborate, artificial system of abstruse doctrines and
deep principles. They made it their first business to tell men great plain
facts. They went about telling a sin-laden world, that the Son of God had come
down to earth, and lived for us, and died for us, and risen again. The Gospel,
at its first publication, was far more simple than many make it now. It was
neither more nor less than the history of Christ.”
That’s a great definition. What is a
Gospel? It is the history of Christ, a narrative of the life, death and
resurrection of Christ. A Gospel is a historical account. They are biographies
of a historical figure: Jesus.
Here’s another question: Why are there
four Gospels in the Bible? Why include four? Why not just include the best, the
earliest and most reliable, the most complete and comprehensive? Why include
four?
Consider the benefit of having four
reliable Gospels rather than just one big one. With four Gospels, we have four
different points of view on the same historical life of Christ. With four
different accounts, we have the capability to check for contradictions and
differences, which we could not do if we only had one Gospel.
Here’s a cool chart to illustrate: You
can see that Matthew, Mark and Luke share many similarities and stories. These
three gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels, which simply refers to their
similarity as opposed to the Gospel of John which has many unique stories and
events in it.
Because there are four Gospels and
four different viewpoints and four different records, we have more complete of
a knowledge of the life of Christ than we would have if we only had Matthew or
if we only had Luke or if we only had John, since there are things in Matthew
that aren’t in Luke and vice versa, there are things John knew and included in
his account which Luke didn’t know or chooses not to include.
We needn’t be surprised by this.
Modern historians and biography writers never include every single event that occurred in the life of, say, one of my
favorite musicians Johnny Cash. No two biographies about Johnny Cash are going
to include the same exact events in the same exact order. One biography may
choose to talk about his redemption and death, another may choose to talk about
his wild and drug-laced career, still another may choose to begin with his
death and then focus on his childhood in seemingly out-of-order event
chronology. I own his autobiography and he writes a summary of his life all in
the first chapter and then jumps back to his boyhood in the second chapter.
This is how biographies, histories and
even the gospels are written. We can’t expect any biography to include every
event in a person’s life and everything they said in exact order. A biography
is literature not an exact science.
So then, think of the Gospels as
biographies from different angles with different purposes and different flavors
even though they’re all written about the same guy. Think of the four gospels
as four portraits of the same person painted by four different artists. Think
about it, if you had four painters: a Renaissance, a Minimalist, an
Impressionist and a Surrealist painter all paint their own portrait of the same
person, you would have radically different works of art even though they’re all
truthfully painting the same subject.
I can imagine that Matthew is that
Renaissance painter, concerned with what’s come before him, concerned with all
the richness and texture of the ancient world in the Old Testament as he quotes
the prophets of God over and over again. He’s concerned with bridging the gap
between the Old and the New and showing how Christ fulfills the anticipations
of the Old Testament. His portrait of Christ has that antique feeling of
grandeur.
Mark is that Minimalist artist. His is
the shortest, briefest of the four gospels. He uses short, quick language. He
uses the word immediately a lot. He rushes from scene to scene until the
conclusion. Mark is to-the point and concise. His portrait of Christ has a
feeling of simplicity. He’s got his message and that’s it, no fluff. It’s like
the barest form of the gospel there is.
Luke I think of as the Impressionist.
He shines some light on the realism, the human-ness of Jesus, with many small
strokes and details put together to form the largest and longest of the
gospels, and therefore the clearest of portraits of Christ’s humanity. There is
incredible life-likeness in Luke’s portrait, a portrayal of Christ that fits in
a very historical setting.
Finally, John is the odd-man out: the
Surrealist. He is the strange one of the bunch, choosing to focus less on the
ordinary and more on the supernatural aspect of the life of Christ. Compared to
the other three, the Synoptic Gospels, John seems out of place and bizarre and
unique. His portrayal of Jesus that focuses on Christ’s deity leads to some of
the most unique stories in any of the Gospel accounts. John’s Gospel borders on
the fantastic and the unknown, opening with the striking statement that the
eternal Logos became flesh, a surreal dichotomy almost of two foreign concepts:
God and man meeting in One Person.
The reason these four portraits have
so many differences in the events and words they record is because they had
different points of view. They are four works of art by four different artists;
they are four histories about one man written by four different people. None of
them attempted to record everything in perfect order or perfect unison with the
others, nor should they have. We can cherish the differences between the
gospels: it shows they didn’t copy off of each other. Though they share
similarities, there are many differences. There would be far less differences
if they all got together and tried to work out their stories, get all the kinks
out and iron out all the apparent inconsistencies. As it turns out, the fact
that we have four different Gospels
with differences in them is a great proof of their reliability.
Look back at Luke 1:2. There is a mention here of eyewitnesses and ministers of
the word. That last phrase is a reference no doubt to the disciples and
apostles, the early teachers of the church. Indeed, the Gospels were referred
to in the early church as the “Memoirs of the Apostles”. Traditionally, two of
the four gospel writers were in fact members of the original twelve apostles:
Matthew and John.
But Luke’s prelude also makes mention
of eyewitnesses. This is important. In fact, this is vital. This is our third
fact about the Gospel of Luke: the fact of eyewitnesses.
At the time of the writing of these
four gospels, the original eyewitnesses who saw the crucifixion, who saw the
risen Lord, who saw the miracles of Christ and who heard His parables and
sermons were still alive. The eyewitnesses were still around at the time of the
writing of the New Testament.
I made a fascinating discovery
yesterday that there are some scholars who apparently identified two manuscript
fragments from the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts so old that it seemed
laughable to identify any New Testament manuscripts among them. Yet in one
example, the paleographer Jose O’Callaghan apparently identified fragments of
the Gospel of Mark which were dated as late as AD 50, that’s 17 years after
Jesus’ crucifixion if He died in AD 33. In 17 years, of course, the majority of
eyewitnesses would still be around to verify Mark’s Gospel account. Dr.
O’Callaghan’s identification of this fragment is controversial and debatable,
but if proven true it narrows the gap between the life of Christ and the
writing of the New Testament to less than two decades.
Paul the apostle in I Corinthians 15 mentions some
eyewitnesses, himself included, James the once skeptical brother of Jesus, the
apostle Peter and the other disciples, even a group of some 500 eyewitnesses
who apparently saw the risen Christ. Paul even says the majority of those 500
were still alive at the time of his writing the first letter to the
Corinthians, an implied challenge that anyone could seek out these eyewitnesses
if they so chose.
Again, when we look at the gospels, we
find exactly what we’d expect to find if these separate accounts were based on
eyewitness stories. There are differences between the accounts. Eyewitnesses
often remember the plain and essential facts but can often get minor details
wrong. This could account for the differences in some of the Gospels.
People have gone as far as saying that
there are flat out contradictions in the Gospels. For example, the resurrection
account has become a favorite target for critics and they’ll point out that John 20:1 says one woman went to Jesus’
tomb while Matthew 28:1 says two
women went to the tomb. In Luke 24:4,
the women see two angels at the tomb but in Mark 16:5 they see one angel inside the tomb. How do we reconcile
these differences? Critics are quick to dismiss the whole gospels themselves
for the sake of some of these supposed contradictions. There are many who’d
like to throw out the whole baby with the bath-water.
But the thing to note is that the
differences and apparent contradictions point to the fact of there being eyewitness
accounts and not against there being eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses can get details
wrong while maintaining the same essential stories. Dr. Mike Licona, though
involved in a current controversy which has no relevance to tonight’s subject,
is a scholar, apologist and historian who uses the Titanic as an example for
the discrepancies in eyewitness stories. For example, when the Titanic was
sinking, did it sink intact or did it break apart? It had to be one or the
other, yet eyewitnesses such as Charles Herbert Lightoller, 2nd
officer and survivor of the Titanic said the ship sank “absolutely intact”,
while at the same tragedy both Seaman
Edward John Buley and Steward George Frederick Crowe thought that the ship
broke in half, with Mr. Crowe claiming to have actually seen the ship breaking
in half.
So which was it? We’ve got an apparent
contradiction here. But just because there are eyewitness contradictions about
the sinking of the Titanic doesn’t mean the Titanic didn’t sink! That’s a
historical fact.
It’s just the same with the historical
records of the Gospels. I think a great many of these apparent inconsistencies
are simply apparent. Many of them can
be reconciled. I’ve done it myself. But even if there are contradictions over
minor details such as the chronology of events or the number of persons present
or mentioned to be present, doesn’t
mean that none of the historical accounts took place at all.
Okay, so what have we got so far? We
know what Gospels are. We know how to recognize good Gospels from bad Gospels,
the pseudo-gospels. We know that it is a benefit to us to have four Gospels and
not just one, and that each of the four present different accounts, but because
they are the earliest they are the most reliable. We know also that Luke claims
the testimony of eyewitnesses, which helps to account for some of the
differences between the Gospel records.
What about the authorship of this
Gospel? The title reads: the Gospel according to Luke, and in the prelude, the
author writes in first-person that he’s purposing to give this account to
someone named Theophilus.
That Luke was the author of this
Gospel is a belief that has been held since the earliest days of church history
and there is really no reason to doubt it. Are there any other, better
possibilities?
But who is this Luke and did he
actually write this account?
Let me tell you four things about
Luke:
First, Luke was a doctor. In the book
of Acts, the writer opens by saying “In
the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and
teach…” What first book? Notice that there’s reference again of writing to
someone named Theophilus. Again there’s the first-person voice in the writing.
Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke and characterized by the same
authorship. In Acts, Luke is seen as a traveling companion of the apostle Paul,
and it is Paul that mentions Luke as “the
beloved physician” in Colossians
4:14. So from Acts and Colossians, we understand that Luke accompanied
Paul, apparently as his personal physician, remembering that Paul suffered from
his “thorn in the flesh” some kind of physical ailment that afflicted him.
While we don’t know anything about Luke’s training or medical background, we do
know that his writings appear to contain technical medical terms to sort of
“diagnose” those who were healed by Christ, for example, Luke uses the
technical Greek term hudropikos to
describe an ailment of surplus fluid in the body tissues, Luke uses the medical
term sugkuptousa to refer to
curvature of the spine, apolelusai
for relaxing tendons, and sunechomene
pureto megala to describe a fever, words which do appear in ancient Greek
medical books. We often think of the ancient peoples as being stupid,
illiterate barbarians, but Luke shows a keen mind and articulate language for
medicine. If this is so, then Luke is one of the most intelligent of the gospel
writers. Trust him. He’s a doctor.
Secondly, Luke was a historian.
Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler compiled a list of 84 specific bits of
local knowledge that Luke had of 1st century Israel and the ancient
middle east. Luke is about as accurate of a historian as you can find, using
specific local names for places, people, conditions, customs, routs, titles,
members of administration, culture and circumstances that only contemporary
eyewitnesses would know such as the correct use of specific dialects, specific
declensions of names, locations of specific ports and crossings, the specific
beliefs of philosophers, the means of custody with Roman soldiers… things even
as specific and obscure as Luke using the plural word to describe the unique 1st
century function of dual proconsuls rather than just the one regular proconsul.
How could Luke know all this if he was not alive and about during this time
period, writing this very historically accurate account? So with so much in
Christianity riding on the historical facts, it really was an amazing move in
the wisdom of God to make one of the Gospel writers a bona fide historian.
Thirdly, Luke was a saint. He has been
called Saint Luke throughout church history. Obviously, Luke was a believing
Christian. He travels with Paul loyally on his missionary journey. He writes
the longest Gospel narrative about the life of Christ. He was a believer, no
doubt. This raises in my mind the question of bias. Sometimes you’ll hear
scholars and critics complain that we can’t really know much about Christ at
all, certainly we can’t trust the religiously biased accounts of the Gospels,
since they’re biased, and so they turn to the relatively meager evidence of
sources and writings outside of the New Testament. Now certainly, there are
several historical references to Jesus Christ outside of the Bible, but the
meat of the historical narratives is in the Gospels, and so to throw them out
destroys much of what we can actually know about Christ. But should we throw
them out because they’re biased?
Consider a few things: That first off,
nobody is without bias. Every biographer, every writer, every historian pens
their works with bias guiding their pen. It’s been said that history is written
by the victors. In a large sense that is absolutely true. Every historian
chooses to record what they want to record. Every biographer chooses what they
want to include and exclude from their account. Every writer writes with a
specific purpose in mind. Now if we’re to throw out any account that is biased
then essentially we’d have to throw out all history: We’d have to throw out all
the knowledge of the Roman Empire we get from Roman historians. We’d have to
throw out all the history books written by the Allied powers, by Americans,
that write about World War II. We’d have to throw out all American history
written by Americans. We’d have to stop the Jews from writing about the
Holocaust, the Japanese from writing about the horrors of Hiroshima, the Blacks
from writing about the civil rights movement, you’d have to take every
historical piece of data with any slant or angle or aim from any side of the
event and throw it away and you’d end up with unknowable history. So don’t let
people complain about the bias of the Gospels. Just because Luke was a saint
doesn’t mean his record is flawed or untrustworthy. You don’t base whether a
historian’s writings are good or not on whether they were biased or not, but on
whether their history is accurate or not. Bias is not a big issue.
It’s not like Luke is some religious
nut. Again, you read Luke and you get the idea that he was an intelligent
medical man with a vast knowledge of local customs and history.
Fourthly and finally, Luke was an
evangelist. The title “Evangelist” is one that has been given to the four
Gospel writers. So Luke is sometimes referred to as “Luke the Evangelist”. He’s
one of the first to tell the great story of Jesus Christ in tremendous written
depth and bring the good news of salvation to the world.
This brings us to the final verses of
the short passage we looked at tonight: “…it
seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the
very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that
you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
Why did Luke write this Gospel? So
that Theophilus might know with certainty the Life of Christ. We don’t know who
this Theophilus was. He could have been a wealthy man of the upper class who
became a believer and enlisted Luke to write this account, much like rich men
in that culture would hire artisans and artists to create great works of art
for their household.
But obviously, Luke’s Gospel is more
than just for the house of Theophilus. The name Theophilus comes from two Greek
words: Theos meaning God and Phileo which is one of the words for
Love. Thus Theophilus means lover of God.
In a broad sense, Luke’s Gospel is for everyone who loves God, to read it and
have certainty over the things we believe and are instructed in.
My wife and I were talking last night
about how the church must maintain a sense of transparency, how we need to be
transparent with each other. Let’s be realistic and honestly so: we all have
our doubts from time to time, and we do each other and ourselves a great
disservice if we simply hide that fact, hide our weaknesses and flaws from each
other, under the perfect masks we’d like to present to the church. We’re
hurting ourselves if we pretend to be perfect, if we pretend to have no doubts.
If you’re struggling with doubt, I hope
tonight’s study has helped you. We’ve barely scratched the surface of Luke’s
Gospel but we know that he wrote it so that a man might believe with certainty.
He wrote it to cast out doubts. You want to fight against creeping unbelief?
Stick with St. Luke.
Tonight we’ve seen that the Gospels
are early, first century documents, reliable, eyewitness accounts and
narratives structured around the life, death and resurrection of Christ. This
is the heart of Christianity. This is exactly what you and I need. It is the
solution: the Life of Christ.
So then, Luke was an Evangelist, and
you and I evangelists? Can we sit on our comfortable tushes when all the world
around us marches steadily into hellfire? We’ve got the message. We’ve got the
cure. We’ve got the solution. Not in you and I but here in the Word of God. We
need only to take it to a world that is dying for lack of it, to people who are
starving and thirsting for it, enough that they would turn to substance abuse
and sexuality and pleasure and wealth and even suicide just to sate themselves
of the overwhelming hunger for truth. And it’s right here.
If you’re an unhappy Christian, maybe
it’s because you need an outlet. Evangelism is a necessary part of the health
of any church and every church member.
My heart is heavy when I see groups of
young guys and girls just aimlessly walking down the streets, like the
boulevard I drive through to get here, knowing that they’re not going anywhere,
they’re just out to be out, to be among people and stave off the intense
loneliness and isolation of the human soul that is without God and fellowship.
Why can’t they be brought in here? Why can’t they come and hear the word of God
being taught?
Now we have the room. We have the
space. Heck, we’ve got flyers. Let the silent years be broken. Let the voice of
God be heard. Let’s join the great mission of God’s church since its earliest
days when Luke the beloved physician penned these very words himself. Let’s
take the opportunity to look for opportunity to share the good news, the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, with those who have never met Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment