Loading...If you already have Matthew and Mark, why would you need Luke? Aren’t they all the same?
Nope.
Next question: do you know these Gospels very well? If not, AOK: Keep reading! If so – see if you can summarize the themes and emphases of Luke in one sentence (say, 50 words) in a way that both highlights what it’s about and shows what is distinctive about its portrayal of Jesus.
How’d that go for you?
Here’s what I would come up with as a first go (I’ve never tried this before!)
The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus both as a Greco-Roman “divine man” – shown by his supernatural birth, astounding miracles, death, and exaltation – and as the final prophet sent by God to the Jewish people, who rejected him, fulfilling God’s plan for salvation to go to all the peoples of earth.
It would take volumes to fill out this brief summary (many such volumes have been written! I’ll give suggestions for reading in a future post on Luke). Here I will try expand the summary a bit by discussing some of the most important features of our Third Gospel.
Luke is often considered the most “gentile” of our gospels, both because of its distinctive portrayal of Jesus in terms familiar to ancient pagan readers and because it stresses that the gospel was divinely intended to go to the non-Jews, an emphasis even more central in the book of Acts, the second, companion, volume written by the same author, “Luke”.
More than the other Gospels, this account portrays Jesus in ways that would resonate with readers familiar with the stories of other “divine men” in Greek and Roman pagan traditions, who were sometimes also said to have been born through the union of a god and a mortal, who were religious prodigies, who could heal the sick, control the elements, cast out demons, and raise the dead, and who at the end of their lives were exalted to the heavenly realm to dwell with the gods.
At the same time, Luke’s Jesus is completely Jewish and is in particular portrayed as one of the prophets sent from God. In fact, he is the final prophet. His birth is reminiscent of the births of prophets in the Hebrew Bible such as Samuel (Luke 1-2; see 1 Samuel 1-2); his mother celebrates his birth in words very similar to those of Samuel’s mother (Luke 2:1-10; 1 Samuel 1:46-55); he begins his ministry by reading the prophet Isaiah and claiming he is the one Isaiah predicted who will now proclaim the prophetic message (Luke 4:16-30); he does miracles that closely resemble those of the prophets (see the raising of the son of the widow from Zarephath in Luke 7:11-17, which is very close to Elijah’s raising of the son of the widow of Nain in 1 Kings 17:17-24); he is therefore proclaimed to be a “great prophet (Luke 7:16); he suffers rejection like the prophets (cf. Jeremiah); he indicates that he must go to Jerusalem to die because that’s what happens to all the prophets (Luke 13:32-34). All these passages are unique to Luke among our Gospels.
Moreover, because Jesus is a prophet, unlike the earlier Gospels of Matthew and Mark, he goes to his death calm and in control (not in agony and despair), knowing what must happen to him to the very end. At the crucifixion, he is not silent but prays for those who are crucifying him; he assures the criminal being crucified with him that they will both that day be in paradise; and instead the cry of dereliction (“my God, my God, why have you forsake me?) Jesus confidently prays, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:32-46). As a prophet, he knows what is happening to him, why it is happening to him, and what will happen to him after it happens to him.
That Luke wants to portray Jesus as the ultimate Jewish prophet bound to be rejected by his own people can be found in the first event of his public ministry. Luke borrowed the earlier Mark’s story of Jesus being rejected by his townspeople in Nazareth. Mark indicates that the event happened halfway through his ministry (Mark 6:1-6). Luke, however, rearranges the sequence of the narrative: now it is the very first episode after Jesus’ baptism and before the rest of the ministry (Luke 4:16-30). Why relocate the story? Because it foreshadows all that is to come: Jesus’ rejection by Jews and his message therefore going to gentiles.
Luke stressed this theme in the story itself by giving a much longer version of it (found in none of the other Gospels). Here Jesus does not merely speak in his hometown synagogue to the amazement of the other Jews gathered there. Now we have a lengthy account: Jesus is given the opportunity to speak; he is given the scroll of Isaiah; he reads from Isaiah 61 about one who has been “anointed” to preach and to proclaim the miracles and coming of the Lord. After reading the passage Jesus then declares that is has now been fulfilled in their hearing, and the crowd is astounded.
But he then goes on to declare that “no prophet is acceptable in his own homeland.” To demonstrate his point he reminds his audience of the Hebrew prophet Elijah who worked miraculously provided food to a non-Israelite during the time of famine, but not for any of the Israelites: he then recalls the story of the prophet Elisha who healed a foreign king of leprosy but not a leper within Israel. The people in the synagogue are outraged. Jesus is declaring that he himself is a divinely sent prophet and that God is concerned to reach to outsiders because Jews reject him. The crowd rises up to kill him. But he easily escapes.
Because Luke expanded this episode and put it first, he is using it to anticipate what will happen in the rest of the Gospel (and the book of Acts). For Luke, Jesus is in fact the prophetic embodiment of Elijah, Elisha, and the other prophets. He declares the word of God; he is not accepted in his own homeland; he will be killed because of Jewish opposition to his message and mission; and the good news of God will then be taken to those who are outside the Jewish community. Even though his enemies try to kill him, in the end they cannot succeed. Even after his crucifixion he will go on living.
In addition, the passage of Isaiah 61 that Jesus chooses to read well anticipates his own message in the Gospel of Luke, since it indicates that he has come to bring good news to those who are poor; to bring release to those who are captive; to heal the blind; to set free those who are oppressed; and to declare the presence of God (Luke 4:18-19). Many of the prophets of Scripture (Isaiah, Amos, and others) were concerned that the people of God were neglecting the poor, the oppressed, and the needy, and declared God’s judgment on them and his coming judgment against them. Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, more than the other Gospels, stresses God’s concern for the poor, the hungry, and the social outcasts. And his message, like his prophetic forebears, is rejected, leading to his own death.
God will indeed come and judge the nation. As in the earlier Gospels, Jesus predicts that God will destroy Jerusalem and its temple, leading to the arrival of the cosmic judge of the earth, the Son of Man, and the kingdom of God (Luke 21). More than the other Gospels, though, Luke emphasizes that the realities of the kingdom can already be seen in Jesus’ ministry: he already brings healing to the sick and demon-possessed, raises the dead, and reveals the divine life of love that all will experience who enter into that kingdom. Those who follow Jesus can already find the kingdom among them (Luke 17:20-21).
Jesus urges those who have begun to see the glories of this kingdom to repent and return to the ways of God. God in this Gospel is a loving God who will forgive those who repent and turn to him. When Jesus in the end is rejected and crucified by the Roman authorities, he is then raised from the dead in fulfillment of what the prophets had said, and his disciples are told that now the “forgiveness of sins” can be preached to “all nations” (Luke 24:47). Here Jesus’ death is not an atoning sacrifice that pays the price of the sins of others; it is an event that reveals to people how far they (and all others) have rejected God and need to return for him so that they can acquire forgiveness.
Luke concise:
“Luke is the Christian redaction of *Ev, the main gospel with which it all began, and that Mark had started to counter by completing his own rewrite of the narrative, effectively judaising the so very anti-Judaic *Ev
In this second round, Matthew redacts *Ev into Luke, basically turning everything around and on its head”
You mention the pivotal points Bart, juxtaposing Mark next to Luke. *Ev ended with the gruesomely dramatic death of the protagonist, leaving the audience enraged – and in Luke it’s turned into a tea party.
Where *Ev ridicules John the Baptist as failed prophet, he now is Jesus’ BFF and Jesus himself is a very successful prophet
Like Paul, Luke combines the Judaic posture with renewed attention for the original message, that of a spiritual inner kingdom – and we can see the Good God of *Ev being omnipresent here, of course
Last but MOST CERTAINLY not least, you correctly remark that “Jesus’ death is not an atoning sacrifice that pays the price of the sins of others; it is an event that reveals to people how far they (and all others) have rejected God and need to return for him so that they can acquire forgiveness.”
Would you comment on what *Ev stands for, for the non initiates?
The Road to Eleusis by Wasson, Hofmann, and Carl A. P. Ruck
344 ratings on amazon averaging 4.7 stars, 84% are 5 stars and 10% are 4 stars–94% are 4 stars or better.
Apostle Paul in Athens (c. 50 AD): Paul famously preached at the Areopagus (Mars Hill) (Acts 17:16–34), engaging with Greek philosophers. His speech referenced Greek religious traditions, which likely included elements familiar to Eleusinian initiates.
Ancient sources suggest that thousands attended annually. Some estimates range from 3,000 to 6,000 initiates per year, though numbers may have fluctuated.
Over time, a significant portion of the Athenian population—perhaps up to 50% of adult citizens—may have been initiated.
By the Roman period, initiation became even more widespread across the Mediterranean, with emperors and elites participating, making the Mysteries one of the most influential religious cults of antiquity.
This book is a collection of studies by three authors which point to evidence that psychedelic substances were used in ancient times and even in early Christianity.
Prof. Ehrman,
As an expert in early Christianity, would you agree that psychedelic substances were used in early Christianity, in early Christian mysteries, or when pagan areas were transitioning into Christianity?
The gospel of Luke portrays Jesus as God’s son and heir and Lord of the cosmos. He becomes man and is executed by crucifixion to fulfill Isaiah 53. He teaches 12 apostles to spread his gospel and promises to return on the clouds in glory to rule in his kingdom.
50 Words incomiiing
Gospel of Luke’s author, new to Palestine, writes to Theophilus, likely the High Priest installed after Herod Antipas’ exile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_ben_Ananus .
There’s equity, women’s empowerment, and pan-Semetism themes. The story of Naaman recasts Isaiah’s heirarchy due to Jewish actions. Notably, gLuke’s Jesus is calm regarding his father’s plans.
Scholars often assert their own gospel message… that Jesus came for Jews and then non-Jews thru Paul’s ministry. And that’s a false gospel. Why? Descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations were non-Jews. Only Jews and their non-Jewish, Israelite brethren were still under the law’s curse, in danger of an end of the age judgement and in need of Jesus, the gospel and salvation. The non-Jews Jesus anticipated would return to the fold later were non-Jewish descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel, also referred to as the “other sheep”. The erroneous belief that the gospels are about Jesus coming for Jews and then the rest of humanity is a religious tradition promoted by scholars and protected by groupthink. It has absolutely zero support from the New Testament when it’s understood consistently according to its Israelite context and audience relevance.
Scholars (like Bart Ehrman here) make vague assertions like “God in this gospel is a living God who will forgive those who repent and turn to him”… (complete with capitalized G!) but they avoid specifically identifying exactly who “those” were according to the text…. Israelites.
The idea that Jesus came for Jews and then for gentiles through Paul is hardly a message that scholars sometimes make into their own gospel. Have you even gone to an Evangelical church??? I’m talking preachers and pastors who are not scholars, they read the Bible and say specifically, exactly that Jesus came for Jews and only after his resurrection went for gentiles through Paul. It’s well known. It’s common knowledge. A lay person reading the Bible understands it. God clearly did not make clear what you’re talking about.
You can try to redefine “Jew” all you want, but you would only be undermining Acts 13:47.
Jesus was absolutely, positively, undeniably focused on Jews, and I don’t care how you define them because he didn’t make the distinction you are: Matthew 15:24.
Apart from the Canaanite woman and the Roman centurion, there is nothing showing Jesus gave 2 flips about gentiles. Nothing. There is, however, evidence where Jesus told his disciples to stay away from gentiles: Matthew 10:5.
Paul made it crystal clear that his mission was to gentiles Romans 11:13, Romans 15:16.
I didn’t claim that there was no ministry directed to Gentiles. The gospel went out to all nations / Ethnos for purposes of reaching a particular group of Gentiles, non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel. Romans 11:13, 15:16 were these type of Gentiles. Prof. Ehrman has for nearly his entire adult life assumed that the gospel was meant for all Gentiles everywhere. He is learning now why he was wrong.
FYI, There were three types of gentiles in the New Testament.
1. Non-Israelites, never under the Law and its curse and not in need of salvation.
2. Non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations, still under the Law’s curse and in need of salvation, referred to as gentiles because they had stopped being Torah observant and had stopped practicing circumcision.
3. 1st century ex-communicated Jews who later became God-fearers (like Cornelius).
Guess which type of gentile you are?
Also, I was not trying to redefine “Jew”. The definition of a Jew was not static. Originally, Jews were physical descendants of the tribe of Judah. In other times in Jewish history, a Jew was anyone who converted to Judaism and/or lived like a Jew.
This interesting idea that the Lost Sheep might be only the ten tribes has really got my research fingers going today.
Matthew 25:32 has that “all nations” legalese like in Isaiah (and originally Genesis.)
Isaiah is called the 4th Gospel because it was critical to Jesus’ movement:
Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and *bring back those of Israel* I have kept. I will *also make you a light for the Gentiles*… [my emphasis]
Looks like two different tasks?
Why can’t the First Century Jews be the newest Lost Sheep? It’s Herodias’ marriage that John the Baptist protests that had just broke centuries of Jewish participation in the pan-Semetic alliance.
Isaiah 19:23
ʻIn that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria.” Isaiah’s highway is an *exact match* to the First Century Nabataean trade route from Alexandria to Osroene.
It’s about commerce, y’all. Even Ghandi had a billionaire backer.
And who’s blocking the highway? Zealots and the Ituraeans who had Galilee nabbed from them.
Next, trade moves North and a certain rebellious tribe is not permitted around a certain Gihon spring.
“Apart from the Canaanite woman and the Roman centurion, there is nothing showing Jesus gave 2 flips about gentiles. Nothing.”
So, Jesus is a lineage-Jewish Davidic heir in contrast to the not-lineage-Jewish Herodian dynasty heirs. But how many of his parables were relatable to First Century Jews?
There’s the one about sowing. Then, to landlocked Jews, it’s: pearl, pearls, investment >interest > hoarding, royalty disciplining servants, a camel (Arabian), and shepherding—which in the First Century was not an esteemed Jewish profession because they prided themselves on settlement, but was now a Bedouin-associated occupation.
Jesus has a mission to attain the popular support of Jewish people. But just like “The Lord” of the Hebrew Bible also has peoples other than Israelites (though Israelites only have a covenant with him), and like how the Herods *also* had Gentile kingdoms, Jesus may eventually have patrilineal responsibilities to certain Gentiles that took a backseat to the mission.
Proscribing the 12 from Gentile contact for that assignment (doesn’t Thomas eventually go to India?) serves to demonstrate “We Are Very Jewish”, but Jesus ‘sounds’ less Jewish than even Agrippa, lol.
Read any mishna or haggada—it’s very earthy, it’s kinda scrappy. While eloquence is noted as *the* Arabian trait.
i’m having trouble differentiating catholics saying gospel of mark- jesus as man & ehrman-
Luke is often considered the most “gentile” of our gospels.
I appreciated the Gospel of Luke most for the amount of content, I can also relate to. Not John or Matthew. though then I liked spiritualized writings > CSLewis which I had no understanding of.
not cs lewis I didn’t understand him. but Andrew murray & such
But the gospels state that the disciples did not understand Jesus until after death on the cross
ai is not correct. Just wait until they are flying our planes then Y2k
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Dreams_(film) movie from 1984
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I am currently studying Paganism and can’t help but notice the similarities in the ways in which Celtic legends and the Gospels are told. Obviously, the Gospels are at least partly mythical. Were they intended to be understood this way or were they intended to be understood as historical biographies, with the narrative true in a literal sense?
We don’t know what was in the mind of the authors, but the earliest readers we know of assumed they meant their accounts literally.