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?
No comments:
Post a Comment