If we knew for certain where and when Luke wrote, this might help us to have a much more detailed picture of Luke’s theology. However, the traditional answer (that Luke wrote to defend Paul while in prison in Rome) is far from certain for many reasons. Thus, we can only go by the same sort of evidence we have for Mark and Matthew: the internal features and emphases of the writing itself
Luke’s writing of a two-volume work sets it apart, and immediately suggests that Luke has a different perspective theologically. Why did Luke, of all the New Testament authors, feel led to present the story of Jesus with, as it were, a sequel? This fact in itself, in a sense, gives us an immediate insight into Luke’s theology. There is, in a real sense, an ongoing story, and not just the brief span of Jesus’ life on earth.
The starting point for understanding any work is, of course, the beginning, since that is where we can expect to find set out for the reader the key emphases of the author, as well as the background information that he feels it is necessary to give us. Thus, when we turn to the prologue of Luke's second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, we read [READ Acts 1:1-8]. For our purposes, the thing which I want us to reflect on is that Luke describes his first volume, the Gospel according to Luke, as "what Jesus began to do and teach". The clear implication is that what we will find in his second volume, which describes the ongoing life of the Church, is what Jesus continued to do and teach. The Church, to borrow a phrase from Paul, is the Body of Christ, the means through which he continues to do, to teach, to be active in the world. This same emphasis comes across in Acts 9:4, in the appearance of Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road. Paul is in the process of persecuting the Church, and Jesus asks him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting...the church?" No! "Why are you persecuting me?" The Church is in Luke’s perspective the Body of Christ - we are his hands, his feet, his voice. God has much more that he wants to accomplish in the world, and we are the means through which he does it.
Luke’s emphasis on the Holy Spirit is an important part of this theme. In the Gospel of Luke, the Spirit is above all else the one through whom Jesus accomplishes all that he does. We need only look at a few passages towards the beginning of the Gospel to see Luke’s emphasis on this theme. The Holy Spirit’s activity is noted from the very beginning of the Gospel, in the prophetic words which Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon, and Anna are inspired to speak (cf. 1:41-42; 2:25,36-38), not to mention the Spirit’s role in Jesus’ conception (1:35), and in John the Baptist from even before he is born (1:15).
As for the role of the Spirit in Jesus’ ministry, Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism is part of the wider Gospel tradition. To this, however, Luke adds additional points that emphasize the role of the Spirit in Jesus’ ministry. And so in Luke 4:1,14 Luke tells us how “Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit”, and in 4:18 Jesus cites Isaiah 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…” Note also 10:21, where Jesus is said to be “filled with joy by the Holy Spirit”. And to this one must add the statements in Acts 1:2 and 10:38 that describe Jesus’ activity in terms of his being filled or anointed with the Holy Spirit. Thus, when we come to turn to the second volume Luke wrote, the book of Acts, some have suggested that rather than speak of it as ‘the Acts of the Apostles’ it should really be called ‘the Acts of the Holy Spirit’, since the Spirit that was active in Jesus’ ministry is in volume 2 continuing to work in human history through his followers.
While Luke is generally thought to have written relatively later than most other NT authors, his Christology is one of the simplest and least developed in the whole of the New Testament. Yet this is not to say it is unsophisticated or less well thought out! His portrait of Jesus as the Messiah, God’s chosen one who had been empowered with his Spirit and now empowers others, is carefully developed. The role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ ministry is one aspect of this, and an important one. Jesus is in this, as in other things, an example that is to be followed, and as we shall see when we turn to look at the mission of the Church according to Luke-Acts, the Church is effective as a witness precisely when it does that: i.e., when it imitates Jesus.
Jesus is presented as a ‘man of the Spirit’, a ‘prophet’. In addition to the passages we have already noted relating to the role of the Spirit in his life and ministry, we should also note the use of ‘prophet’ in the following passages: Luke 13:33 is perhaps the most important, since Jesus there explicitly calls himself a prophet; see also Luke 7:16,39; 24:19; the proclamation of the early Christians continues to use this term, in Acts 3:22-23; 7:37. In Acts, Jesus is not just any prophet, but the Prophet, that is, the long-awaited prophet-like-Moses foretold and promised in Deuteronomy. Thus the designation ‘prophet’, while presenting Jesus as a messenger from God empowered by the Spirit, also singles him out as a specific figure with a unique role in salvation history. And obviously the other designations used, such as ‘Messiah’, also single Jesus out as unique.
Jesus is also presented from the very beginning of Luke’s Gospel as a person of prayer. Luke records a relatively high number of prayers of Jesus, in most of which Jesus addresses God as ‘Father’ either explicitly or implicitly (see Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12-20; 9:18,28-29; 10:21-22; 22:41-45; 23:34,46; 24:30-31; and see also of course 11:2). Here again, we have a description of Jesus in terms that are to be imitated. We may ask how Luke’s portrait of Jesus as a human being like us, who (in the words of Luke 2:52) ‘grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people’, relates to the portrait of him in John as the Word-become-flesh, whom some have felt strides around the earth almost without touching the ground. But we must know that this is an anachronistic question. There is no evidence that Luke wrote with John’s portrait in mind, and so it is a priori unlikely that Luke will give a direct answer to that question. This does not mean that their portraits are incompatible. It means that each author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote something different, and it is only when they are put into canonical context alongside one another that these questions are raised. They are not illegitimate questions, but they are theological questions, questions which we ask because we want not only to hear what each NT author says, but also to incorporate what all of them say into a coherent picture of Jesus today.
Another aspect of Luke’s portrait of Jesus is his emphasis on Jesus as God’s servant. We have already noted one key text that makes this point: Luke 4:18, where Jesus is presented as reading Isaiah 61:1 and applying it to himself. Isaiah 61 is closely linked to the passages in Isaiah 41-53 about God’s servant. In the preaching of the earliest Christians in Acts, there is also an emphasis on Jesus as pais, ‘servant’.
The very fact that Luke devotes a whole volume to the mission of the Church indicates that this is an important interest of his.
We may break up the mission of the Church as it is presented in Luke-Acts conveniently under three headings. The first one is: Proclaiming Jesus' message. The Church is called to carry on proclaiming the message which Jesus proclaimed during his earthly life. Now what was the focus of Jesus' message? The Kingdom of God. That this was his central emphasis comes across very clearly in the descriptions which we are given in the New Testament of Jesus' preaching and teaching: 'Repent, for the kingdom of God is near'; in the parables we are told that 'the kingdom of God is like...a mustard seed, yeast, a person who did this or that, and so on'. Jesus speaks of seeing the kingdom, of entering the kingdom, of being 'not far from the kingdom'. This is the central thrust of Jesus' message. It is surely significant, then, that Luke presents the message of the early Christians in exactly the same terms. In Acts 8:12 we're told that Philip 'preached the good news of the kingdom of God'. In Acts 19:8, it is Paul who 'argues persuasively about the kingdom of God'. In 20:25 Paul's preaching activity in Ephesus and elsewhere is described as a preaching of the kingdom of God. And finally in chapter 28, verses 23 and 31, we find Paul explaining, declaring and preaching the kingdom of God. In Luke's view, then, part of the mission of the Church is to proclaim the message of the kingdom of God, the message which Jesus himself proclaimed.
What does 'kingdom of God' mean? Is it heaven, is it a political entity, or both, or something else? If we want to know what Jesus meant, the most helpful thing to do is look at the phrase as it would have been in the language which Jesus spoke, Aramaic. In Aramaic, the equivalent phrase would refer to the 'reign of God'. Thus the kingdom of God means God's rule, lordship and authority being extended. Also central to Jesus' message was the way he called them to the kingdom: namely through repentance. To become part of God's kingdom is to allow God's will to be done 'on earth as it is in heaven', to allow God to take center place in our lives, and to reorient our lives around him with him at the center.
One often gets the impression that the Church of our day seems to have sold out: the Church often appears to have exchanged this message for an easier, more comfortable one. In so many places today, the message that one hears about is not extending the area of God's authority or bringing lives into obedience and submission to him, but rather almost seems to be about extending our control over God, extending the list of things that God does for us. A lot of preaching and many popular books give the impression that it is our kingdom, that God serves us rather than vice versa. Few would say it like that, but in practice very often that's what it looks like. And so we need to ask ourselves whether our Gospel is the Gospel (or good news) of the kingdom of God. Is our message all blessing and no costly discipleship? If we want to hear what Luke has to say to us today, we need to ask whether the heart of our message reflects the emphases of Jesus' own words and teaching.
On the other hand, when attempting to communicate the same message in a new context, it is necessary to say things differently. For example, if you go to Romania, and want to greet people, it's no good going up to someone and saying 'hi', because 'hai' in the Romanian language means 'come on' or 'come with me'. Having the Bible in our own language is a wonderful blessing, but it can be dangerous, if it causes us to forget that the writers of the New Testament spoke a different language than any of us do today, and were part of a very different culture as well. The New Testament accounts themselves are translations of Jesus' words: Jesus' main language would have been Aramaic, but the lingua franca or universal common language in the eastern Roman Empire was Greek, and thus from a very early stage Jesus' teaching was translated into another language, a language which was much more widely known than Aramaic, so that the message could be spread to people outside Palestine. Luke's Gospel is one example of this.
When Jesus taught, he used parables which took familiar elements of everyday life among peasants in the Near East, and used them to communicate his message about God. The parables were a teaching aid, helping people to understand the message. If we use the same language and idioms as the New Testament authors did, very often we'll have the opposite effect than they did: they used the language of their day to make the message clearer, whereas if we use antiquated language that no one understands, we are obscuring the message, so that people will not understand the very important message that we are trying to bring them. One thinks of idioms and metaphors from first century Jewish culture which I've even heard people go out on the street and preach: gird up the loins of your mind; or washed in the blood of the lamb. But it is the content of the message that is important, not the words or form. Thus part of our mission as the Church is to find ways of communicating Jesus' message in ways that will be intelligible and meaningful for people today. If we simply repeat the traditional words, without actually communicating, then as far as Luke is concerned, we are not fulfilling the mission of the Church. If we look at the sermons in Acts, the preachers start where their audience is, and lead them on from there. In Acts 17, when Paul is addressing pagans, he even quotes a pagan poem about Zeus! It thus seems safe to say that Luke was aware that to simply quote the Jewish scriptures to people who had no knowledge of them and who did not accept their authority would not be to communicate the Gospel effectively. It is hard work to find ways of communicating effectively, but it is worth it. The Gospel spread the way it did, as we find described in Luke-Acts, because those who proclaimed it communicated the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the message of Jesus, clearly and effectively, in ways that their hearers could understand and relate to. We today are likewise called to communicate to our contemporaries the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the message which Jesus proclaimed.
The second point which needs to be made about the mission of the Church as Luke-Acts presents it is living Jesus' life, that is, living in the way Jesus lived, for Jesus did not just proclaim a different way of life: he lived it. It is not only Luke, and not even only Christians who have realized this fact. Even a Marxist author from what was then Czechoslovakia once wrote: "Jesus' 'doctrine'...set the world on fire not because of the obvious superiority of his theoretical program, but because he himself was at one with the program, because he himself was the attraction. They saw in him a man who already belonged to this coming Kingdom of God; they saw what it meant to be 'full of grace', what it meant to be not only a preacher but himself the product of his preaching, a child of the future age to the marrow of his bones". In other words, a key reason why Jesus' ministry, and that of his earliest followers after him, was so effective, was that their words and actions matched. They did not just proclaim the good news of the kingdom: they lived it.
One example of this can be seen in Luke's fascination with food. Luke mentions an unusually large number of meals in his two-volume work. In Luke 5:29ff, Levi holds a banquet for Jesus at his house. In 7:36ff, Jesus is invited to dinner at a Pharisee's house. In 14:7ff, Jesus is at a banquet and notices how the guests choose places of honor at the table. In 19:5ff Jesus is Zacchaeus' guest for 'dinner'. Likewise in Acts 2:42,46 one of the key things which the early Christians do is eat together. In chapters 10-11 the whole focus is on Peter going and having a meal with a non-Jew. In 16:34 Paul and Silas have a meal with the Philippian jailer. And on it goes; you can see I'm not just imagining this, it is there! And I'm going to guess that the reason for this emphasis was not because Luke was hungry when he wrote: no, there's a good reason for it, as we'll now see.
In order to understand this aspect of Luke-Acts, we need to understand something of the customs of the time. In those days, one only ate with peers, with people of the same race and social status as oneself. If one had a meal at which people of another class would be present, there would normally be a different quality of food and separate tables for those of the other class! Meals were something of a symbol of the divisions in society in that time. Pliny the Younger, writing around New Testament times, tells the following story in one of his letters, giving a negative assessment of a practice that was by and large generally accepted in society in his time:
It would be a long story, and of no importance, were I to recount too particularly by what accident I (who am not fond at all of society) supped lately with a person, who in his own opinion lives in splendor combined with economy; but according to mine, in a sordid but expensive manner. Some very elegant dishes were served up to himself and a few more of the company; while those which were placed before the rest were cheap and paltry. He had apportioned in small flagons three different sorts of wine; but you are not to suppose that it was that the guests might take their choice: on the contrary, [it was so] that they might not choose at all. One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of a lower order (for you must know, he measures out his friendship according to the degrees of quality); and the third for his own freedmen and mine. One who sat next to me took notice of this, and asked me if I approved of it. “Not at all,” I told him. “Please, then,” said he, “what is your method on such occasions?” “Mine,” I returned, “is to give all my company the same fare; for when I make an invitation, it is to sup, not to be censoring. Every man whom I have placed on an equality with myself by admitting him to my table, I treat as an equal in all particulars.” “Even freedmen?” he asked. “Even them,” I said; “for on those occasions I regard them not as freedmen but as boon-companions.” “This must put you to great expense,” said he. I assured him not at all; and on his asking how that could be, I said, “Why, you must know my freedmen do not drink the same wine I do – but I drink what they do.” [Pliny the Younger, Letters 2:6. Quoted in Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992, p.136]
So, the meals described in Luke-Acts help us to see an example of one way in which Jesus and the early Christians sought not just to proclaim the Gospel, but to live it. In Paul's letter to the Galatians, we are told that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female: just the sort of divisions which separated people at meals in those days. In Luke-Acts, we see this emphasis being lived out, challenging the status quo. Jesus went in and ate with the outcasts of his day, people who some regarded as 'sinners'. His followers continued in his practice, going even further and extending fellowship to non-Jews as well. The lifestyle of the earliest Christians would have represented an important challenge to the society of that time. Their proclamation and way of life went hand in hand, and (in Luke's own words) 'turned the world upside-down'.
When we hear Luke's message today, we need to ask ourselves very seriously whether the Church reflects the values of the society we live in, or challenges them. The Church has even in very recent times been guilty of reflecting the values of society rather than the values of Jesus in precisely this area. In South Africa in the recent past, and in Northern Ireland even today, the Church very often has simply followed the world and reflected the racism and bigotry of their contemporaries. Also, all around the world today, we can find in Churches a rampant individualism: it is me and God that matters, never mind anyone else. When this sort of thing happens, shame is brought, not only on the Church as an institution, but on the Gospel message, on Christ and on God. If our proclamation is ineffective, a good question to ask ourselves is whether our actions match our words or contradict them. Because, as someone very wise once said, 'actions speak louder than words'. Part of our mission as the Church is to proclaim Jesus' message, but directly connected with that is our second point: living as Jesus lived. The Church should challenge the society it lives in rather than imitate it. This is not to say that whatever society does is always wrong: but when it is, we need to present an alternative through our words and actions.
The third aspect of the mission of the Church according to Luke-Acts is to share in Jesus' suffering. A good place to begin discussing this topic is a relatively recent example. During the Communist period in Romania, a pastor named Iosif Ton refused to compromise with the authorities, and for this he was persecuted and eventually exiled. He asked God why, and this is what he felt God was showing him: through suffering the Gospel spreads. This, as we shall now see, is a Biblically-based principal, but it also has practical demonstrations, such as Iosif Ton's former church in Oradea, Romania, which now has several thousand members, although it is unfortunately not continuing in the spirit of the legacy he left there.
In Luke, we see Jesus put to death for what he proclaimed and lived. As he is being crucified, he prays for those who are doing it: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing". At Pentecost, we see the result: Peter accuses the crowd, saying "You crucified him but God raised him", and thousands are converted. Luke also shows Christians following Jesus' example: we can see this in particular in Acts 7: Stephen is martyred for following Jesus, and for the things he proclaims and lives, and as he dies he prays as Jesus prayed: for the forgiveness of those who are killing him. The clearest result of this prayer is the conversion of Paul, one of those present and involved in Stephen's murder, transformed not only into a Christian but a missionary, who himself goes on to follow the same pattern, proclaiming Jesus' message, living it out in practice and suffering because of it.
This is what we are called to do. We have already seen that, as the Church, we are called to stand for what is right, to refuse to accept evil, to speak out against it and to live differently. When this happens, we can expect to meet with attacks, for any time someone's way of life or worldview is challenged, you can expect them to fight back. But by standing against it to the point of being willing to suffer, we expose its evil character: by attacking its critics, the world shows its true colors, and this public demonstration of the evil at the heart of the world is the beginning of its downfall.
We can see other examples in history of people who saw injustice in the world, something that God was not happy with, and sought to change it. We need only think about individuals like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi, to see that Jesus' 'method', if we can call it that, clearly works. These people were willing to stand against evils in society, to make a stand for what is right and to suffer for it, and had an enormous impact. Can we as Christians do any less for the sake of being faithful to Jesus' message and way of life? According to Luke, willingness to suffer because of the message we proclaim and the life we live is also an integral part of being the Church in the world.
We need to be faithful in following Jesus and in being the means in which his mission continues to be carried out in the world. This, it should be emphasized, is the calling of the whole church. This is not just something for overseas workers or people who are called to some sort of specific full-time ministry. This is about being full-time Christians, and living out the faith we profess.
We need to count the cost of this sort of discipleship, for it is costly to proclaim Jesus' message. Dom Helder Camara, a Brazilian Christian involved in non-violent protest against injustice there, said: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist". If we want to do a little bit of charity on the side, no one really minds. But if we starting asking why things are the way that they are, and (God forbid) actually suggest that things in individuals, in society and in the world as a whole actually need to change, that someone might actually be guilty of something, then people don't like it: they start labeling you as a subversive, a fanatic. Fanaticism in general is bad, but some evil is so fanatically adhered to in the world we live in that maybe only an equally fanatical voice of protest against it will be heard. At any rate, when we start pointing out sin, and calling people to change, to turn, to repent, you can be sure that most are not going to like it. It is costly to proclaim the message.
It is costly to live as Jesus lived. It will obviously cost time and money if we are dedicated to putting into practice Jesus' teaching and to making a difference in the world we live in. But even more costly is accepting peoples' response. It is costly to suffer - but effective. It brings about change. It exposes evil for what it really is. It is part of God's plan for the spread of his kingdom, and it is when the Church is willing to stand up for what is right to the point of suffering for it that it is most effective.
So, in conclusion, Luke-Acts sets out for us the way we can, as a Church, play our part in the spread of the kingdom: by proclaiming Jesus' message, living as he lived, and being prepared to suffer for it. All that is left is for us to respond.
‘The end is near’ is now a sign of being a false prophet.
The delay of the Parousia; historicizing of prediction
One reason for focus on history is that history is now important, and it cannot be assumed that it will end in the very immediate future.
Septuagintisms in infancy narrative; like imitation of King James English. Emphasizes continuity with OT.
Emphasis on Christians as obedient to the Law. The early Christians meet in the Temple and continue to worship there. Even Paul takes vows and offers sacrifice. The subject of the Law as it relates to Gentiles (cf. Acts 15) is a difficult one, as is the question of how this relates to Paul’s teaching.
Luke at times seems more concerned to show the continuity between the Jewish Scriptures and Christian belief, between Israel and the Christian community, than even Matthew. And this even though it is generally presumed that Luke-Acts was written by a Gentile! We have already seen a number of features that indicate this, such as the ‘Septuagintal’ style of the birth narratives. Luke also emphasizes the replacement of Judas, to make up the full number of 12 disciples. Of course, everywhere it is found the choice of 12 disciples has symbolic significance – the formation of a new Israel, or the re-formation of Israel. But whereas Matthew’s Gospel speaks of the kingdom being taken away from Israel and given to a people who will bear fruit, in Luke there appears to be much more hope and expectation that Israel will find its role as light to the Gentiles by putting its faith in the Servant of the Lord, whom he has sent first and foremost for their benefit.
Yet ironically, by seeking to maintain the unity of the new covenant people of God with the old, he succeeds in representing Israel as a divided people of God! Within Israel, even many of the Pharisees are presented as coming to believe, and thousands of Jews from all over the world become believers. It is those Jews who are most faithful to the Law who become believers, both at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel and the beginning of Acts (cf. Acts 21:20). Yet everywhere the Gospel goes, Jewish opposition occurs as well. And so a division takes place. The impression given is that the opposition to the Christian message has to do not with the Gospel message or with Jesus himself, but with the inclusion of the Gentiles, which provokes jealousy and indignation on the part of the Jews. At the end of Acts one is left wondering what the situation in his own time was: whether Luke is telling a story of how the mission to the Jews finally succeeded, or essentially failed, or is he rather seeking to help to change the situation so that a Church which presumably has become increasingly Gentile can adapt itself so as not to be an unnecessary stumbling block to outreach to the Jewish people? It is hard to say. But it remains clear that his conception of the people of God is that there is only one, Israel, which includes the fulfillment of the eschatological promises that Gentiles will join her in the last days. The rules that they are presented as being required to keep in Acts 15 are presumably those that referred to ‘resident aliens’ within Israel in the Old Testament. And so there is no undermining of Israel’s privileged position, but merely a fulfillment of the promises made to her that includes Gentiles, and also the large number of Jews who accept their Messiah, and do not stubbornly reject him even as they rejected Moses and the prophets. [On this subject see further the interesting discussion in Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp.36-43].
We have already seen a little relating to the unity in the Christian community of those normally divided and separated in Greco-Roman society. This applies not only to slave and free, Jew and Greek, but also to rich and poor. Luke’s interest in the poor comes through from the beginning of Luke’s Gospel and continues throughout. Already prior to Jesus’ birth, Mary interprets what is happening in terms of the pulling down of the exalted and the raising up of the lowly, the feeding of the destitute and the sending away empty of the rich (Luke 1:52-53). Jesus is born in relative poverty (although presumably not in a barn, as has traditionally been thought – see the work of Kenneth Bailey and others on the cultural background to the Lucan birth narrative). One may also note that the sacrifice offered in Luke 2:24 is an option for those who cannot afford the other option (although there is also an even poorer category too, so the evidence at this point is ambiguous). John the Baptist’s preaching addresses issues of social injustice: sharing of belongings, and the extortion of money by soldiers. Jesus’ programmatic quotation from Isaiah once again ties in with this theme – note how this crucial passage sums up major themes and prepares the reader to look out for these points in reading what Luke wrote – the proclamation of good news to the poor, destitute, and oppressed (see Luke 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:12-14,21; 16:19-31). The literally poor and hungry feature in an important way in Luke’s version of the beatitudes (note the significant differences from Matthew’s version; see also Luke 12:13-34; 14:33). Yet while in Luke-Acts there is a focus on the poor, there is also a focus on bringing the rich and poor together in Christ in a united Christian community. It is probably not accidental that, after hearing Jesus’ hard teaching on giving up possessions, the rich young man does not go away! See Luke 18:23-24, and compare it with the parallel version in Mark (Mark 10:22-23). So while Luke emphasizes the need to give up all one has in becoming a disciple, and presents the early Christians in Acts as sharing all their belongings, there is perhaps also a degree of patience shown to the rich as well: they are within the Christian community, and learning to put into practice Jesus’ teaching regarding riches. They are not sent away, yet they come under harsh judgment when they cling to riches and so are led astray.
To simply say that “For Luke, what matters is one’s attitude to riches: there is nothing wrong with being rich in and of itself”, is to undermine this key emphasis of Luke’s Gospel. He is not simply saying ‘Put God first and don’t treat your belongings as idols’. He presents those who have everything they need to eat and drink as being under God’s judgment, because there are so many who do not have. This comes across in the beatitudes, and also in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
We may briefly mention another point relating to equality in the Christian community and from a Christian perspective in Luke-Acts. Luke makes a point of regularly telling a story involving a woman to balance those told involving male characters. Note the following: Zechariah and Mary (1:10-20,26-38); Simeon and Anna (2:25-38); healing of demoniac and Simon’s mother-in-law (4:31-39); centurion and widow (7:1-17); man with mustard seed and woman with leaven (13:18-21); bent-over woman and man with dropsy (13:10-17; 14:1-6); man with sheep and woman with coins (15:4-10) [these parallels are noted by Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, Cambridge University Press 1995, pp.92-93]. Let us not forget as well Luke’s mention of Mary and Martha, where Mary does something usually forbidden to women (learning!) and is commended for it.
This theme is continued into Acts with the mention of the presence of women in the Christian community in Acts 1:14. Ananias and Sapphira should not be overlooked either: both are held responsible for their joint actions as husband and wife. Concern for widows is mentioned in Acts 6:1, widows being a particularly neglected category in ancient society. Then there is the story of Dorcas in Acts 9:36-42. The presentation of Priscilla and Aquila (in that order!!!) is also significant (see Acts 18:26, and also 18:2). See too the story of Lydia in Acts 16:13-15. All of this would have been very significant in the context of a culture that tended to ignore women – although women were gaining a measure of freedom, independence, and influence in the Greco-Roman world in this period. However, they had nothing like the respect and equality that Christian texts show to them.
It is important to not lose Luke’s distinctive voice from the canon’s symphony for a number of reasons. If we allow Luke to be swallowed up and overshadowed by John (for example), we may emphasize Jesus as the unique revelation of God, the Word become flesh, and ignore his real humanity. Sometimes we are so concerned to emphasize that Jesus is much more than an example for us that we in effect deny that he is in fact an example for us, while of course being much more than that.
Conciliatory voice from within the Pauline tradition, seeking to make peace with Jewish Christianity and find common ground? Paul wrote in a situation in which Jewish Christians were seeking to impose circumcision and the Torah on Gentile converts to Christianity. In this context, he absolutely had to take a firm and uncompromising stand. Yet his underlying principle is that ‘neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but [being a] new creation’. And so it is conceivable that Luke may be rightly applying Paul’s underlying principle(s) to a new situation, in which Paul’s mission has been effective and the Gentiles have been reached, but in which this very fact proves to be the biggest stumbling block to the Jews accepting the Christian message. Perhaps it was in a context like this that Luke advocates a more moderate approach (much as Paul does in Romans), advocating that the Gentile believers accept of their own free will certain minimal Jewish scruples, so that the Jews may not be prevented from seeing God at work and Jewish Christians may have fellowship with them. Luke’s portrait of Paul is certainly not simply the same as the impression of Paul we get from his letters; but that being said, it would be wrong to drive too large a wedge between Paul and his one-time travel and mission companion.
Luke provides us with a portrait of Jesus and of the Church, and he does so in order for it to provide an example for Christian communities. If there is a phrase from Luke that sums up the appropriate response to what Luke wrote, the response that he hopes for, it is almost certainly ‘Go and do thou likewise’.