Friday, January 29, 2010

Luke 1:26-38 Commentary

The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called [b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail."

38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me according to your word." Then the angel left her.


Dig Deeper
I knew a guy many years ago who could tell some incredible stories. He had experienced an incredible life and so, his stories were just as incredible. He could keep anyone mesmerized for hours as he told stories of his adventurous childhood, growing up with parents that sounded so wise, loving, and even exciting. He had been born, he told us, in a small village in Africa while his parents were there on a mission trip. The entire story that surrounded that whole event was interesting enough but that was just the beginning of his incredible life. He had traveled the globe with his parents and seen so many countries and fascinating places that I just couldn’t believe that one person had experienced so much. We all were impressed and respected this guy a great deal if, for nothing else, all the things that he had seen and done in his life. Then one day I met his cousin who had briefly come to town to visit him. He seemed reluctant for me to spend time with her but eventually it worked out that we had a little time alone and began to talk. I was eager to here her perspective on my friend’s parents and their many adventures but quickly found out why he was so reluctant for us to spend any time together. None of what he had told us about his life was true. He had actually experienced a rather tough life. He never knew his father, his mother abandoned him at three and he spent the rest of his life bouncing between foster homes and the houses of relatives. He spent his childhood reading and dreaming of a life that he could only imagine. So, when he had a chance to start over he did. He created a new narrative of his life and just edited out all of what he thought were the embarrassing details of his life and substituted impressive ones instead.

That’s generally the way it is when people make up stories, especially important ones. When people lie, make up a story, or even just embellish one to look more impressive than it is, they don’t include the embarrassing details. Those are edited out. This is one of the sure markers of determining whether an account is true or not. Does it have those little details that aren’t always the type of thing you would want others to know or does everything fit together impressively and beautifully? This is one of the things that just makes it nearly impossible to believe that the gospel of Luke is an invented or embellished story meant to make Jesus out to be something that he was not. Oh sure, there are critics who claim that, but those claims just don’t hold water when we actually look at Luke’s Gospel. There are too many embarrassing details that someone in the first century just would not make up if they were creating a story that they wanted others to believe. Not the least of those components is the role of women in the Gospel of Luke. Some of Jesus’ most loyal followers are women and they will be the ones to discover and be the first witnesses of his resurrection. That’s not something a first century writer would have made up unless it was true because women weren’t considered reliable witnesses. As we go through Luke we will find many such details like that. We are given details of Jesus showing emotion and weakness, his disciples abandoning him, and here an insignificant young virgin from the middle of nowhere giving birth to the one who would be the Messiah and true King of the universe. It would just be too much to make up. It would actually harm your story . . . unless it was true.

If Luke were inventing a story about the Messiah who would one day claim the allegiance of the entire world to his eternal kingship, this is hardly the way he would start it out. There is no pomp, no circumstance, and nothing about his earthly circumstances that are befitting a king. How could this child possibly be offered as an alternative to the mighty and powerful Caesar? How could this impress anyone? Perhaps that is the entire point as everything about this coming birth echoes Paul’s description of Jesus’ incarnation: “have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Phil. 2:5-7).

There was nothing about Mary that would distinguish her in the eyes of the world as worthy of the vocation that Gabriel brings to her. She was a young Jewish girl of marrying age which would probably put her somewhere in the range of 12-16 years old. She was from Galilee, a region that was, at best, a backwater part of Israel, which was itself a backwater part of the territory of the Roman Empire. Mary was betrothed to Joseph who was a handyman day-laborer, so there was nothing particularly distinct about him either, save for his status as a descendant of David (which would make Jesus, even if not his biological son, a rightful heir in the descendancy line of David).

Jewish marriage involved a formal engagement including a contract and exchange of bridal price, and then a year’s preparation period after which came the formal wedding. The engaged couple would not engage in sexual relations until the formal wedding so Gabriel came to this young lass while she was still a virgin. It has become quite popular in the last century or so to claim that the original biblical writers only intended to describe Mary as a young unmarried girl but the clear implication of both Luke and Matthew, in their separate accounts, are that Mary was indeed a virgin. This is confirmed by Mary’s response in verse 34 which would be virtually pointless if the idea that Luke was conveying was that she was simply a young maiden. It only makes sense if she had followed Jewish custom and was a complete virgin.

One of the most striking things about Mary was her response to the vocation that the angel laid out to her. When Gabriel came to Zechariah his response stood in a long line of humans who were called by God for his purposes only to initially argue that they weren’t up to such a task. Moses was called by God to free his people from Egypt but Moses argued about his capabilities for such a task (Ex. 3:10-13; 4:1, 10-17). Gideon was called by God to lead his people against their enemies but Gideon questioned his worth and ability (Jud. 6:10-18; 26-38). Saul was chosen to be the King of Israel but questioned his worthiness and even tried to hide (1 Sam. 9;17-21). Mary, however, stands in stark contrast to all of that. She certainly had many reasons that could have made her feel unworthy or incapable of such a task. Yet, she doesn’t argue. She doesn’t claim to be incapable. She trusts God’s ability and power more than her own inability and impotence. Mary understood that the role of true faith in the life of one committed to God is to trust in God’s ability and not our own weaknesses. She seems to have grasped the fact that she was not chosen by God because of her own merit or ability but simply that she was chosen by God. She is, in fact, the first in a line of faithful and honorable women that Luke will highlight in his Gospel, something that wouldn’t really have helped his case, as we’ve already mentioned, in the eyes of his first-century readers and thus has the ring of truth to it. Truly the obedient humility of Mary is a constant call for us to echo her heart and willingness to be used despite our lack of earthly credentials.

Some have wondered about a seeming parallel between her response and that of Zechariah’s but a closer look reveals the important difference. Zechariah’s response is one of doubt. He just doesn’t see how it is possible for such a thing to happen and Gabriel responds sharply with a sign that will serve the dual role of a punishment. Mary, however, doesn’t display a lack of faith but a simple and faithful question. How is this all going to work out? It is a question of clarification not of doubt. Gabriel’s response is a clear indicator that her question was a humble request for information not an expression of faithlessness. Gabriel doesn’t give her all the details but it is enough to know that she doesn’t need to lie with Joseph, the power of God will work out the details. And to verify all this, she will be given a sign even though she didn’t ask for it. She will go to her aged cousin, Elizabeth. Her pregnancy will be the sign for Mary that God certainly has the power to fulfill his promises.

This scene continues the pattern of echoes that Luke has already established for his account. This story certainly echoes the previous one of John’s birth announcement, but Luke also wants to establish the concept that John will be important but Jesus’ role will be far more important. The clearest echoes, however, seem to clearly go back to 2 Samuel 7 where David is promised that his throne and kingdom would be established forever (although certainly this is not the only OT passage that Luke wants us to hear echoed in this passage as is demonstrated by a quick perusal of Isaiah 7:10-17). The promises to David are consistently picked up and echoed here, and dare we even say, in Luke’s mind, fulfilled by the coming of Jesus. David is told that his name would be great (2 Sam. 7:9) and we are told that the coming Messiah will “be great” (v. 32) David is promised that the throne of his kingdom will be established forever (2 Sam. 7:13) and here we are told that “the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (v. 32). The Lord promises David that his descendant will be his son (2 Sam. 7:14), and Luke declares that he will be called “the Son of the Most High” (v. 32). Your house and your kingdom, David is told, will be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16) and Luke writes that “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (v. 33). Surely Luke saw the birth of Jesus, the Messiah, as the fulfillment of the promise and the hope that someday a descendant of David would lead his people in a new Exodus to their eternal promised land (Gen. 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:9-16; Isa. 9:1-7; 11:1-3).

Again, as in the previous section, we shouldn’t lose sight of either the very real human story of the obedience of Mary despite the coming ridicule that an unmarried pregnant woman would receive (Her faith continues to challenge Christians 2,000 years later), or the larger story of which Mary’s personal story is but one thread. The child to be born will be the Messiah of the house of David and will somehow be God’s own Son. All of the promises that God had given that had been hanging unfulfilled have finally been answered. When we really boil down the gospel of Luke to its simplest terms, it is the account of God fulfilling all of the promises that he had given to his people. God would heal the world and deal with evil and he would do so through something so unimpressive as a baby.


Devotional Thought
When you are called to serve God in different ways, what is your usual reaction? Do you try to think of all the reasons why you cannot or do you humbly trust God to provide you with the resources to do what he has called you to? Make a decision right now that when God calls you to do something (through prayer or through another Christian) that you will be willing no matter how incapable you feel of doing it on your own. Remember, that’s exactly the point: You’re not on your own.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Luke 1:5-25 Commentary

The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both well advanced in years.

8 Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

18 Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years."

19 The angel said to him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time."

21 Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple. 22 When he came out, he could not speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision in the temple, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.

23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24 After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. 25 "The Lord has done this for me," she said. "In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people."


Dig Deeper
I enjoy watching movies and I always have, although admittedly, I don’t get a big chance to watch that many anymore these days. I enjoy them so much, though, that I’ve always kept in my mind somewhat of an informal, flexible list of my five favorite movies of all time. That list changes from time to time but it almost always includes “Red Dawn,” “White Christmas,” and “Armageddon.” One thing that hasn’t changed on that list for the last 13 or so years is the top movie. In my personal opinion, “Independence Day” is the greatest and most entertaining movie that I have ever seen. I never get tired of watching that movie. One of the things that I really enjoy about that movie is how different and yet how familiar the story is all at the same time. In fact, that is one major aspect of the movie that most people miss. There are allusions, moments of homage, and echoes everywhere in that movie. It echoes everything from classic books like “War of the Worlds,” and cultural myths like “area 51,” to movies like “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” “Alien,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” and many more. There are so many little intentional echoes and parallels in the movie that includes character lines, special effects, plot lines, and even things on TV and computer screens in the background. The overall effect is that the movie is a brand new and creative piece of entertainment but one that stands firmly as a continuation and completion of sorts of all of the other science-fiction-type movies that preceded it.

Luke’s gospel reminds me a little of that. It is full of echoes, allusions, and parallels. Especially in the opening few chapters, it seems that nearly every verse harkens us back to an older story or passage in the Old Testament. At times, like the movies, the allusions are intentionally woven in by the author. Most of the echoes, though, are much more profound and of a quite different nature than a simple story or movie could ever accomplish. In a movie, the writers look back into the past and directly echo an older story to show respect or to connect their new story to that older one. Luke certainly wants to do that at times and, as stated, does connect it to older Scriptural passages. But far more often in the gospel of Luke, the echoes work exactly the other way. A God who stands outside of time has gently influenced history knowing that his plan has always been to reveal himself through the life of Jesus Christ. Rather than echoing the older stories of the Old Testament, those older stories are actually shadows of what was to come all along. With all of that said, however, the overall effect and what Luke assuredly wanted his readers to see is that the account of Jesus that he is recording is a continuation of the covenant story of God and his people.

Luke’s language here echoes language from the beginning of many Old Testament prophetic books (Isa. 1:1; Jer. 1:2-3; Hos. 1:1; Amos 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1) signaling that in the account he is about to give there is a continuity with the ongoing story of God and his covenant with his people. As mentioned previously, there are numerous echoes and allusions to Old Testament Scriptures in this passage (and throughout Luke). So many, in fact, that we cannot possibly begin to discuss them all here. But certainly anyone who has a basic familiarity with the Old Testament would see another obvious echo. The main point of this opening passage is that a child is coming. The birth of this child to a formerly barren couple is nothing new when God works among his people. It is, in fact, similar to other births to formerly barren women or other announcements of the birth of a special child (Gen. 16:1-11; 17:15-17; 18:10-15, 20, 23; Gen. 21; 30:35; Judges 13:3-21; 1 Sam. 1:1). The most obvious connections are to the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah and of Samson and Samuel. No, this is not a strange new thing that God is doing, rather the point is clear that this will take place in the long sequence of God’s purposes. The child who will be born to Abraham and Sarah will play a key role in the fulfillment of God’s promises.

But certainly Zechariah and Elizabeth were hardly expecting this. They were simple, righteous Jews in God’s sight, meaning they followed the law as a sign of their gratitude and devotion to God. They were going about their normal lives, not dreaming that anything like this was about to happen to them. Zechariah was a member of the priestly order of Abijah (1 Chron. 24:10) and had been chosen by lot to carry out the role of officiating at the sacrifice. Priests served at the temple for two one-week periods throughout the year but because there were approximately 18,000 priests throughout Israel, they would usually be able to officiate only one time in their life.

The angel Gabriel (Dan. 9:21) comes to Zechariah (echoing language from Gen. 15:1, Malachi 3:1; 4:5) and tells him that he will have a son named “John,” which was no small detail because generally when God specifically named a child it was because he was to have a significant role in God’s salvation history (Gen. 16:11; 17:19; Isa. 7:14). This child would be set apart from his birth and would be used by God in a unique way. He would not take any alcoholic drink which was typically a associated with being separated from normal life for a divine task. He would not be filled with wine but would lead a life that was filled with the Holy Spirit, enabling his role as a prophet and forerunner to the Messiah.

We are told that Zechariah was a righteous man but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a very real human being. And it is the human aspect of this story that makes it so compelling. Sometimes righteous people do have disappointments in life. Elizabeth was old and had no children. This would have been viewed by those around her as a curse of sorts, as a sign of God’s displeasure. This is why Luke makes it very clear that this was not the case. They were righteous and yet life hadn’t quite worked out the way they had surely hoped. This couple had surely prayed (cf. 13) about their personal situation as well as God’s overall purposes for his people so when the angel appears, God was, in effect, answering two prayers at the same time.

It’s not difficult to relate to the fact that Zechariah was not prepared for anything like this and he needs some sort of a sign. The implication is that the appearance of the angel itself should have been enough of a sign. Zechariah doubts the message that is being given to him. How can this work, since his body is virtually dead? What he needed was the kind of resurrection faith that Abraham had when God told him that he would also experience his “dead” body come to life and produce a son (cf. Rom. 4:18-25). In effect, the angel tells Zechariah to “be quiet for a little and watch God work.” God will bring his promises to bear as he always does. What Zechariah needs to learn is to listen to God and trust that he will do what he has promised, so he will be given a sign that will also serve as a bit of a punishment. He will not speak for a time, he will only listen. This left Zechariah unable to give the customary blessing as he emerged so the crowd immediately knows that something unusual has taken place. He frantically tried to communicate to the crowd what had happened which was, no doubt, somewhat of an amusing scene as we picture this stately old gentleman trying to use his hands to communicate that he has just seen an angel.

Elizabeth’s response is different from that of her husband. As a result, we never get any indication that Elizabeth acted like a victim for her circumstances or became bitter at God or her situation. She took her burden to God but didn’t let her burden embitter her. It was God’s life to do with as he saw fit. Because of this attitude of heart in accepting her lot and serving God faithfully despite what her personal preferences might be, we see that when her burden was lifted she rejoices and sees herself as the undeserving object of God’s personal concern and work. There is no “it’s about time” or “what was he thinking in the first place” attitudes. She is a beautiful picture of someone who took her burden to God and was quite willing to serve God regardless of her personal situation, but who rejoiced genuinely when God blessed her.

This account reminds us that God often works through people who want to be faithful to him but are a jumbled mix of weak faith and devotion, yet who are constantly prepared to be used by God for whatever purposes he has in mind even though they may feel not up to the task on their own strength or understanding. Luke has written this story to show that God’s covenant promises to his people have not been forgotten. Abraham would have a family of many nations who would be reconciled to God and through whom the world would be blessed (cf. Gen. 12:1-5; 17:1-3; Rom. 4) but within the context of fulfilling those large promises, God has not forgotten the needs, hopes, and prayers of ordinary people. This is Israel’s God, YHWH, that can fulfill his promises to the world and bring joy and personal fulfillment to woman who could have easily thought of herself as forgotten. When this God acts on a large scale, he doesn’t ignore the smaller human needs. He is a God who can and does accomplish both. This doesn’t mean that God will always work the way that we would like or expect him to but we can be sure that he is working.

Yes, the personal story has been tended to in a beautiful way but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of this incredible conception story is to point to an even more remarkable one to come.


Devotional Thought
What is your reaction to personal disappointments? Do you get angry and bitter and constantly question God or are you more like Elizabeth who went about life not being bitter and when God did finally act, showed no kernel of bitterness but instead only joy and gratitude? What can you learn from Elizabeth that will help you today as you work through the situations in your life?

Monday, January 25, 2010

Luke 1:1-4 Commentary

Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled [a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.



Dig Deeper
I distinctly remember being in high school and learning how to write introductions for papers. That had always been a weakness of mine and so it was difficult but I got to where I was at least decent at it. Then I got to college and I really started to enjoy writing papers. I went through a period, however, where I really fell in love with descriptive language and metaphors, especially in my introductions. I was learning how to become a better write, at least better than I was, but I got a little carried away, at times, with the flowery language. I had a paper that I had worked quite hard on for a history class that was on the topic of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. I did over a hundred hours of research and began to put the paper together, waiting to write the introduction last. I put together what I thought was beautiful combination of imagery, metaphors, allusions, and word plays. The introduction was masterful in my own mind. Had anything ever been put together that was quite that brilliant? I felt that way at least until I got my professor’s feedback. My score on the paper was very high. I had only lost a few points but quickly opened the paper to find out where. To my horror I realized that I had lost all of my points on the introduction. The teacher’s comments put it all into perspective for me. He said something to the effect that my introduction was a beautiful work of master craftsmanship that was so intricate that he could not tell what my paper was actually about until he began to read the paper itself.

The introduction to any work is important because it alerts the reader as to where they are going on their journey of reading. Well-written introductions are like a road map that tell us what is ahead, what we should be looking for and where we are going. Luke’s introduction to his gospel is no different. As we read this introduction we quickly realize that we are about to read about the new movement of Christ from the perspective of those who personally witnessed the events. Luke has gone to great pains to give us an organized account of things that will lead the reader to be more certain in their faith and understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is where we are heading and as we take this journey we will discover that Luke has masterfully accomplished precisely what he set out to do with his work.

As we begin to read any important work like the Gospel of Luke, some of the first questions that pop up are when was this written and why was it written. Neither of these are easy answers when it comes to Luke. Scholars argue that Luke was written anywhere between the middle of the first century all the way to the beginning of the second century. With that said, the reality is that most scholars who argue for a late authorship for Luke, especially as late as the second century base their theories more on ideologies than facts. Scripturally speaking, the most logical time to place the writing of Luke’s Gospel is the late 50’s or early 60’s AD. If we follow the sections in Acts where Luke includes himself in the action by using the term “we” (Acts 21:17 through Acts 27), we can assume that Luke stayed in Jerusalem for two years without Paul before finally being able to join him on his journey to Rome. During those two years, it seems quite reasonable to assume that Luke did his research for his gospel and wrote it during that time.

The answer of why Luke wrote his gospel is not as simple. It seems quite counter-intuitive to us today, but the fact remains that people in the first century believed that oral histories and eye-witnesses were preferable sources to written histories. Anyone could write something, but if you could hear something from a witness or an expert oral historian, then that was reliable. If that’s the case, however, why would Luke write down his gospel when there would have still been so many eyewitnesses to the life and resurrection of Christ? There were many eyewitnesses but the reality was surely creeping in that they simply didn’t know when Christ would return to restore all things and resurrect his people and there was the very real possibility of those eyewitnesses passing into death. Couple that with the ongoing problems of false teachers and you had a worrisome situation. Jesus promised that there would be false teachers that would come and they had already experienced the dangers of such individuals as a community. Jesus had also warned about many coming claiming to be him or even possibly teaching different versions of who he was. The early Christians understood all of this and clearly began to recognize the need for reliable records of Jesus’ ministry.

Luke asserted that by the time he was writing many had already undertaken to draw up account of the things that had been fulfilled among the community of believers. It is not precisely clear what Luke meant by that, but the word “many” was often used in Luke’s day as a term of hyperbole, so it is likely that he was referring to the existing other three gospels that we have and perhaps a few other attempts that were not finished or did not meet the approval of the apostolic standard. One thing we can be sure of is that Luke was not referring to the much ballyhooed “Gnostic” gospels as those were not penned until the late 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Luke’s intent was to do something that had not been attempted before but to write an orderly account of all that had been passed on down to them. As he opens his narrative, the style of Luke’s introduction, we should note, is very similar to that of serious works of history at the time that Luke was writing. His introduction, in fact, is strikingly similar to the introduction of Josephus, a famous first-century Jewish historian. What that means is that Luke was sending the signal that this was a serious work of investigation, truth, and history. This was no religious fantasy. He had carefully investigated everything that he was writing and it was an orderly account. We would do well to understand, however, that by claiming an “orderly account,” Luke was not primarily referring to chronological arrangement. As much as it offends our chronology-sensitive sensibilities today, chronological ordering was not the most important aspect of ordering a narrative in the first-century mind. Luke’s intent was to present events in thematic order so as to help his readers better understand the full meaning and significance of the events that he was preserving.

Thus, Luke’s Gospel is both a work of history and theology. Many scholars debate as to which of those options the gospel is as though they are mutually exclusive but Luke’s aim was not write a work of theology devoid of the facts of history, nor was it to write a historical biography of the life of Jesus. He has a theological agenda certainly, to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Israel here to usher in the onset of God’s Kingdom in a way that no one expected, but that doesn’t mean that Luke’s work is historically invalid or unreliable. He has infused history with the theological meaning behind it.

Luke opens the door for us to understand that he has based his writing not only on previously written works (likely the Gospels of Mark and Matthew) but also, and primarily, on the very important eyewitnesses who were servants (or ministers) of the word. These eyewitnesses of Jesus were one in the same with the servants of the word, which was a specific and honored role. The word translated “servant” is “hyperetes” in the Greek which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew term “hazzan.” A Hazzan was a paid employee of the Jewish synagogue who was in charge of bringing the scrolls our during services. He was the keeper of the scrolls and the worship leader, and thus, was highly respected (see Luke 4:20 as Jesus hands the scroll back to the hyperetes/ hazzan).

Luke takes this concept and refers to not a hyperetes of the synagogue or even church but a hyperetes of the word. The role of these hyperetes of the word, then, seems to have been as ministers of the word who were eyewitnesses to the events surrounding the life and resurrection of Jesus. These important people were special protectors and preservers of the word which is why they needed also to be eyewitnesses. They did not have a box of scrolls to carry but they carried with them the words and stories of Jesus. They were the protectors of the word and would have taken that role seriously. If, when reciting, they changed anything in their account, they would have been quickly rebuked and corrected by the other hyperetes and others who knew the accounts well. This was not a medium that was open to distortion or intentional changing of facts.

By the time Luke arrived in Jerusalem, however, this hyperetes were getting older and no doubt beginning to die off. They could have passed on the oral tradition but evidently the decision was made that these words and stories of the son of God were too sacred to allow non-eyewitnesses to pass it on. The only other choice was the writing of authorized documents that needed to be written while the hyperetes were still alive so that they could approve these works. For two years Luke worked with these oral sources as a uniquely educated and intelligent writer. The hyperetes would have no doubt served as a board of review of sorts and obviously approved of and endorsed Luke’s gospel or we would not have it. We can assume that some didn’t stand up to the test or possibly that some were made irrelevant by Luke, Matthew, and Mark’s works. Luke’s agenda is represented in his final work; he chose what he thought was important; he polished the language, organized the material, added his own interpretive nuances, and created smooth connectives, but this editing process does not mean that he created the material in any way.

Luke addressed his letter to Theophilus. Some have claimed, because the name means “dear to God,” that this is a generic introduction that is used to address all Christians. It is far more likely, however, that Luke does address a specific person. The term “most excellent” would not have been used if this was a general greeting as it was a title normally reserved for a Roman political official, which is quite feasible to think that Theophilus was a Roman official of some type. We simply do not know if Theophilus was a young Christian who desired more teaching or if he was a skeptic who desired an orderly account in order to make a decision but it seems that the latter is the more likely option. Whatever the case, we know that Luke has laid out the road map for his gospel quite clearly. This is to be an orderly and persuasive work of historical fact that will allow the reader to be certain of the incredible claims of the gospel declaration. He invites us to sit back, buckle up, and find the solid foundation for a mature and lasting faith in the Messiah.



Devotional Thought
The hyperetes were not only eyewitnesses but they served as those who preserved and passed on the accounts of what God had done among them. Are you as committed to serving as a servant of the word of what God has done in your life and the lives of those in God’s family today? Do you serve as a constant witness and one who proclaims what God has done for you? If not, can you really think of a good reason why you haven’t been doing that if you consider yourself to be a disciple of Jesus?