12a
The Gospel of Luke
12.1 Introduction
The Gospel of Luke has the distinction of being the longest writing in the New Testament. It is written in an eloquent and sophisticated style, rivaling some of the greatest Roman literary works of that period, such as Suetonius and Plutarch. Unlike the other writers of the New Testament, who were Jewish, the author of Luke was a Gentile, who may have been a convert to Judaism before he adopted Christianity.
​
Fig. 12.1: 10th century Byzantine illumination of the evangelist Luke, British Library.
Most scholars today believe that Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts should be viewed as two volumes that comprise a single narrative, which begins in Nazareth with the message of hope about a savior of the world and culminate decades later with the unhindered preaching of the gospel by Paul in the center of the empire. The two volumes are commonly referred to as Luke-Acts and comprise about a quarter of the New Testament canon. Since Luke and Acts are separated writings in the canon and may well be different genres, they are treated as separate chapters, as is the custom in most introductions to the New Testament.
​
From a literary point of view, their separation is disruptive. Since many professors teach Luke and Acts together, we have elected not to follow the canonical order and placed Acts immediately after this chapter.
​
This separation of Luke-Acts into two chapters creates some overlap, especially in relation to the broader plot, authorship, purpose, and the theological themes. While there are distinct features found in both writings, they are dependent on one another. The Gospel constantly looks ahead to Acts, and Acts tends to assume the story of Jesus in the Gospel. Foresight and hindsight affect the way that the author communicates his material. For example, the portrayals of Jesus as the savior of the world at the beginning of the Gospel begin to be realized in the missionary activity in the book of Acts. Conversely, the successful preaching in the book of Acts is rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel.
12.2 Sources
From where did the author of Luke get his material? Unlike the other Gospels, the author of Luke introduces his narrative by referring to prior accounts about Jesus, which were undoubtedly influential in the formation of his own account. Luke writes,
​
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
​
While it is not entirely clear, the author seems to be referring to multiple sources. Some of these were probably in oral form, consisting of sayings of Jesus and short vignettes about his ministry. Others were most likely in written form. It is the latter that have captured the attention of modern scholars.
​
There are three main sources that can be detected in Luke. The first is the Gospel of Mark. While it is not as prominent in Luke as it is in Matthew, it is still substantial, accounting for about forty percent of Luke’s content. The author of Luke probably had a copy of Mark in front of him, but we are not sure if it was exactly the same as the one used by the author of Matthew.
Much of Luke’s narrative sequence also seems to rely on Mark. However, as with Matthew, there are a few significant departures. For example, Luke omits all of the material from Mark 6:45-8:26 (the so-called “Great Omission”) and Mark 9:41-10:12 (the so-called “Little Omission”). It is not clear why the author of Luke omitted these sections. One possibility is that they interfered with his geographical arrangement, which has Jesus traveling more or less directly from Galilee to Jerusalem.
​
Fig. 12.2: 7th century illustration of Luke and Mark found on the cover of the Freer Gospels (Codex Washingtonianus), Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
For more information on the painting process, go to https://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/online/ITB/html/F1906.297-8.htm
The second source is Q (German Quelle, which means “source”) or as it is sometimes called, the Q Gospel—the hypothetical Jesus material that is common only to Matthew and Luke. Unlike the author of Matthew who arranged the Q to correspond to his overall five-fold structure, the author of Luke is believed to have preserved the original order of the Q material. It comprises about twenty percent of Luke, and much of the ethical teachings in the Gospel.
​
The third source is variously called “special Lukan material,” “Luke’s special sayings material,” “L Source” or simply designated as the letter “L.” This is the material that is unique to Luke, and is not found in Mark, Matthew, or Q. Unlike Matthew’s special material (“M Source”), which comprises a small portion of that Gospel, Luke’s “L Source” may have played a much more significant role. Since Luke’s unique content consist of a staggering forty percent of the Gospel, scholars speculate about how much the author actually relied on the hypothetical “L Source.” Did the author rely primarily on the “L Source” or is this large portion the product of his own hand? Or, is it an amalgam of the two? We know that the author of Luke has done a masterful job in amalgamating Mark and Q. At present, there is no definitive way of reconstructing this portion of the Gospel.
​
Fig. 12.3: Rembrandt, “The Prodigal Son,” 1662. Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.
​
Regardless, some of the most well-known and beloved passages in the New Testament are found within this content, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Song of Mary (called “The Magnificat”), and the story of the young Jesus at the temple.
​
​
​
​
Info Box 12.1
Where did the Christmas story come from?
Notice the similarities and differences between the two accounts:
​
​
Similarities
Jesus is born in Bethlehem during the days of Herod but spends his youth in Nazareth (Matt. 2:1, 5–6, 23; Luke 2:4–6, 11, 15, 39).
​
Jesus belongs to the family of David. (Matt. 1:1, 6; Luke 2:4; 3:31).
Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Joseph is his legal father (Matt. 1:16–21, 25; Luke 1:35; 2:16, 41, 48).
Jesus is born from a miraculous virginal conception announced in advance by an angel (Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38).
The name “Jesus” is chosen by God (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31).
The family of Jesus must undertake difficult travel due to oppressive political rule (Matt. 2:7–8, 12–18; Luke 2:1–7).
Jesus’ birth is presented as the fulfillment of scriptural promises to Israel (Matt. 1:22–23; 2:5–6; Luke 1:54–55).
Even at birth, Jesus is rejected by some and inspires worship in others (Matt. 2:10, 16–18; Luke 2:7, 20).
​
​
Differences
​
12.3 Authorship
​
As is the case with Matthew and Mark, Luke is anonymous. While the Gospel contains no direct reference to its author, it contains a few indirect clues. First, we know from the prologue (1:1-4) that he was not an eyewitness to Jesus. He attempted to research prior accounts before writing his own.
​
Second, we know that the author was well educated. His use of the Greek language was far more polished than that of the other Gospel writers. This is evident in his extensive vocabulary and refined style. There are hundreds of words in the Gospel and Acts that appear nowhere else in the New Testament. His style of writing is sophisticated and varied. He begins his Gospel in a classical style (1:1-4), continues to the end of Chapter Two with a Semitic style, and completes the balance of his work in an erudite Hellenistic style, which at times resembles the Septuagint and at other times some of the greatest classical writers, such as the Greek poet Homer and the Roman historian Virgil. Some have even compared Luke to Epicurean and Stoic philosophical writings.
​
Finally, we can determine that the author was well familiar with the Septuagint. In addition to adapting its style, he quotes from it extensively. Most scholars, however, do not identify him as a Jew. Rather, he is frequently described as a Gentile who embraced Judaism prior to his conversion to Christianity. Unlike Matthew, who clearly conveys a Jewish bias, Luke tells the story from a broader ethnic perspective. The author deliberately portrays Jesus as the savior of the world; he is familiar with Greco-Roman literature; he seems to address God-fearers in both volumes; and he was probably an associate of the Apostle Paul, but he is not listed among Paul’s Jewish “fellow workers” (Col 4:10-14).
​
​
Info Box 12.2
Did Luke Know Jesus?
​
In light of Luke’s prologue (1:1-4), most scholars agree that Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’ life. At the end of the fourth century, however, Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, believed that Luke was among the seventy-two who were sent out by Jesus in Luke 10. Epiphanius writes, “For Luke was given this commission. He too was one of the seventy-two who had been scattered because of the Savior’s saying. But he was brought back to the Lord by Paul and told to issue his Gospel” (Panarion 5.11.6). This view did not seem to be shared by other Church Fathers. Tertullian (d. 225), the prolific North African Christian writer, reflects the consensus that Luke was an apostolic man, like Mark, but not an apostle (e.g. Against Marcion 4.2.1-2).
​
​
​
12.3.1. Arguments for Lukan Authorship
​
Since the second century, when the four canonical Gospels began to circulate together, Luke-Acts has been attributed to a person named Luke. The arguments in favour of Luke’s authorship have been based on internal and external evidence. Internal evidence refers to the New Testament itself, whereas external evidence refers to testimony found in literature outside the New Testament.
​
Much of the discussion concerning internal evidence focuses on the so-called “we passages” in the book of Acts (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16) where the narrator suddenly transitions from the third-person to the first-person plural. These are passages where the author identifies himself as Paul’s fellow traveler. The narrator’s references to “we” certainly include Paul and the author of Acts, but may also include other companions. These references are often linked with Paul’s mention of Luke in select lists of fellow workers, where he is identified as “Luke the beloved physician” in Col 4:14, “Luke the fellow worker” in Philemon 24, simply “Luke” in 2 Tim 4:11, and possibly “Lucius” in Rom 16:21. While we are not sure whether these passages refer to the same person, most discussions of authorship assume that they do.
​
Fig. 12.6: Guido Reni, “Saint Luke,” 1621. Bob Jones University, Greenville, S. Carolina.
​
​
Some have argued that the use of medical terms in both Luke and Acts is consistent with the description of Luke as a physician in Col 4:14. This argument, however, is weak since many writers in the ancient world who were not physicians also used medical terms in their writings. The use medical terminology probably reflects the author’s literary sophistication and education rather than his vocation. For example, Luke speaks of a “high” fever, whereas Matt and Mark speak only of a fever (Luke 4:38; Matt 8:14; Mark 1:30). Nevertheless, to this day, Luke continues to be the patron saint of physicians and surgeons.
​
The external evidence for Lukan authorship is significant. Christian tradition from an early period unanimously testifies to Luke the physician as the author of Luke-Acts. There is also broad testimony that he was Paul’s companion. One of the earliest references to Lukan authorship is found in the writings of Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon (d. 202), who writes “Luke also the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by Paul” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). By the beginning of the third century CE church leaders like Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian ascribed the third Gospel to the hand of Luke, the companion of Paul with absolute certainty.
​
The early manuscript evidence is also strong. Our earliest manuscript of Luke, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (also catalogued as p75), which dates to approximately 175-225 CE, contains the subscription “the Gospel According to Luke.” Later manuscripts have similar attributions.
​
Fig. 12.8: The ending of Luke and the beginning of John form Papyrus Bodmer XIV (p75), 175-225 CE. Vatican Library, Rome. Of the 144 pages, 102 have survived, containing Luke 3:18-24:53 and large portions of John 1-15.
​
​
12.3.2 Arguments Against Lukan Authorship
​
Some modern scholars are not convinced that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote the third Gospel. They do not necessarily propose an alternate author, but argue that the internal evidence does not support the traditional view. It is argued that there are far too many differences between Luke-Acts and Paul’s letters to warrant a close relationship. The author of Luke-Acts probably did not even know Paul. While it is probable that Paul knew a fellow worker named Luke, he was not the author of Luke-Acts. The following list of differences between Luke-Acts (particularly Acts) and Paul’s letters is substantial.
• Acts does not promote Paul’s theological agenda, such as a denunciation of the works of the law and the advancement of salvation by faith through grace.
​
• Acts has a different theological timeline than that of Paul. For Luke, the dawn of the Church age is the beginning of a new era. For Paul, the end of the age is imminent.
​
• Acts never mentions that Paul wrote letters.
​
• Acts makes no mention of Paul’s tensions with Peter and the Judaizers. Instead, Acts describes his relations with Peter, James, and the Jerusalem group as cordial.
​
• In his letters, Paul is adamant that he is an Apostle. In Acts, Paul is called an Apostle only once, alongside Barnabas (14:14). Moreover, the description of an apostle in Acts (1:21-22, 26) does not fit Paul.
​
• Acts portrays Paul as a miracle worker. Paul, however, does not mention these miracles in his letters.
​
• Paul makes no mention of his Damascus Road experience. In Acts, it is mentioned three times (9, 22, 26).
​
• References to the first-person plural, or the “we passages,” do not necessarily indicate that the author accompanied Paul on his travels. It is not by accident that all of the “we passages” are connected with maritime travel. The author uses the first-person plural to indicate that he shared in similar experiences as a mariner, such as storms and shipwrecks. Identifying with Paul’s experiences is not idiosyncratic, but gives credibility to the author’s role as a pragmatic Hellenistic historian. It was common among ancient historians to regard travel as an obligation of their craft. Odysseus’ famous journeys served as a touchstone for later historians, such as Polybius (d. 118 BCE), Diodorus of Sicily (d. 30 BCE), and Lucian (d. 180 CE). See the following chapter, on the book of Acts, for further discussion on the use of the “we” passages.
​
​
12.4 Date of Writing
​
12.4.1 After 70 CE
The Gospel of Luke is most commonly dated between 85 CE and 90 CE. Several reasons are offered in support of this dating, though none stands alone. The weight of the argument rests on their cumulative force.
​
Fig. 12.11: “The Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem,” Francesco Hayez, 1867, Gallery of Modern Art, Venice.
​
​
First, since Mark is frequently regarded as Luke’s source, it stands to reason that Luke post-dates Mark. As was discussed in Chapter Ten, Mark was composed around 70 CE, during the Jewish war with Rome or soon after it.
Second, since Luke’s depiction of the destruction of Jerusalem contains more detail than Mark and Matthew, many scholars assume that Luke must have been familiar with the events of the Jewish War (e.g. Luke 19:41–44; 21:20–24). Luke also seems to be more focused on Jerusalem rather than the temple. Specifically, unlike the other Gospels, Luke’s Jesus predicts, “Days will come upon you when your enemies will put up an embankment before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side” (19:43); “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then realize that her desolation is at hand” (21:20); and “they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled” (21:24).
Third, the characterizing of Paul as a hero figure in the book of Acts would have typically required at least a decade to develop after his death, which is usually dated in mid-sixties.
​
​
12.4.2 Before 70 CE
​
Very few modern scholars believe that Luke-Acts was written before 70 CE. Those who argue for an early dating begin with two assumptions. The first is that Acts is a sequential history that spans the first three decades of the church. Since Acts ends with Paul in Rome, awaiting trial, Luke-Acts must have been written prior to Paul’s death. Surely Luke would have recorded Paul’s execution (or release) if it had happened. The theological character of Acts and its genre is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
​
The second assumption is that if Luke makes no mention of an event, it has not yet happened. More specifically, since there is no mention of the Neronian persecution of Christians (64-68 CE), the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE), the martyrdom of James (c. 62 CE) or that Paul wrote letters, it is assumed that these events have not yet happened when Acts was completed. That there is no mention of Paul’s letters is of particular concern because the later that Acts is dated, the harder it is to account for their absence since the letters increased in popularity with each passing decade.
​
Other reasons for an early dating have been offered, but they are highly circumstantial. For example, some have noted that the description of Rome in Acts reflects a setting that has very little, if any, knowledge of Christianity as yet. Others have claimed that since the Jewish-Gentile relations in Acts parallels Paul’s letters, they must be in temporal proximity to each other.
12.5 Place of Writing
​
Since the Gospel of Luke and Acts were probably written in the same location, they are here treated together. Scholars are agreed that Luke-Acts did not originate in Palestine and most likely did not target a Jewish audience. There are simply too many omissions that would have concerned Jews from that region. For example, in contrast to his counterparts, Luke does not include
​
• the same level of interest in contrasting Pharisaic interpretations of the law and those of Jesus (e.g. Matthew 5-7, cf. Luke 6:20-38)
• Jesus’ sayings about false ritual piety (Matt 6:1-8, 16-18)
• controversies about clean and unclean practices (Mark 7:1-23)
• the narrative about the Canaanite woman (Mark 7:24-30)
Pinpointing the exact location of Luke-Acts, however, has not shared the same level of agreement. Three of the most prominent locations that have been proposed are Rome, Antioch, and more generally Achaia (Greece).
​
​
Fig. 12.13: On this map, the cities where Luke may have written his Gospel and Acts are labeled in red. Rome is on the far left in Italy. Pisidian Antioch is in the province of Galatia. Syrian Antioch is in the province of Syria. Achaia is the province in the middle of the map. Courtesy of Accordance Bible Software.
​
​
12.5.1 Rome
​
Since Luke-Acts concludes in Rome, with Paul freely preaching the gospel as he awaits trial, it has been proposed that Luke wrote his two-volume work to the Christians in that city. This traditional view has little appeal today for two primary reasons. First, the ending of the saga in Rome has tremendous symbolic significance, and is not incorporated into the narrative for the purpose of isolating the author’s location. Since Rome was understood symbolically as the center of not only the empire, but also the entire world, Paul’s unhindered preaching of the gospel represents the success of Christian evangelism. As we trace the plot, Paul overcomes every obstacle in the quest to bring the gospel to the center of civilization.
​
Second, if the location of the author is tied to Paul’s two-year stay in Rome at the end of Acts, it is strange that there is no mention of Christian persecution during this period. Paul would have been in Rome in the mid-60s during the reign of Nero, who was well known for ordering atrocities against Christians.
​
12.5.2 Antioch
​
Antioch has been a common proposal. Early non-canonical Christian literature contains sparse references to Luke being “from Antioch.” There is no way, however, to verify these sporadic claims. Even if they are accurate, and Luke either originated from there or resided there, or both, they do not necessarily tie Antioch to the location of the writing. Critics also argue that if Luke wrote to the Christians in Antioch, we would expect to see the same concerns in his Gospel that we see in Matthew, which most likely was written there. Unlike Luke’s audience, Matthew’s Christians are Jews who are immersed in ritual and legal controversy. Luke’s Gospel tends to reflect a Gentile audience, probably God-fearers.
​
​
12.5.3 Achaia
​
Achaia (or Achaea) was a Roman province located in the southern part of what is today Greece. Like the other options, the evidence in support of this location is sparse. Proponents often refer to the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologues, which claim that Luke came from Antioch and wrote his Gospel “in the regions of Achaia.” These Prologues were prefaces to select New Testament writings written in response to Marcion of Sinope (85-160 CE), who was one of the first compilers of a list of authoritative Christian writings (see Chapter Seven). While this is an early reference, we unfortunately have no information about the breadth or circulation of this tradition.
​
​
Fig. 12.16: Sestertius of Hadrian, who is pictured raising a kneeling Achaia in celebration of the province’s inclusion in the empire, 134-38 CE.
​
​
Proponents of this view also point to Luke’s focus on the Gentiles, which is clearly present when compared to the other Synoptic Gospels. The examples are numerous, but few are particularly noteworthy. First, Acts 28:25-28 is often cited as evidence that Luke-Acts targets a Gentile audience. Luke writes,
So they disagreed with each other; and as they were leaving, Paul made one further statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, ‘Go to this people and say, You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn—and I would heal them.’ Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.”
(NRSV)
Second, unlike Mark, Luke-Acts contains no Aramaic expressions, place names, or cultural references. Instead, Luke-Acts contains expressions that would have been commonplace among Gentiles. If Luke’s audience included Jewish-Christians, they probably were not from Palestine.
​
Third, more than the other Synoptic Gospel, Luke has a Hellenistic character. For example, both the genealogy of Jesus and the infancy narrative reflect common features found in Hellenistic biographies. The same can be said about Luke’s presentation of the passion of Jesus. Unlike the other evangelists, Luke surprisingly omits a number of references to the suffering of Jesus, which corresponds to the Hellenistic propensity to play on the reader’s expected emotions. As in Hellenistic biographies, Luke surprises the reader by minimizing data that the reader expects to find. Also, Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ parables of the Wedding Feast and the Great Banquet can be compared to Hellenistic portrayals of sages lecturing at a symposium (see Luke 14:1-24).
​
​
Fig. 12.17: Tomb fresco of a Greek symposium found in the old Roman city of Paestum. 5th century BCE.
​
​
While there is no agreement on a specific location, many scholars agree that Luke probably intended a wider audience than the other evangelists. So, instead of focusing on a particular community of Christians, Luke may well have intended a circulation that spanned the empire. If this was the case, then the search for the location may in the end be less significant than it is for the other Gospels.
​
​
12.6 Purpose
Since neither Luke nor Acts contains an explicit statement or explanation telling the reader why these two volumes were written, we are once again faced with the problem of reconstruction. In a predominantly illiterate world, why did the evangelist pick up his stylus and begin to write? Moreover, why did he write when previous accounts about Jesus were already circulating? There has been no shortage of reconstructions.
12.6.1 Defense of Christianity to the Romans
​
One of the more interesting proposals is that Luke-Acts was written to serve as a defense of Christianity to the Romans. In addition to the story ending with Paul preaching freely in Rome, approximately one quarter of Acts is taken up with Paul interacting with Roman officials, and receiving their approval. When Luke is brought into the mix, Christianity is presented as a religion for the Gentiles. Christianity’s Jewish origin adds to its credibility because the Romans tended to appreciate religions that were old. Some have seized upon this idea and argued that Luke-Acts is a legal narrative written as a defense for Paul’s evangelistic activity. Since both volumes are addressed to the “most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), it is further speculated that he was none other than the magistrate officiating at Paul’s upcoming trial.
​
Two major obstacles, however, stand in the way of this intriguing view. First, since adherents of this view ascribe a late dating to Luke-Acts (mid-80s), it raises the question why Acts does not report the results of Paul’s trial in Rome. Was there a third volume planned? Second, some have responded that this view does not adequately explain why the Roman officials are repeatedly depicted as weak before Jewish authorities.
​
​
12.6.2 Evangelizing the God-Fearers
A proposal that has received considerable attention is that Luke wrote to introduce Christianity to God-fearers. These were Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism. They were drawn to the God of Israel, participated in rituals, worshipped in the synagogue, and accepted many of the ethical values of Judaism, but they did not undergo circumcision. John Nolland, one of the major proponents of this view, has argued that Luke’s God-fearers reached a crossroads when Christianity was presented to them. Christianity offered God-fearers the true fulfillment of Judaism, allowing them to maintain all of its attractive features, without abandoning their Gentile identity. At the same time, the God-fearers would have faced resistance from their Jewish communities because Christianity was considered a perversion of Judaism. Moreover, God-fearers would have experienced pressure from their Jewish communities to fulfill their new Jewish faith by being circumcised.
​
In order to show how Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, Luke anchors Jesus in his Jewish context. Even before he is born, Jewish characters in the story predict how Jesus will be the savior of the world, which will include both Jews and Gentiles. The ministry of Jesus is portrayed as the fulfillment of the scriptures. Later in Acts, the early Christians are presented as the successors of Jesus, who continue his ministry. They take on the identity of the new Israel, which extends from national Israel, and like Jesus they participate in the fulfillment of the scriptures.
​
Accordingly, the addressee Theophilus may also provide a clue. While he could have been a specific person, the name itself suspiciously conveys a reference to a God-fearer. When the name is divided into its two parts (theos = God, philos = friend), we emerge with “friend of God,” which would have been an appropriate designation for a God-fearer. If Theophilus represents God-fearers in general, then Luke’s statement in Luke 1:4 (“So that you may realize what certainty you have of the instruction you have received”) can be viewed as a programmatic clue for the entire work.
​
​
12.6.3 Pastoral Affirmation to the Gentiles
Jewish rejection of the gospel created a profound problem for thoughtful Gentile believers. Since the Jews who rejected Jesus were no longer considered to be the people of God, Gentile Christians would have wondered if God had abandoned his promise given to Israel through Abraham (Gen12:1-3). Did God betray his people and his word in scripture? While this anxiety about God’s faithfulness would have undoubtedly resonated among the Jews, it was particularly pronounced among the Gentiles since their traditions abounded with the inconsistencies of the gods. If God turned away from the Jews, could he not all the more turn away from the Gentiles? Luke’s two-volume narrative is thought by some to be a response to this anxiety.
​
​
Fig. 12.20: Mosaic of Neptune, god of the sea, with the four women representing the four seasons, 2nd century. Bardo National Museum, Tunis.
​
​
According to this proposal, Luke tries to justify the faithfulness of God by showing how events from Jesus to the church unfolded consecutively “in an orderly manner.” He begins by showing how the revelation of God came to Israel through Jesus, who was destined to be the savior of the world. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews effectively cut them off from God’s promise of saving the world, originally made to Abraham. Luke sees the acceptance of Jesus among the Gentiles as the fulfillment of God’s promise. As such, Luke has often been regarded as an apologetic historian who saw himself writing the continuation of the biblical story, not so much to defend the Christian movement, but rather to defend God’s consistency throughout history.
​
​
​