Thank God for Luke
Each gospel has a distinct flavor. Mark is "cut to the chase" with urgency. Matthew is comprehensive and historical. John is the wildest---poetic, big picture. But, thank God for Luke because he reminds me most of myself. If I was given the task of writing a gospel, I suspect I would proceed very much like Luke: these are the things I've observed--- these are the things I've been told--now let me write them down so "that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:4). Luke was not loosey-goosey or an optimistic romantic about life. He recognized the need for an "orderly account," and rolled up his sleeves to "geter done."
As a doctor, I imagine Luke was a thoughtful observer of people and life. His preface
"it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you" is measured and unassuming. There are things that "seem good to me also" that are of the Lord, but I proceed with caution. Too many people start with "thus saith the Lord through me" in a presumptuous way.
F.D Maurice comments:
What else can I gather about Luke? He was from Antioch, Syria. He followed Paul around and was single. He was with Paul in Rome toward the end of Paul's life: 2 Timothy 4:11: "Only Luke is with me."
He is mostly affirmed by historians and archaeologists as being an accurate recorder of events and details. As with most anything, the newer criticism casts doubt on some aspects of his work. Medieval and Eastern Orthodox Church tradition holds that he was the first icon painter and that he made icons of Mary. However, there seems little historical basis for this. Interesting, his relics reside in three different locations: his body is in an abbey in Padua, in Northern Italy. His head is in a cathedral in Prague, Czech Republic. And a rib resides in his tomb at Thebes, Greece.
Luke is the sole recorder of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son---how much poorer our souls would be without these touchstones of the faith. According to Catholic Online, he records 6 miracles and 18 parables that occur no where else in the gospels. Also, without Luke the record would be much thinner on the early history of the Church. His "Book of Acts" was originally contiguous with his gospel. They were separated into two books later.
An obvious end note that I mention because it had slipped past me, but Luke was NOT an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life, nor was he a disciple. He is considered one of the 70 apostles. Fuzzy thinking had me thinking he was a disciple at least, and I guess in the broadest sense he was, but he was not one of the original 12.
As a doctor, I imagine Luke was a thoughtful observer of people and life. His preface
"it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you" is measured and unassuming. There are things that "seem good to me also" that are of the Lord, but I proceed with caution. Too many people start with "thus saith the Lord through me" in a presumptuous way.
F.D Maurice comments:
"Some may cry, “Was he not then taught by the Spirit of God?” I imagine that he who described the Day of Pentecost, and referred the whole existence and work of the Church to the Spirit of God, had quite as awful a feeling of His government over himself as any of us can have. The freedom of his language shows me how strong his feeling was; our sensitiveness and unwillingness to connect the Spirit with the operations of the human intellect, indicate the weakness of ours. We ask for distinctions about the degrees and measures in which the Spirit has been or will be vouchsafed. The Evangelists make no such distinctions. I think they dared not."I agree---give me the cautious recorder over the assuming types any time.
What else can I gather about Luke? He was from Antioch, Syria. He followed Paul around and was single. He was with Paul in Rome toward the end of Paul's life: 2 Timothy 4:11: "Only Luke is with me."
 |
| St. Luke, Paolo Veronese, 1555 Luke's iconographic symbol was the ox, a symbol of sacrifice. |
He is mostly affirmed by historians and archaeologists as being an accurate recorder of events and details. As with most anything, the newer criticism casts doubt on some aspects of his work. Medieval and Eastern Orthodox Church tradition holds that he was the first icon painter and that he made icons of Mary. However, there seems little historical basis for this. Interesting, his relics reside in three different locations: his body is in an abbey in Padua, in Northern Italy. His head is in a cathedral in Prague, Czech Republic. And a rib resides in his tomb at Thebes, Greece.
Luke is the sole recorder of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son---how much poorer our souls would be without these touchstones of the faith. According to Catholic Online, he records 6 miracles and 18 parables that occur no where else in the gospels. Also, without Luke the record would be much thinner on the early history of the Church. His "Book of Acts" was originally contiguous with his gospel. They were separated into two books later.
An obvious end note that I mention because it had slipped past me, but Luke was NOT an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life, nor was he a disciple. He is considered one of the 70 apostles. Fuzzy thinking had me thinking he was a disciple at least, and I guess in the broadest sense he was, but he was not one of the original 12.
Comments