Our Featured Article: The Message of Luke: An Introduction by Walther A. Olsen

[Trout]

The Message of Luke: An Introduction

Walther A. Olsen

Pastor, FBC Dolores Colorado


Those who cherish the NT Scriptures and love the church of Jesus Christ owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to this man we know only by his first-name Luke. For me, he's a renaissance man in the kingdom of God! Paul lets drop that this special friend of his was a physician, students of the Bible know him to be a careful historian…something that becomes marvelously evident in chapters nineteen and twenty. The depth of his writings reveal him to a keen thinker and theologian, but for me this third gospel puts on display for all to see his extraordinary gifts as a writer. The bottom line, however, is that Luke is a man of God who has unabashedly identified himself with the mission of Paul. And in his hands this third gospel becomes an astonishing literary achievement that has profoundly impacted me as a person. Up-front I admit that I am in awe of what God has given us from the mind and heart and pen of this man!.

Luke has given us a portrait of the Person of Jesus Christ that is as moving and provocative as it is beautiful. His treatise on the birth and early growth of the apostolic church is our foundational document on its emergence in Jerusalem and growth to Asia Minor, to Greece and on to Rome itself. His name tells us that he was of Greek ancestry. We know nothing, however, of his early life save that he was trained as a physician (that this may have taken place in the medical college at Tarsus is quite intriguing). In the social structure of Greek life, this suggests that Luke once served as an indentured servant to a wealthy Greek Colon…a servanthood which he had faithfully fulfilled to become a "freedman." He evidently never met the Lord face-to-face and nothing is told us of his conversion experience, yet he portrays Jesus as if he were numbered among the twelve.

While this third gospel is literally an annotated portrait of Jesus and Luke quotes him freely and extensively across this text, it is the author's voice-the voice of a barrister-that resonates across these twenty-four chapters. That voice-over directs us to see and know Jesus Christ in new and powerful ways as it escorts us through the story-line of Jesus' life and ministry. The gospel is nowhere as personal and passionate as when Luke tells it!

A case in point. Luke's eighth chapter makes an eloquent and powerful statement on the urgency of listening to the Word of the Lord. In it Luke argues his case by describing the whole of creation as responding to the voice of Jesus. Even the spirit-world is subject to his voice. Through the pain of a dying daughter and a body emaciated by twelve years hemorrhaging, a ruler of a synagogue and a lonely woman with a twelve-year issue of blood hear the words of Jesus…and they respond. Even the dead are portrayed as hearing and responding to that voice. The words are those of Jesus, but the message was framed by Luke.

This point needs to be expanded upon! Theologians exegete particular texts while pastors focus on the sermonic content of the Scriptures. Both are indispensable. What we often fail to recognize, however, is that each volume of the NT is written to communicate a very particular message. When it comes to our four gospels, each one sustains a carefully structured logic which enfolds an inspired message…a message which will require each verse of the author's text to unfold.

A word needs to be said on the style of Luke: His presentation of material is such that it compels the reader-chapter by chapter-to ask specific and directed questions. He portrays dilemmas which oblige readers to raise fundamental questions. He employs the devise of questions to identify the meaning of the text. It is with these questions that Luke challenges our minds; but it is with the narrative portraits he paints for us that he challenges our hearts. No biblical writer is his equal in painting word pictures that grab our hearts!

The structure of any biblical text is keenly important. With Luke, structure become crucial. During the years following the Ascension of the Lord, eye-witnesses to the major events in the ministry of Jesus put into writing recollections of Jesus' life and ministry. They did this in the form of short, self-contained narrative accounts. They might be recollections of miracles or teachings or parables or discourses or confrontations with the Pharisees. It helps to think of them as "narrative units." These narrative units were largely kept in key churches and became a basic source for the writing of the gospels (see 1:1-4).

Even Matthew who was himself an eyewitness to these events readily employed these narrative accounts. A quick scanning of Luke's text quickly reveals the presence of these natural units…over a hundred of them. They are laid out-one after the other-across the twenty-four chapters of Luke's gospel. Each unit carefully recounting a single life-event from Jesus' public ministry, each unit carefully articulating a teaching-theme or thematic truth from the ministry of Jesus! Linked together one after the other by Luke, these units evoke an inspired message.

Coupled with the role and importance of these natural units, we need also to appreciate the logic, the burden and the motivation that compelled our biblical writers to sit down and write the literature we find in our Bible. Anyone seriously reading the NT will soon discover that each NT author writes in response to a specific complex of problems being faced by his intended audience. This is as true for the writers of our four gospels as it is for the church letters of Paul.

This complex of problems being addressed by our biblical writers I call "the problematic." Identifying these problematics explains why a particular author's text is written. They give us a handle on the message each author is framing for the particular audience he is addressing. The rule is this: The author's essential message is God's response to the problems with which a particular church body is struggling.

The intended audience of Luke-Acts is not hard to identify. Luke even gives us his name: "Theophilus" (see 1:3). This should bother no one! For while the intended audience and problematic of this gospel focuses directly on the person of Theophilus, the message of Luke impacts all of us who call Jesus Christ Lord!

To appreciate the problematic with which Luke is "wrestling," we begin by examining Acts chapter twenty-eight. The abrupt and enigmatic ending to the book of Acts points directly to the problematic which this text is undertaking to resolve. Here we find Paul under house arrest awaiting adjudication of the charges brought against him previously by Jewish leaders (see Acts 24:26-30, 25:8-12, etc.). After an historic all-day session with the leaders of the Jews (Acts 28:23-29), Luke tells us that Paul continued preaching the kingdom of God for two additional years. With that the book of Acts unceremoniously ends. No mention of Paul's trial or the manner in which it was concluded is given.

The very abruptness of the ending to the text of Acts suggests that Luke's fact-finding "legal brief" had reached its conclusion…that of providing the Roman judicial authorities with a deposition tracing the life-ministry of Paul from the moment of his conversion to the time of his trial. The unrelenting judicial overtones of Luke's deposition unfold chapter by chapter…only if Acts is a deposition in Paul's behalf does the inclusion of five consecutive chapters (i.e. Acts 22-26) devoted to Paul's appearances before Felix, Festus and Agrippa make any kind of sense at all! (see Mauck's, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity).

I take Theophilus to be a Roman court administrator made responsible for the adjudication of charges being brought against Paul (again, see Mauck's Paul on Trial). In this deposition, Luke not only introduces testimony to refute the charges being levied against Paul, he proceeds to bring charges against Paul's accusers. He shows Paul to be of sound mind, not "crazy" as suggested by Festus (Acts 26:24).

My burden through these pages, however, is very simply the unfolding of the inspired message of this text. For with it, I personally have been mentored. The need to hear the message of the whole text-whether in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John-may well be the greatest challenge the Evangelical pulpit confronts in these days of confusion. Having said that, may I explore with you the message of Luke.


500


Notice - The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Jaltus]

Luke has given us a portrait of the Person of Jesus Christ that is as moving and provocative as it is beautiful. His treatise on the birth and early growth of the apostolic church is our foundational document on its emergence in Jerusalem and growth to Asia Minor, to Greece and on to Rome itself. His name tells us that he was of Greek ancestry. We know nothing, however, of his early life save that he was trained as a physician (that this may have taken place in the medical college at Tarsus is quite intriguing). In the social structure of Greek life, this suggests that Luke once served as an indentured servant to a wealthy Greek Colon…a servanthood which he had faithfully fulfilled to become a "freedman." He evidently never met the Lord face-to-face and nothing is told us of his conversion experience, yet he portrays Jesus as if he were numbered among the twelve.

This section is rife with several assumptions.

1. It assumes Luke was not already a person of wealth. However, we know that Luke traveled extensively and was well-educated in rhetoric and literature, something which would be outside the bounds of his medical training (e.g. how the introduction to Luke is written in Classical Greek instead of Koine). It seems more likely that Luke was at least moderately well off himself, thus not needing the indenturing that is typically so common.

2. He does not number himself among the 12, he numbers the reader among the 12. This is a huge difference, because it has to do with narrative perspective.

There are other issues here, but I will answer them as they are raised below.

While this third gospel is literally an annotated portrait of Jesus and Luke quotes him freely and extensively across this text, it is the author's voice-the voice of a barrister-that resonates across these twenty-four chapters. That voice-over directs us to see and know Jesus Christ in new and powerful ways as it escorts us through the story-line of Jesus' life and ministry. The gospel is nowhere as personal and passionate as when Luke tells it!

Every book in the NT shows much about the author. However, this statement is on the cusp of going too far in relating the author as creator of the tale rather than the author as redactor of history. If he creates the tale, then he makes up whatever he needs to fit his aims. If he just edits (redacts) the various historical accounts in order to accomplish a specific theme, then he is relating history appropriately.

This point needs to be expanded upon! Theologians exegete particular texts while pastors focus on the sermonic content of the Scriptures. Both are indispensable. What we often fail to recognize, however, is that each volume of the NT is written to communicate a very particular message. When it comes to our four gospels, each one sustains a carefully structured logic which enfolds an inspired message…a message which will require each verse of the author's text to unfold.

This is totally correct. Each book of the NT needs to be studied in its own right to understand its theology. I recommend The Theology of the Gospel of Luke by Joel Green in the Nerw Testament Theology series from Cambridge. The series is a book-by-book theological introduction to the various books, talking about the major theological themes found therein. While you may not agree with what each author believes the major theological thrusts are, each book is well written and contains a lot of helpful material.


The structure of any biblical text is keenly important. With Luke, structure become crucial. During the years following the Ascension of the Lord, eye-witnesses to the major events in the ministry of Jesus put into writing recollections of Jesus' life and ministry. They did this in the form of short, self-contained narrative accounts. They might be recollections of miracles or teachings or parables or discourses or confrontations with the Pharisees. It helps to think of them as "narrative units." These narrative units were largely kept in key churches and became a basic source for the writing of the gospels (see 1:1-4).

Even Matthew who was himself an eyewitness to these events readily employed these narrative accounts. A quick scanning of Luke's text quickly reveals the presence of these natural units…over a hundred of them. They are laid out-one after the other-across the twenty-four chapters of Luke's gospel. Each unit carefully recounting a single life-event from Jesus' public ministry, each unit carefully articulating a teaching-theme or thematic truth from the ministry of Jesus! Linked together one after the other by Luke, these units evoke an inspired message.

This is highly controversial. It is certain that the church kept various stories about Jesus, but it is also more likely that the stories were kept in large collections rather than in small 2 sentence form as found in the gospels. Mark collected most of these units and used them to form his gospel. Luke likely slimmed them down and then added more stories in order to appropriately communicate the themes he was trying to get across to the reader. To say that the stories were collected individually has no evidence and does not allow for an early date for the gospel to have been written since it would take a long time for such a large collection of material to form.

Coupled with the role and importance of these natural units, we need also to appreciate the logic, the burden and the motivation that compelled our biblical writers to sit down and write the literature we find in our Bible. Anyone seriously reading the NT will soon discover that each NT author writes in response to a specific complex of problems being faced by his intended audience. This is as true for the writers of our four gospels as it is for the church letters of Paul.

This is also highly debated. In a book edited by Richard Bauckham, The Gospesl for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, the case is made that the gospels were not written for specific communities, rather they were written for all people to read. At this point in time, much of scholarship is starting to see the force of these arguments. Thus, it is NOT true for the gospel writers. The gospels are not occasional in terms of being limited to their specific context, rather they are occasional in that they can only be written after the occasion of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.


The intended audience of Luke-Acts is not hard to identify. Luke even gives us his name: "Theophilus" (see 1:3). This should bother no one! For while the intended audience and problematic of this gospel focuses directly on the person of Theophilus, the message of Luke impacts all of us who call Jesus Christ Lord!

Once again this shows a misunderstanding. If one wants to understand why both Luke and Acts are dedicated to Theophilos (Gk. spelling as opposed to Latin), one needs to understand the patron-client relationships found in the first century. I'll get to this below.

To appreciate the problematic with which Luke is "wrestling," we begin by examining Acts chapter twenty-eight. The abrupt and enigmatic ending to the book of Acts points directly to the problematic which this text is undertaking to resolve. Here we find Paul under house arrest awaiting adjudication of the charges brought against him previously by Jewish leaders (see Acts 24:26-30, 25:8-12, etc.). After an historic all-day session with the leaders of the Jews (Acts 28:23-29), Luke tells us that Paul continued preaching the kingdom of God for two additional years. With that the book of Acts unceremoniously ends. No mention of Paul's trial or the manner in which it was concluded is given.

The very abruptness of the ending to the text of Acts suggests that Luke's fact-finding "legal brief" had reached its conclusion…that of providing the Roman judicial authorities with a deposition tracing the life-ministry of Paul from the moment of his conversion to the time of his trial. The unrelenting judicial overtones of Luke's deposition unfold chapter by chapter…only if Acts is a deposition in Paul's behalf does the inclusion of five consecutive chapters (i.e. Acts 22-26) devoted to Paul's appearances before Felix, Festus and Agrippa make any kind of sense at all! (see Mauck's, Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity).

This shows a few misunderstandings.

1. This separates Luke from Acts in terms of genre, but the introduction to Acts (and various elements throughout the book) show that they are meant to be read together (contra Parsons and Pervo).

2. It looks only at the latter half of the book of Acts in order to establish the genre.

3. It assumes the genre it wants instead of making an argument for it.

4. The speeches by Paul before the various magistrates continues the importance of speeches in a historical account, something which was common to all historians' work of that time. The speeches which dominate Acts are pivot points which end sections and show large changes in plot or continuations in plot.

5. This neglects the narrative power of Acts. It is much more likely that Acts 1:8 is the programmatic statement for the book, and therefore by reaching Rome Paul has reached the "ends of the earth" for the gospel. Now that there is an apostle at Rome, the church is legitimized there and the gospel has covered all the earth (or shortly will since Rome is the central hub and the gospel will flow quickly out to the rest of the world). Thus, the narrative function of Acts is fulfilled: there is no need to posit the book as incomplete or even for Luke to have written to his present time and stopping, for otherwise Luke could have gone back and added to his work.

I take Theophilus to be a Roman court administrator made responsible for the adjudication of charges being brought against Paul (again, see Mauck's Paul on Trial). In this deposition, Luke not only introduces testimony to refute the charges being levied against Paul, he proceeds to bring charges against Paul's accusers. He shows Paul to be of sound mind, not "crazy" as suggested by Festus (Acts 26:24).

This is highly unlikely, especially since Theophilos is given a title (most excellent) which would fit a much higher rank than a court administrator. Not only that, but the narrative is sculpted to convince a person about who Jesus is, not who Paul is. Again, Luke-Acts is a unified work, and this theory does not fit that at all.

My burden through these pages, however, is very simply the unfolding of the inspired message of this text. For with it, I personally have been mentored. The need to hear the message of the whole text-whether in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John-may well be the greatest challenge the Evangelical pulpit confronts in these days of confusion. Having said that, may I explore with you the message of Luke.

I would like to hear what you say about the theology of Luke, but this introduction was poorly argued and relied too much on unlikely theories with little backing.

[dizzle]

heologians exegete particular texts while pastors focus on the sermonic content of the Scriptures. Both are indispensable. What we often fail to recognize, however, is that each volume of the NT is written to communicate a very particular message.

This I think is a very good point.

Jaltus you don't think the Gospels were written for a specific targeted audience? I have not read the bauckman book, but it just seems obvious to me that they were, and just basic common sense.

[GoBahnsen]

I don't think it was cool of Dee Dee to post a recent picture of me being strangled by her, but I'm all like "whatever!?"

I enjoyed the article. I don't have much to say beyond that. I probably am not at a place where this kind of rebutt of higher criticism means enough. Apologetics is not my strong suit. But any friend of trout's is a friend of mine, GB

[Jaltus]

This I think is a very good point.

Jaltus you don't think the Gospels were written for a specific targeted audience? I have not read the bauckman book, but it just seems obvious to me that they were, and just basic common sense.

The problem with the assumption is that it does a mirror reading based upon Source Criticism which is itself highly speculative. Bauckham's book (he edits it, it is a group of collected essays by several authors) shows how each book gave enough explanation such that it is not targeted at a local community but at a large community. Nobody argues that Mark was primarily written for Gentiles, but the question is how specific a group of Gentiles? Bauckham would argue that it was not for a specific group of them at all, it was intended for wide readership. The critical schools say it was written to Mark's own church so that Mark could put words into Jesus' mouth so that his side would win all of the arguments in the church. Thus, this idea of a local audience leads directly into a mythic Jesus which has no connection to the historical Jesus.

I believe the gospels were written for large audiences, written to be circulated and not limited to a single locale. Thus, I believe this author is either incorrect or mistated his own position.

[Abigail]

I believe the gospels were written for large audiences, written to be circulated and not limited to a single locale. Thus, I believe this author is either incorrect or mistated his own position.
I am with Jaltus, I believe the Gospels (like the whole NT) was written for everyone

Micah 5:6-7 'And this One will be our peace, When the Assyrian (Ephesians 6:12) invades our land and when he tramples on our citadels, Then we will raise against him seven shepherds (the Spirit inspired NT writings of the 7 Jews who wrote the NT) and eight leaders of men (the Spirit inspired NT writings of the 8 men who wrote the NT, 7 Jews + 1 Gentile...Luke = 8 men). And they will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword (of the Spirit which is the Word of God - Ephesians 6:17), The land of Nimrod at its entrances; and He will deliver us from the Assyrian When he attacks our land and when he tramples our territory'

[Trout]

Jaltus,

Here is a response which I received via email to your remarks.

Trout

This section is rife with several assumptions.

1. It assumes Luke was not already a person of wealth. However, we know that Luke traveled extensively and was well-educated in rhetoric and literature, something which would be outside the bounds of his medical training (e.g. how the introduction to Luke is written in Classical Greek instead of Koine). It seems more likely that Luke was at least moderately well off himself, thus not needing the indenturing that is typically so common.

2. He does not number himself among the 12, he numbers the reader among the 12. This is a huge difference, because it has to do with narrative perspective.

I am more than a little puzzled by Jaltus’ remark that, “He does not number himself among the 12, he numbers the reader among the 12.”

Who is this mysterious “He?” What is a reader to understand this reference “to being numbered among the 12?”



Jaltus:
Every book in the NT shows much about the author. However, this statement is on the cusp of going too far in relating the author as creator of the tale rather than the author as redactor of history. If he creates the tale, then he makes up whatever he needs to fit his aims. If he just edits (redacts) the various historical accounts in order to accomplish a specific theme, then he is relating history appropriately.


The issue that Jaltus here raises—that of how a gospel writer edits or “redacts” the primary sources which are his—is significant. Readers of the gospels are often unacquainted with the great liberty accorded gospel writers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This “liberty” is exercised by the gospel authors from the moment they begin editing their primary sources (oral or inscribed) to write-up their gospel narrative for a particular audience under the superintending authority of the HS. This editing—often called redaction— speaks to the editing of primary sources for the purpose of making it comprehensible to the mindset of receptor audience. For Luke that meant intelligible to the Roman mindset.

This editing or redacting of a text, however, can lead to interesting divergences from the original source material. For instance, Matthew’s section on “the Sermon on the Mount” is strikingly different from Luke’s presentation of this very same material! The genealogies of Matthew and Luke go in different directions.

Matthew (ch 10) and Luke (ch 9) give us markedly different versions of the sending out of the twelve… even the baptism of Jesus is treated thematically different in Matthew and Luke. In the article where I wrote that “it is the author’s voice—the voice of a barrister—that resonates across these twenty-four chapters.” With this statement, I was seeking to affirm the liberty granted a gospel writer to articulate a message given him by the Spirit of God in his own “narrative voice.”

Luke was chosen to compose a gospel narrative from certain original sources that it should speak succinctly to a Roman audience from within their own culture and mind-set…and that without compromising the integrity of divine inspiration. So that when Jaltus writes: “However, this statement is on the cusp of going too far in relating the author of the tale…(for) If he created the tale then he makes up whatever he needs to fit his aims.” Let alone the ambiguity of that statement, it needs to be justified or erased!


Jaltus:
This is totally correct. Each book of the NT needs to be studied in its own right to understand its theology. I recommend The Theology of the Gospel of Luke by Joel Green in the Nerw Testament Theology series from Cambridge. The series is a book-by-book theological introduction to the various books, talking about the major theological themes found therein. While you may not agree with what each author believes the major theological thrusts are, each book is well written and contains a lot of helpful material.

This is highly controversial. It is certain that the church kept various stories about Jesus, but it is also more likely that the stories were kept in large collections rather than in small 2 sentence form as found in the gospels. Mark collected most of these units and used them to form his gospel. Luke likely slimmed them down and then added more stories in order to appropriately communicate the themes he was trying to get across to the reader. To say that the stories were collected individually has no evidence and does not allow for an early date for the gospel to have been written since it would take a long time for such a large collection of material to form.

This is also highly debated. In a book edited by Richard Bauckham, The Gospesl for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, the case is made that the gospels were not written for specific communities, rather they were written for all people to read. At this point in time, much of scholarship is starting to see the force of these arguments. Thus, it is NOT true for the gospel writers. The gospels are not occasional in terms of being limited to their specific context, rather they are occasional in that they can only be written after the occasion of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

I need to pick up on Jaltus’ paragraph dealing with the thesis of a book edited by Bauckham. In his book, Bauckham argues that the gospels were not written for specific communities…but were written for all people to read. So that when Jaltus writes, “Thus it is NOT true for the gospel writers” and that “the gospels are not occasional…,” he was advocating Bauckham’s idea that the gospels were not written to particular audiences but were written for the needs and interests of all Christians.

As for Bauckham’s book, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at such an idea. That each gospel was intended for a particular audience is made abundantly clear by the problematics of each biblical text. A “problematic” is the particular complex of issues and/or problems being faced by a church group…a set of issues which the biblical writer is responding to under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Among the more obvious problematics of NT literature is the defection back to Judaism within the Galatian church, the book of Hebrews dealing with essentially the same problem among the church groups at Rome, the problem of the Gnostic schematics in 1 John, the letter from the servants of Chloe concerning the church at Corinth (1:11), the matter of Onesimus the slave in the house church of Philemon. While the problematics are not as obvious among the four gospels, they are nevertheless quite clearly discernible. Matthew speaks of “teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you” picks up on Jewish issues, John picks up on those who under the influence of gnosticism questioned the deity of Christ (Jn 20:31), the second gospel was evidently a consequence to Peter and Mark’s early visit to the church at Rome.

I’m reminded here of an old adage that although the gospel was not written to me, they all were written for me. While inspiration guided the gospel writers in the texts they wrote to their particular audiences, it was the formation of the canon of Scripture that gave these texts to each one of us. Canonicity made these texts universal!


Jaltus:
Once again this shows a misunderstanding. If one wants to understand why both Luke and Acts are dedicated to Theophilos (Gk. spelling as opposed to Latin), one needs to understand the patron-client relationships found in the first century. I'll get to this below.

This shows a few misunderstandings.

Jaltus is rather free in pointing out my misunderstandings. He suggests that to understand the role of Theophilus, I should brush up on the patron-client relationship of the first century. Duly noted! I am not unaware that FF Bruce and others propose Theophilus as a donor-patron. What convinces me, however, is the text of Luke! I suggest that one would do well to begin by reviewing the indications given us in Luke’s prologue. These indications suggest that the rapport between Luke and Theophilus and the rationale for

Luke-Acts was not based on a patron-donor relationship.

The conviction that Luke wrote an apologia pro ecclesia to a Roman magistrate named Theophilus has a 200 history to it. “(With) Luke 1:1 kratiste theophile is best translated as ‘most excellent friend of god’ and the god referent in a juridical context would of course be a divine emperor. The addressee would be a person of high rank in the court of the imperial majesty” (Harry N.D. Fisher, “Luke-Acts is a Legal Brief,” an unpublished thesis, 62-63). Mauck adds that in all likelihood, “Theophilus held the office of a cognitionibus (investigator), was a member of Nero’s consilium…charged with the gathering of information for the trial of Paul” (John Mauck, Paul on Trial, 26). He might follow that up by identifying the fourteen outstanding charges pending against Paul in the court of Nero (see Mauck, 6-7).



Jaltus:
1. This separates Luke from Acts in terms of genre, but the introduction to Acts (and various elements throughout the book) show that they are meant to be read together (contra Parsons and Pervo).

2. It looks only at the latter half of the book of Acts in order to establish the genre.

3. It assumes the genre it wants instead of making an argument for it.

4. The speeches by Paul before the various magistrates continues the importance of speeches in a historical account, something which was common to all historians' work of that time. The speeches which dominate Acts are pivot points which end sections and show large changes in plot or continuations in plot.

5. This neglects the narrative power of Acts. It is much more likely that Acts 1:8 is the programmatic statement for the book, and therefore by reaching Rome Paul has reached the "ends of the earth" for the gospel. Now that there is an apostle at Rome, the church is legitimized there and the gospel has covered all the earth (or shortly will since Rome is the central hub and the gospel will flow quickly out to the rest of the world). Thus, the narrative function of Acts is fulfilled: there is no need to posit the book as incomplete or even for Luke to have written to his present time and stopping, for otherwise Luke could have gone back and added to his work.

Five textual criticisms are leveled here. To make charges like this, Jaltus, you would have to be substantially more familiar with how I develop the textual content of Luke and the problems they pose. You may not accept this approach to the message of Luke-Acts…that’s what this discussion is all about; but the points you raise relative to how I took certain unkosher liberties in the handling of the text are not acceptable.

You continue this critique by stating that the five chapters recounting Paul’s appearance before Felix, Festus and Agrippa are “pivot points which end sections and show large changes in plot or continuations in plot?” Whoever resourced you here has not helped you! That these texts are part of a legal brief in support of Paul’s adjudication in Rome is painfully obvious. Mauck tells us, “When arguing an ‘appellate’ case, as Luke is when writing Luke-Acts to Theophilus, a lawyer draws facts and arguments also from trial transcripts of the lower court. (These texts) are exactly that. These ‘transcripts’ inform the original readers of Acts of the exact procedures followed, evidence presented, and arguments made in the lower courts” (Paul on Trial, 161).

Your matter of Acts 1:8 is of importance. You pit my remarks relative to the abrupt ending of the book of Acts with Acts 1:8 which you maintain is the programmatic text for the book of Acts. Would it surprise you to know that I would agree with you here? What concerns me, however, is that you have misconstrued my observation relative to the abrupt ending of Acts (as do most commentators) and treated it as a “programmatic” theme for the whole text of Acts. I pointed to this abrupt conclusion of Acts 28 for no other reason than to highlight from the text itself the problematic with which the book of Acts is struggling…that is Paul’s imminent trial in Rome.

Back to Acts 1:8 which you take to be “programmatic” statement for the Acts narrative…a point with which I agree. But you read 1:8 as sort of a prophetic outline for the story-line of Acts…i.e. an outline (of the church?) from it’s beginnings in Jerusalem, its growth through Judea and Samaria and its ultimate destination in Rome. I’m not satisfied with that rendering of 1:8. The programmatic intent of 1:8 is meant rather to make clear how the disciples/witnesses of Jesus Christ were enabled to take the church of Jesus from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth! It’s a warning to the court of Rome: mess with the Church and you’re messing with God (see Acts 5:35-39). Tucked away here is the critical issue of religio licita vs religio illicita which so threatened the well-being of the people of God.

I might add that the idiom you employ in this argument, “the ends of the world,” is usually taken to be a reference to the straits of Gibraltar (or Spain, see Ro 15:24,28). For men of the sea, Gibraltar was the end of the world…beyond it was nothing! This appears to nullify your assessment of “the narrative function of Acts.”


Jaltus:
I would like to hear what you say about the theology of Luke, but this introduction was poorly argued and relied too much on unlikely theories with little backing.

You conclude Jaltus by expressing a desire to hear about the theology of Luke. I’m not there yet for my whole focus has been on the message of Luke…that has been my burden in this adventure over a goodly span of time. Oh how rich an experience it has been!

Walther A. Olsen

PS

Walther's new Tweb name is Ranajo.

[Trout]

I am with Jaltus, I believe the Gospels (like the whole NT) was written for everyone

Micah 5:6-7 'And this One will be our peace, When the Assyrian (Ephesians 6:12) invades our land and when he tramples on our citadels, Then we will raise against him seven shepherds (the Spirit inspired NT writings of the 7 Jews who wrote the NT) and eight leaders of men (the Spirit inspired NT writings of the 8 men who wrote the NT, 7 Jews + 1 Gentile...Luke = 8 men). And they will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword (of the Spirit which is the Word of God - Ephesians 6:17), The land of Nimrod at its entrances; and He will deliver us from the Assyrian When he attacks our land and when he tramples our territory'

Even if your exegesis of the Micah passage turns out to be correct, how would it serve to reinforce your notion that the Gospels were written for everyone?

[One Bad Pig]

:gravedigger: