Luke opens his gospel with the following brief preface "since many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters fully believed among us, as those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word have delivered them to us, it has seemed good to me also, accurately acquainted from the origin with all things, to write to thee with method, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed." These four verses tell us a great deal about Luke's purpose in writing his gospel.
A Consideration of Luke's Claim to Accurate Knowledge of the Events Recorded in His Gospel—1:1-4
The question of when the other gospels were written in relation to the gospel of Luke is one for scholars to debate. It is too remote for our purpose to be considered, except to remark that Luke is not referring to the other gospels when he mentions the many accounts of eye-witnesses of the life of Christ which circulated among early Christians. He merely notes their existence good attempts no doubt to record the facts concerning the life of Christ and probably well intentioned, for Luke does not censure them. Since many of these histories were in circulation in early days, Luke explains why he should write another one.
Luke claims that he was "accurately acquainted from the origin with all things." This is a claim which most modern commentators seem to have ignored. Consequently they become involved in controversies as to the sources Luke "drew upon" and end up in confusion. But Luke plainly states that he did not rely on the accounts of eye-witnesses or the writings of others, for he was "accurately acquainted from the origin with all things." Scripture does not disclose the source of his accurate knowledge. It would have been given to us if it contributed to godliness 2 Peter 1:33According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: (2 Peter 1:3). But Luke's claim sets aside the verdict of some commentators that he drew on the testimony of eye-witnesses for his gospel. On the contrary it was the other writers who were eye-witnesses and who delivered their testimony "to us" that is to the Christian community. No doubt their works, now lost, comprised all the instruction Theophilus had until Luke wrote to him. But the time had come to replace them with a book inspired by the Holy Spirit that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed (1) Need we add that the inspiration of Luke's gospel was accepted in the Church from earliest times.
Luke's Gospel Does Not Contradict the Other Gospels but Is in Harmony With Them
As we have seen, Luke claims authoritative knowledge of the events about which he writes. Why then do we find discrepancies in his gospel compared with the other gospels? As we shall see the answer revolves around Luke's "method" as he calls it. Of course Luke is not the only evangelist accused of inaccuracies. But Luke is the man whose gospel we are about to consider, and an understanding of his guiding principle will throw a shaft of light on the whole question. Furthermore it will help the reader understand why we have generally avoided comparisons with events in other gospels in writing this book. This was not a rigid policy but a flexible one the general thinking being that once Luke's "method" is understood the mind is freed of occupation on trivia and rises into the thoughts God wants to communicate to us through the inspired writer.
First we will consider the principle underlying the variations in the gospels, which are intentional and not random. To illustrate this let us suppose that four men witness a car accident and are each asked to write a report on it. Let us further suppose that one man is an insurance adjuster, another an engineer, another a physician, and still another a newspaper reporter. Although it is the same accident each man is reporting, the specialized viewpoint of the different writers will show through in the arrangement of the facts and emphasis on certain details. The insurance adjuster will be concerned with the costs of the accident, the engineer with how well the materials in the car absorbed the shock of impact, the physician with the injuries to the people in the car, the newspaper reporter with the human tragedy of interest to the paper's readers. It is the same accident, but reported four different ways. If man is permitted to write like this, why not the four inspired evangelists? When critics scorn the gospels for variations in the presentation of events, they forget this principle. John, for example, has arranged the incidents concerning Christ so as to portray Him as the Son of God, and so superior to all His circumstances. Of the synoptic writers, Matthew has arranged everything to present Christ in a Jewish light as the promised Messiah. Mark writes about Christ as the Perfect Servant (note how frequently he uses the word `immediately' for example) and the historical order of events is largely found in his gospel. But Luke takes up Christ as Son of Man with a universal moral presentation to Jew and Gentile. This is what we mean by calling Luke "the Son of Man gospel." "Son of Man" is Christ's title as the rejected One in this world but the Lord of the worlds to come. Luke's message, then, is universal. As a Greek, he writes to a Roman, but commences with things Jewish, for salvation is of the Jews.
Luke's "Method" Is the Moral Presentation of Events
Luke frequently records events out of their time setting. This is what Luke means by "with method." It is Luke's method. To Luke it is not chronological order but moral order which is paramount. He gives us a wide sphere of moral instruction not found in the other gospels. As to Christ, Luke presents Him as a divine character in the perfect sympathy of man, in personal human conflict and sufferings. He had all the tender feelings of a perfect Man, felt the insults and sufferings of sinners as a Man, but accepted all as from His Father's hand. As we read on in his gospel we appreciate more of Luke's method— an emphasis on moral things— the doing and teaching of Christ and the effect of all that on the lives of men. Luke also gives us the revelation of the Father's heart in an unique way in the story of the prodigal son at the same time exposing our own hearts, for that is the intent of divine moral instruction.
Luke Writes His Gospel to a Lone Individual— Theophilus
Christianity gives dignity to the individual. Christ journeyed to the well at Sychar to seek just one woman who was a sinner. Philip was called away from a great evangelical work to convert just one man— the Ethiopian Eunuch. But God does not end His work with us when we are converted. For Luke writes to just one man— Theophilus— to further his education in divine things. Again, the woman at Sychar's well told the men of the city about Christ and Samaria received a rich blessing; the Eunuch brought Christianity to Ethiopia, and Luke's communication to Theophilus interests us today while the civilizations which nurtured both of them have long since vanished.
Luke and Theophilus were both men of stature in the ancient world. Luke was a physician, and so almost by definition a man of compassion, eminently suited to pen the gospel of the Son of Man. He was a Greek and shared the Greek love of the sea and knowledge of nautical things as we see in his account of Paul's shipwreck. He was widely influenced by Paul and became his traveling companion, His writings, although inspired, mark him as a charming narrator of events. He constantly uses the phrase of a storyteller— "and it came to pass." Theophilus to whom he wrote both in his gospel and the Acts, was a Roman official of standing who had become a Christian. Luke addresses him by his official title "most excellent" in the gospel only. His Roman names are unknown— "Theophilus" —his baptismal name meaning "lover of God." Now picture Theophilus opening and reading this gospel. He finds that although Luke begins with Jewish things he progresses to things of greater interest to him as a Roman and the writer, a Greek. He would be impressed by the universal appeal of Luke's message— to Jew, Roman and Greek who comprised the ancient world in the Mediterranean basin. And he would be impressed by Luke's "method" of presenting the life of the Son of Man morally— so different from the histories of the eye-witnesses he had read before. They left him uncertain, no doubt, but not this manuscript from Luke.
Now let us, like Theophilus, turn to Luke for certain instruction on these matters.