The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are closely related. Written by the same author and for the same purpose, both were addressed to a Christian named Theophilus and were designed for the purpose of presenting to him a complete and well authenticated narrative of the early history of the Christian movement. In the introductory paragraph of the gospel, Luke tells us that many lives of Jesus were written on the basis of eyewitness reports. He does not find these narratives satisfactory in all respects and so has set himself the task of examining the records and writing a new account that will establish for all interested parties the certainty of the things about which Christians were instructed.
The first paragraph in Luke’s gospel is especially informative to readers of the New Testament, for it describes the way in which the two narratives attributed to Luke came to be written. Luke evaluated the materials he wanted to use and then supplemented them in whatever manner seemed to him to be the most appropriate. In writing his gospel, he did not simply piece together bits of information that he gathered from different sources; rather, his own contributions include selecting and organizing these materials, along with whatever interpretation was necessary to make a complete and unified narrative.
We can be quite certain that Luke made use of at least three different sources: the Gospel of Mark, the Q source, or “The Sayings of Jesus,” and a third source that is usually designated as L to distinguish it from other biographies. The Gospel of Matthew may have existed by the time Luke wrote his account, but nothing indicates that Luke knew anything about Matthew or made any use of it. Luke was a companion of Paul, and he was quite familiar with the different interpretations of the life of Jesus held by different groups within the Christian community. His purpose was to minimize the differences between the various groups and thus promote harmony within the church. He was aware, too, of the criticisms concerning Christianity that were being made by people who were outside the church, and he especially wanted to make an effective reply to those who claimed that Jesus was a revolutionist and hence an enemy of the Roman government. By giving to his readers an authentic account of the life and teachings of Jesus, Luke could show that the charges made against Jesus were false. He was quite sure that if people knew of the kind and sympathetic way in which Jesus met individuals, they would be won by the attractive power of Jesus’ wonderful personality. Luke possessed rare ability as a writer, and it has often been said that his gospel is the most appealing of all those in the New Testament.
In the opening chapters of the gospel, Luke relates a number of stories having to do with the birth and childhood of Jesus, including the announcements made to Zechariah and to Mary concerning the births of John and of Jesus, and the story of the shepherds watching their flocks at night who came to worship the newborn child. We also have accounts of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem and of the child being wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger “because there was no room for them in the inn.” After eight days, the child was circumcised, and later he was blessed by Simeon and by Anna. These stories are not reported in the other Gospels, and we cannot be sure whether Luke learned about them from an older source or from oral traditions. Luke also recorded the only story we have in the New Testament about Jesus’ boyhood. When Jesus was twelve years old, he went to Jerusalem with his parents to attend the Feast of Passover. On the way home, when his parents discovered that he was not with them, they returned to the Temple and found him involved in a profound discussion with prominent Jewish rabbis.
After the introductory chapters, Luke follows the outline of events as they are recorded in the Gospel of Mark. However, he does not follow Mark’s narrative as closely as Matthew does. Occasionally, he leaves out some material and substitutes an item of his own. For example, he substitutes an illustration of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth in place of Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of his Galilean ministry.
Luke includes a considerable number of Jesus’ teachings that are not recorded in the other Gospels. If he and Matthew both used the same source Q, evidently Luke used more material from it than did Matthew. In Luke alone we find the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Publican and the Pharisee who went to the Temple to pray, the rich man and Lazarus, the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the rich fool who would tear down his barns and build greater barns in order that he might store his goods, and the story of Zacchaeus, who climbed a tree in order that he might see Jesus. Each of these parables and stories illustrates what Luke regards as an essential characteristic of Jesus’ work. Jesus was not trying to raise opposition to the Roman government, nor was he lacking in sympathy or understanding of those whom the Jews regarded as foreigners. He places the highest value on good character regardless of a person’s race or nationality. For example, although many Jews looked with disfavor on the Samaritans, Luke emphasizes that of the ten lepers whom Jesus healed, only the one who was a Samaritan expressed his gratitude for what Jesus had done. And again in the parable of the man who fell among thieves on the road to Jericho, a Samaritan befriended the man and saw to it that he was given proper care.
