This History's for You; This Record is True

Preached by Benjamin Vrbicek

September 11, 2016

If I asked you, “What theologian made the most significant contribution to the New Testament?” who would you say did that? Doubtless names like Paul and Peter and John would come to mind. If you were cheeky, you might say, Jesus—which, of course, is the best answer.For myself, I don’t know how to answer the question. But let’s narrow the question, asking instead, “What theologian made the most significant contribution to the New Testament in terms of the number of verses?” Now, do you know this answer?Or what about this question: Who is the only non-Jewish author of any book or any letter in the New Testament?Or, finally, this one: of Matthew and Luke and John—all men who wrote about Jesus—which one of these men never actually met Jesus? And when I say “met Jesus” I mean in the common way this is understood, the way you and I might meet in the church foyer.If I had asked these questions in a sermon several months ago, before we announced that this morning we would be studying the gospel of Luke, I’m not sure the answers to these questions would be as obvious. But as it is, our context tells you—even if you didn’t know the answer—that the answer to all three questions is Luke.Luke’s two-volume contribution to the New Testament, makes up one-quarter of the New Testament, the most of any single author: more than Paul, more than John, more than Peter. Luke is also the only non-Jewish author in the New Testament. Additionally, he never met Jesus—again, in the traditional sense.

Scripture Reading

Let’s read the “prolog,” or the “preface” if you like, to his gospel. Then I’ll pray, and we’ll study this together. If you have a Bible, please follow along with me as I read Luke 1:1–4 (page 970).1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Prayer

This is God’s word; thanks be to God. Would you please pray with me? “Heavenly Father . . .

Introduction

The opening paragraph to A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens goes like this:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Those 119 words make up one sentence, a sentence that’s famous to us. But if we were all scholars of the Greek language, we’d also be familiar with several other famous opening sentences. Among them, would be the opening to the gospel of Luke. In the English Standard Version of the Bible (the version we use at church), it’s only 73 words, but we won’t fault Luke for that; it’s not a competition.But those scholars who know, do say that Luke wrote his gospel in some of the finest Greek ever written.2I confess that, though I can read biblical Greek, I don’t have the ability to discern this, just as I can’t tell the difference between fine wine and wine from a box. But those who have spent decades immersed in Greek, tell me it’s true. And it’s with this famous sentence that we begin what will be a long study of Luke’s gospel.Time is short this morning, so I’m just going to jump in with our outline. Two points to cover: 1. Who is Luke? and 2. So what? (Just a heads up, the first point will be much longer than the second point.)

1. Who is Luke?

Let’s begin by talking about Luke. As I’ve been thinking about this for some time, it seemed that there were several ways we could begin. I could read some of the most familiar portions of his book and explain them. That’s an option. Or, perhaps, I could go to all the other places in the Bible that Luke is mentioned and explain what we can learn about him.This is the decision that seemed best, but it still didn’t feel right to me. I didn’t want to put, so to speak, Luke under a microscope as though he was a butterfly we pinned to a board. So, this got me thinking. What if, instead, Luke could come here to introduce himself to us? What kinds of things would he say?Here’s what I want to do. Having done all the research across the New Testament about Luke, for just about 10 minutes I’m going to share what Luke might have shared with us if he was here. Look at it sort of like an extended sermon illustration.And then, I want to come back and show you from the New Testament, maybe not all, but many of the reasons why “Luke” told us the things that he told us.I have here some handy glasses. I figure since Luke was a doctor, and doctors are smart, and smart people where glasses, that I could do this Clark-Kent-thing to help us. Here we go . . .3

My name is Loukas. I am a physician, or I was a physician. I suppose I’m known better as a historian these days, but you might just know me as Luke.

The year was 67 AD. And in 67 AD Nero—Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus—was then and had been Emperor for 13 years, and winter was coming soon.4And I, I was in prison in Rome with the Apostle Paul weeks before the end of his life, just weeks before they would remove his head from his body simply because he was a follower of Christ.5Now, I suppose it would be more accurate to say, Paul was actually the one in prison and I was there to care for him and help with his letters.6 Together in that jail, we wrote to a young pastor named Timothy as he pastored the church in Ephesus. Timothy’s father was a wasn’t Jewish, just like my mother and father.7Even in the early years of Paul’s ministry, when he wrote to the church in Galatia he was able to say that he “bear[s] on [his] body the marks of Jesus.”8 By this, Paul meant that he showed the physical marks of suffering for Christ on his body. And as a physician, let me assure you that was an understatement.Paul’s wounds were frequent and severe. Near the end—well, even before the end—he could not stand fully erect. That’s what happen when you are beaten to the point where your back becomes basically one open sore, and then you are thrown to the ground in the dust and dirt. Then you walk away—or more likely are carried away—to a friend’s house where there are no antibiotics, no hydrogen peroxide, no Neosporin, and you spend the next week drifting in and out of consciousness as your body fights off infection and fever.As Paul’s personal physician,9 let me assure you, when Paul said he bore on his body the marks of Jesus, it was an understatement.But let me back up. My profession trained me to make observations—how to look, how to interpret, and then how to record; and then how to re-look, and re-interpret, and re-record. As I did this, as I worked around suffering people, I saw something. I saw that people always avoid suffering.I mean, I lived in the early middle period of what was called the Pax Romana, The Peace of Rome. And the ideal—although only those who could participate did—but the ideal was to avoid suffering, and to do it at all costs. And if suffering was necessary, well, then it should be done by others. Better to direct the common labors, than labor; direct the armies, but don’t fight them. Don’t suffer. That’s why at various times, more than half of the Roman Empire were slaves; we out-sourced our own suffering.It was a decadent and indulgent culture. In these respects, we were not far from your culture where the good life drives cars that don’t break, owns computers that never act up, has bodies that don’t decay, and treasures stuff that shines. Ahh, the good life.When I first met Paul, it was 20 years or so out from the resurrection of Christ, so roughly 52 AD.10 I met Paul in the city of Troas in what you called Asia—perhaps 100 miles north of Ephesus; you’ve heard of Ephesus at least.When I met him, he was just traveling through Troas; he was in the middle of what is called his “second missionary journey.”But, to be clear, Paul never really just traveled through a city. In fact, when I met him, the last major city he was in, Lystra, Paul was stoned and left for dead.11Anyway, Paul and I sailed the same ship back across Samothrace to Macadiona.12 While there, I cared for him; I treated his wounds, which had healed, but poorly.What was odd about Paul, very odd, was that Paul... well, he seemed to be moving towards suffering.13As we traveled, and I attended to him, Paul told me how he had been raised in the scriptures; he studied under the best teachers.14 And explained to me that he had originally persecuted those who followed “the way,” as it was called,15 those who followed Jesus. And he told me how while he was doing this very thing, Jesus appeared to him in great light—bright, vivid, clear, intense, stunning, streaming light.16 And how in the process, he came to understand what he called the gospel, the good news of Jesus: that God, in past times had overlooked sin and not fully punished it, instead choosing to take the full weight of sin and crush the Messiah with it. That’s what he said happened when Jesus was crucified.17In my culture all this was strange to me, foolishness really. At the time, I didn’t know much about messiahs, but I knew they didn’t die; they don’t suffer.18Well, I watched Paul minister in Neapolis and then Philippi. I saw him speak with women so gently. A businesswoman of some notoriety named Lydia who even became a follower of Jesus.19After that, I didn’t see him again for five years.20 When I saw Paul the next time, well . . . he hadn’t gotten any younger. His health was worse.Paul was traveling through Philippi on his final missionary journey. He was visiting all the places and churches he had been before.21This time, I would stay with him until the end.22I’m leaving out things, but eventually we made it back to Jerusalem. And by this time, there was no small commotion about Paul. The word was out there that he was the man who defied the Jewish customs and faith. Now, these were only half-truths, of course.23I don’t have time to detail it all here, but a great chain of events was put in motion because of this. And Paul, many times over could have stopped it. He could have ended the suffering. Humiliation. Beatings. Imprisonment. Hunger. A shipwreck. But he didn’t avoid the suffering; he pressed on.Paul appeared before governors and kings sharing how the light of God had touched him, and then eventually he appealed to Caesar himself.24When I ended my second volume, called Acts, this is where Paul was, in Rome still in prison . . . waiting.Eventually, he got out, but not for long. Only for a few years. The persecution under Nero intensified. There was this thing with a fire in Rome, and the question who to blame it on. Nero chose the Christians. So he killed them; he killed us—burned us like torches at parties, dressed us in animal skins and fed us to wild animals.25And Paul went back in prison. Paul, a man who had lived for others, was alone. Well, not exactly; I was there. But his body was failing. His eyesight was failing. He was unable to stand properly. Every time he moved, it caused pain. His sleep was sporadic. In short, suffering abounded. But so did Paul’s certianity about his hope in Jesus. It was odd, very odd.26And together, he wrote to Timothy:

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel . . . [Jesus] abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel . . . which is why I suffer as I do.27

Not only did Paul not avoid suffering, but he also moved towards it. And not only did he move towards it, but he also had a certainty about him. He had a certainty about the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that certainty caused him to be free to love, even when it was costly. I think that’s because he was certain that Jesus had moved towards suffering for him . . . and for the whole world, which is what I wanted Theophilus, and you, to know.

[Taking off glasses] Well, if we were able to invite Luke here with us, I don’t know what he would say. But I do know that when you tease out the details of the New Testament, Luke’s story looks something like that.But because we have a very high view of the Bible, I don’t want you to just take my word for it. When my manuscript goes online, there are around 30 footnotes. But even right now, I want you to see all this in the New Testament for yourself. So, what I want to do for a few minutes is show you where I got the details for that story.Let’s start again with Luke’s preface to his gospel. Luke 1:1–4,

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

I want you to notice the man “Theophilus.” We don’t know much about him. We know he is given the title “most excellent” (cf. Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). Some think he was a Roman official. Others think he was a wealthy patron of Luke’s, meaning that he bankrolled the research that was required for Luke’s gospel and the cost of making copies of Luke’s gospel. I think this is likely.The name itself is built on two Greek words, the words for “God” and “love,” which is why some take this name as a stand-in for not a real person but all those who love God. That’s why when Jason so wonderfully wrote the song we just sang before the sermon, he gave it the title “Lovers of God.”But whoever Theophilus was, this understanding of Luke’s audience is correct; it’s written to help people love God. It’s based on thorough research from eyewitnesses so that people can have certainty about Jesus and about how to be saved from our sins and receive God’s favor.Since were looking at the beginning of Luke, it’s helpful to also look at the beginning of Acts. In Acts 1:1–2 we read,

1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen . . .

You see the connection? Both books are written to Theophilus, which is why it’s been common to refer to Luke-Acts as two volumes.If we had more time, I’d want to show you more in Acts, specifically a famous set of passages referred to as the “we” passages. As Luke tells the story in Acts, he often says things like, “Peter did this” or “Paul did that.” But sometimes, in fact in four long sections, Luke says “we.” We did this; we did that. I don’t have time to show you these passages, but they are listed in the sermon outline (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). When you stack them up, you realize that Luke was with Paul huge amounts of time and also had access to key eyewitnesses to research his gospel.Two other passages I want to show you. The first is the end of the letter of Colossians.

10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), 11 and Jesus who is called Justus.These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me . . . 14Luke the beloved physician greets you,as does Demas.

From this passage, we learn that Paul had Jewish people with him, and then he has others who are non-Jewish. Among the others is, “Luke the beloved physician.” Hence, Luke was not Jewish and was a physician.28The final passage I want to show you is the end of 2 Timothy, where we read this in 4:9–11, 21.

9 Do your best [Timothy] to come to me soon. 10 For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Luke alone is with me . . . 21 Do your best to come before winter.

Papyrus-75 manuscript

That passage from 2 Timothy was written around 67 AD when Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus was about to take Paul’s head. Luke alone was with Paul, and winter was coming soon.Now, to be fair, I must tell you one last thing. The books of Luke and Acts are technically anonymous, meaning they don’t actually have a byline. They don’t say “written by Luke.”But we know it was Luke because the possibilities of who it could be—that is, all those who could be included in the “we” passages—is very small. There are just a handful of people that could have been the “we.” Second, church history and early manuscripts all testify that Luke wrote. In fact, have a picture of an early manuscript. It’s called papyrus-75, or P75. It’s a copy written between 175 – 225 AD. Here’s a picture of it.29 (If you want to Google it to see it up close, just Google, “P75 manuscript.”)When you zoom in, you see near the top “Euangelion Kata Lukan.” I know that doesn’t mean much to you, but it says, “The gospel according to Luke.” This is from 100 years after he wrote it, which in terms of ancient documents, that’s spectacular.

2. So what?

Let’s go to the final point, “So what?” This will be very short.I ask the question, “So what?” because I don’t want this introduction to be merely a nice history lesson. God wants you to receive the gospel of Luke the way Theophilus was supposed to receive it—as a means to take away doubt and replace it with certainty.Think how much Luke must have been changed by this gospel! He was a doctor. Everyone he knew—at least every “normal” person—ran from suffering. They avoided it. They feared it. And then along comes Paul. Paul moved towards suffering, not because it was an end but because he had an encounter with the risen Lord Jesus Christ who had suffered and now had defeated suffering. And Paul’s encounter with Jesus changed everything for him.And then, I presume, it changed everything for Luke. Luke’s love for Jesus compelled him to then love Theophilus to the point he could leave behind his (presumably) lucrative profession, do this exhausting research among eyewitnesses, and then records all of it in a book so that Theophilus, and you and I, could study it—all during a time when it was dangerous to be a Christian.And it’s fascinating to me that when Theophilus has doubts, Luke doesn’t just say, “Pray about it.” I’m sure he wanted him to pray, but what does he do? He spends years in research and writes a book—which can be fact-checked by the eyewitnesses who were still alive.This book was written for those, perhaps like some of you, who have doubts. It was written to give you certainty about the gospel, certainty that in the person of Jesus God was seeking to save the lost (Luke 19:10). He wants you to be found. And with this certainty about the gospel, he wants you to have hope in suffering . . . perhaps even causing you to move towards suffering for the sake of something great, the sake of God’s fame among the nations. Lovers of God, this history’s for you; this record is true.

1

My sermon title is taken from the title of the worship song that Jason Abbott and David Barreca wrote for our sermon series through the gospel of Luke.

2

“The prologue to Luke’s Gospel, comprised of a single sentence, ranks among the finest Greek writing of the first century and demonstrates Luke’s skill and credentials as a writer” (Wayne Grudem and Thomas R. Schreiner,

ESV Study Bible

, Luke 1:1–4). Many others have pointed this out as well.

3

I’m drawing here from a previous sermon that I gave at New Life Bible Fellowship in Tucson, AZ.

4

Cf. 2 Timothy 4, especially vv. 11 and 21.

5

This is church tradition.

6

This was how Paul wrote many of his letters, and it’s likely, based on the end of 2 Timothy, that this was how that letter was written.

7

Acts 16:1 combined with Colossians 4:10–14.

8

Galatians 6:17, which is likely the first letter Paul wrote and likely before 50 AD when the Jerusalem Council took place (recorded in Acts 15).

9

Many commentators say this was likely based on Colossians 4:14.

10

Acts 16:10ff.

11

Acts 14:19; 2 Corinthians 11:25.

12

Again, Acts 16:10ff.

13

This seems consistent with his character and his explicit statements in the epistles.

14

Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:5; Acts 8–9; 22:3ff.

15

Acts 9:2; 19:23; 22:4; 24:14.

16

Acts 9.

17

Acts 17:30; Romans 3:25–26.

18

Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:21–25.

19

Acts 16:11–15.

20

Roughly the time between the “we” passages in Acts 16:10–17 and 20:5.

21

Acts 20:5ff.

22

Although the “we” passages cut in and out, it seems that Luke, more or less, is with Paul until the end of Acts.

23

Acts 23:17–36 (and beyond).

24

We don’t know whether or not he actually got to see Caesar, but he certainly appealed for to (Acts 25:10–12). And it seems that this request was going to be granted.

25

This is piecing together the possible timelines of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus as well as common statements about Nero’s persecution of Christians near the end of his reign (54–68 AD).

26

I’m extrapolating here from the details in 2 Timothy 4, as well as some of this aside comments in other letters.

27

2 Timothy 1:8–14.

28

Additionally, D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo point out that in Acts 1:19, Luke refers to Aramaic as “their language.” (

An Introduction to the New Testament

, 204).

29

Picture from

Wikipedia

.