Bible Commentaries
Luke

The Gospel of Luke is the first of a two-volume work made up of Luke/Acts. It originally circulated throughout the church in this manner. However, somewhere in the Second Century, the Four Gospels were gathered into a single collection and Acts then began to circulate separately as "The Acts of the Apostles."<footnote>F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 3.</footnote>

By long-standing church tradition and by abundant historical witness, the author of Luke/Acts was Luke himself.<footnote>Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The IVP NT Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press1994), p. 17. "Early church tradition has consistently named Luke as the author of these volumes...Justin...the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus...the so-called Anti-Marcionite Cannon and Tertullian...name Luke as the author..." Bob Utley adds, "The unanimous witness of the early church was that the author was Luke. a. the Muratorian Fragment (AD 180-200 from Rome says, 'complied by Luke the physician') b. the writings of Irenaeus (AD 130-200) c. the writings of Clement of Alexandria (AD 156-215) d. the writings of Tertullian (AD 160-200) e. the writings of Origen (AD 185-254)." (Bob Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts. Introduction. http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/new_testament_studies/VOL03B/VOL03B.html).</footnote> We know several things about Luke. He was a physician and a Gentile (cf. Colossians 4:10, cf. vs. 12-14). He was a highly educated person as is illustrated by his writing. He was in fact the only Gentile writer of the New Testament. When we count the verses and words of Luke/Acts we are amazed to find that Luke wrote 27 percent of the New Testament. Tradition states that Luke was from Antioch, that great Gentile church center. He was not a disciple but was rather a second-generation Christian. Nevertheless, Luke was often an eye-witness of the events in Acts since he traveled with Paul on many of the latter's journeys.

Since Luke traveled back to Israel with Paul on the Third Missionary Journey, it is felt by many commentators that he spent two years in the land while Paul was in prison (c. AD 57-59). Luke must have used this special time to do much of his careful research on the gospel materials. We know that he spent some time with Philip the Evangelist and his daughters at Caesarea (Acts 21:8ff). We can also guess that he made a special point to interview leaders like James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church. He probably also interviewed several of the disciples. By this time some of the principals of the gospel story had undoubtedly passed on, however, many eye-witnesses of various events were no doubt still around. Luke seems to have made excellent use of his time in Israel. In fact, he gives us several unique accounts of Jesus and John the Baptist that are found nowhere else. We shudder to think that perhaps Luke and his precious notes were almost lost in the great storm at sea as he and Paul later made their journey to Rome (Acts 27:1ff.).

The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were addressed to one Theophilus, a convert to Christianity or else one who was greatly interested in the faith. From his title "most excellent" (Luke 1:3) we can assume that he was a person of distinction, perhaps even a Roman official (cf. Acts 23:26; 26:25). Since we do not know where Theophilus lived it is impossible to know to what city the gospel was addressed. We know that Luke spent a great deal of time in Rome while Paul was in prison. Luke seems to have had access to Mark's gospel. It is interesting that both Mark and Luke were closely connected to Paul at Rome, during his imprisonment and his last days (Colossians 4:10, 14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Phile. 1:24).

While some traditions mention that the gospel was written from Achaea, it is certainly not unthinkable that it could have been written from Rome, and likely before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, since there is no mention of this event. While a number of commentators choose this date and dates afterward, it seems more likely that both Luke and Acts were written before the persecution of Nero began in AD 64.<footnote>Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts. Introduction.</footnote> Mark also seems to have been written during this turbulent time. Australian Bible scholar, Leon Morris, points out that no event after AD 62 is mentioned in Luke. There is even no mention of James's martyrdom in that year. He feels that both books would have been finished by this time.<footnote>Leon Morris, Luke (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1974, 1988), p. 25.</footnote>

Luke is a gospel written for the poor, oppressed and underprivileged. The clear theme of the gospel is that salvation has now come to the world in Jesus the Messiah.<footnote>Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III, eds., Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary , Vol. 2, New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), p. 209.</footnote>