Why Were the Women Afraid?

from Google Images

When the women came to the sepulcher where Jesus was laid, they found the stone that sealed the tomb (Matthew 27:66) was rolled away (Luke 24:2-3). Luke tells us that the women were perplexed (G1280). That is, didn’t know why the tomb was empty (Luke 24:4-5). In other words, the thought that Jesus had arisen from the dead, hadn’t even occurred to any of them. The Greek word (G1280) is used of Herod being in doubt of who Jesus was in Luke 9:7. It is also used for the confusion of the chief priests and the captain of the Temple when they found out the Apostles had escaped their prison cell and were teaching in the Temple (Acts 5:34).

 

Let Those in Jerusalem Flee!

from Google Images

The Christian brethren who claim Matthew 24:36 represents a dividing point in the Olivet Discourse tell us that whatever comes before the but must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. On the other hand, and according to these same brethren, whatever comes after the but (viz. Matthew 24:36) refers to Jesus’ visible, physical, Second Coming, which is, allegedly, yet in our future. Is this understanding tenable? After all, a simple reading of the text wouldn’t cause anyone to naturally understand a division exists at the word, but. What can be said of these things?

 

When Shall These Things Be?

from Google Images

Luke’s account of the Olivet Prophecy is similar to both Matthew’s and Mark’s account. However, it also differs in some very interesting ways, and perhaps troubling ways, especially when comparing Luke to Matthew, because some believe the prophecy points to a yet future coming of Jesus.[1] Luke’s account of the disciples’ question is, “Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?” (Luke 21:7).[2] However, Matthew has it, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3). The “when shall these things be” agree in both accounts, but Luke’s “…what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?” differs from Matthew’s “…what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world (age)?” So, the question is: does Luke really differ from Matthew?

 

In Defense of the Resurrection

Jesus began by telling the Sadducee intellectuals that they didn’t know the scriptures and, therefore, erred in their understanding (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24). However, Luke doesn’t mention this insult (Luke 20: 34-35)! Why not? No doubt, Luke doesn’t put the Sadducees in a bad light here or anywhere else in his Gospel, because it was Luke’s intention to give a copy of his narrative to Theophilus, the high priest at the time of his writing (37-40 AD), who was also a Sadducee. It doesn’t make sense to insult the man one hopes in influence to change his mind and stop the then current persecution of the Hellenist Jewish believers, which is exactly what Theophilus ended up doing (cf. Acts 9:31 – cir 39 AD).

 

Jesus’ Next Journey to Jerusalem

from Google Images

Many Biblical scholars believe Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem began in Luke 9:51. However, in order to maintain this idea, they have to conclude that Luke either uses about nine and one half chapters to show Jesus wandering aimlessly all over the countryside, zigzagging all the way to Jerusalem, and even reversing course to return to Galilee (cf. Luke 17:11), or he places Jesus’ movements in a hodgepodge of seemingly unrelated incidents that took place in various parts of Palestine, having no perceived order in them at all. It is astonishing for me to see how far one will go in order to protect a favorite idea from being disproved, or, perhaps it may be better to say, some scholars have embraced the idea for so long that they believe it must be supported in the Scriptures somewhere.

 

Jesus’ Age and Genealogy

from Google Images

Only Luke reveals Jesus’ age when he began his public ministry. He was about 30 years old (Luke 3:23). That is, he was born in the autumn of 3 BC,[1] and the time of Jesus baptism was in the 16^th year of the reign of Tiberius (27 AD) or one year after John began his ministry (cf. Luke 3:1),[2] making Jesus a full 29 years of age, but in his 30^th year (29 to 30 years of age was his 30^th year from birth). Some interpreters have tried to draw parallels between Jesus age and the age of Levites entering their service of the Tabernacle (Numbers 4:3 etc.), but I don’t believe this can be done, since Luke really doesn’t commit himself to a full thirty years of age for Jesus.

 

The Course of Abijah

from google Images

Luke tells us in Luke 1:5 that the officiating priest, Zacharias was of the course of Abia. Once the Temple was built by Solomon, the duties of the priests and Levites would have to change, because the whole idea of building a Temple of God in a fixed location at Jerusalem meant the mobile Tabernacle, which was packed up and carried from one place to another, would be replaced. Duties concerning how one served God with respect to where his Presence dwelt would of necessity change as well. Therefore, David organized the priests (and the Levites) into 24 courses (1Chronicles 24:1-31). Notice that the course of Abijah was the eighth of the priestly divisions (1Chronicles 24:10). Abijah in 1Chronicles 24:10 is the same course as Abia of Luke 1:5. Zacharias was officiating in the Temple according to the time when the eighth division served out its responsibility.

 

Luke’s Preface

from Google Images

There have been many presumptions made about the author of Luke’s Gospel narrative, and about how he formulated his narrative and what his purpose was with respect to his recipient, Theophilus, and by extension to us, Luke’s larger audience. It may be fun to explore these ideas further. I hope to do this not only by demanding proof of our more traditional assumptions about Luke and his labor in the Gospel, but also by presenting an alternative perspective that may fit the context of his work better.

 

Theophilus and the Infancy Narratives

from Google Images

One of the problems we are faced with, if we insist Luke’s mention of Theophilus in Luke 1:3 refers to a new gentile believer whose faith needs to be strengthened (Luke 1:4), is that he is very vague about the content of his infancy narratives. For example, Luke mentions the priestly course of Abajah—what does that mean to a gentile. He also mentions offering incense, which to the Jews concerned prayer but not necessarily so for the gentile. Why does Luke do this? However, if we believe Theophilus (Luke 1:3) is an unbelieving Jew who needs proof of that which he has been informed (Luke 1:4), the whole matter needs no further explanation!

 

Theophilus and the Herod Family

from Google Images

Luke’s preface to his Gospel shows that he intended his Gospel narrative to be an apologetic (Luke 1:4) for Most Excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:3). Thus, Luke identifies him as an official of some rank, for he quotes several people addressing the Roman governors, Felix and Festus, in very same manner (see Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). While most scholars conclude that Theophilus must have been an official of some kind, they conclude he was a new gentile convert to Christianity, but this doesn’t seem plausible when one considers the context of Luke’s uncluttered narrative.

 

Paul’s Kinsmen

from Google Images

As Paul sends greetings to the church at Rome from the prominent brethren with him at Chenchrea, Corinth’s eastern harbor in Achaia (Romans 16:1), he mentions Timothy, his fellow worker, and three kinsmen: Lucius, Jason and Sosipater (Romans 16:21). Does Paul mean that these men are simply Jews, or is he referring to his extended family, i.e. blood relatives? In other words, is Lucius related to Paul? If so, then Luke, as shown in previous blog-posts, the writer of the third Gospel is not only a Jew, but one of Paul’s extended family. Can this be logically deduced from the Scriptures?

 

The Anonymous Disciple

from Google Images

Near the end of his Gospel narrative Luke tells us of an event whereby the resurrected Lord appeared to perhaps the first two male disciples (Luke 24:13-33); certainly Jesus’ appearance to the two in route to Emmaus came soon after he appeared to the women. One of the two was Cleopas (Luke 24:18), but the other remains anonymous. Therefore, the story of this appearance of Jesus comes from one of these two men. If we owe it to Clopas, it is odd that he doesn’t name the other disciple. If we owe this record to the unidentified disciple, it is odd that Luke doesn’t name his source. What can be said of these things?

 

Was Luke an Eyewitness?

from Google Images

The idea that Luke couldn’t be an eyewitness of Jesus’ teaching and work comes from the fact that most Biblical scholars believe his Gospel was written later in the 1^st century AD, perhaps in the 80s, but some would date it even later. Therefore, the premise of Luke being an eyewitness seems out of the question, and even the proposition that there existed eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry at these late dates seems improbable, unless they were quite young witnesses at the time; for example, a witness in his 20s during Jesus’ ministry would be at least in his 70s by the time of the most accepted date for writing Luke. What can we say of these things?

 

What about Doctor Luke?

from Google Images

Many scholars refer to Colossians 4:14, saying Luke, the beloved physician, was the author of both Luke and Acts. Moreover, the many medical terms used in both theses seem to support the idea that they were penned by someone with at least some knowledge of medical science of the first century AD. However, tradition tells us Paul lists this Luke with a number of gentiles, implying he was not a Jew. Yet, it is almost certain Lucius of Cyrene is a Hellenistic Jew, and, as I pointed out in my previous blogpost, he seems to be an excellent candidate for Luke, the writer of the third Gospel and Acts. What can be said about the placement of Luke’s name in Colossians 4:14? Is he a gentile? Does Paul really list a number of Jews ministering to him, while he was in prison, over against a number of gentiles, and is it possible to prove the conclusion?

 

Lucius of Cyrene

from Google Images

I mentioned in my previous posting, “Who is the Author of the Gospel of Luke,” that Luke is Lucius of Cyrene, who was one of the leaders of the church at Antioch. Nevertheless, Scripture makes no such statement, so how would we connect Lucius of Cyrene with Luke, whom second century AD church fathers say was the writer of the third Gospel narrative? To be honest, the idea that Lucius and Luke are the same person is drawn from circumstantial evidence. While no single reference in Scripture can show Lucius is the Gospel writer, the multiple implications added together make an argument that it is possible, perhaps even probable and difficult to deny.[1]