Luke the Theologian

To point up the current debate on Lukan problems, W. C. van Unnik cites Gotz Harbsmeier’s dictum that the church is always confronted with the necessity of choosing between Paul and Luke. I do not think that this aspect of recent thought has come very forcibly before some of us, and it may be well to review the situation.

During the last couple of decades, Luke and Acts have been the subjects of much discussion by German scholars, little of which has become available in English. But it seems not unlikely that all serious New Testament students will be caught up in this debate before it is through. Luke gives every promise of taking the place of the Fourth Gospel as the center of current religious debate.

Perhaps we should start with an essay by Philipp Vielhauer entitled “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” originally published in the periodical Evangelische Theologie in 1950–51 (available in English translation in Studies in Luke-Acts, edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn). Vielhauer makes four points:

1. In the speech on Areopagus, Luke makes Paul express the Stoic idea of natural theology, not the view we find in the Pauline Epistles. “The ‘word of the cross’ has no place in the Areopagus speech.”

2. Paul was completely opposed to the law, but in Acts he appears as a Jewish Christian, utterly loyal to the law.

3. The Christology of Acts does not agree with that of Paul.

4. Although for Paul eschatology is at the center of faith, for Luke it has become no more than a section of theology dealing with the “last things.”

I cannot feel that in this Vielhauer really takes account of the evidence. He does not notice, for example, that the Areopagus speech might be regarded as basically an expansion of three points Paul puts together when he speaks of repentance as a turning from idols to the true God, of Christ’s return for judgment, and of the resurrection (1 Thess. 1:9 f.). It is unfair to say that the Areopagus speech is un-Pauline.

Nor does Vielhauer pay sufficient attention to Paul’s readiness to be all things to all men, and specifically to his words, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews” (1 Cor. 9:20).

Vielhauer’s point about Christology is met by the consideration that in Acts Luke appears to be giving us more than one view of Christ. In this he seems to be reflecting accurately enough the early situation. Some saw more in Christ than did others.

Furthermore, it is not a proper procedure to ignore or explain away the very real eschatological teaching in both Luke and Acts.

One may well conclude, then, that Vielhauer’s position should not be accepted, the evidence being what it is. But he certainly started people thinking hard about the relation between Paul and Acts, and about what Luke was doing when he wrote his two volumes.

It is surprising, when we come to think about it, that he did write two. Each of the other three evangelists appears to have been content to write his gospel and call it a day. But Luke added a second volume of about the same length as the first. Why?

One reason is surely that he wanted to tell us not only of how Jesus lived and died and rose but also of how what Jesus did was effective in bringing about the Church. Luke sees the Church, not as something that just happened, but as something that was in God’s purpose. God planned that the Christ’s atoning work should issue in a fellowship of his people. Luke wants us to see that the story is continuous. It may be significant that, besides frequently using the word “must” (often to indicate a compelling divine necessity), Luke is responsible for nine out of the New Testament’s twelve occurrences of the word “purpose” (boule). That aspect of what God is doing is of the greatest interest to this evangelist.

This means, of course, that Luke is in some sense a theologian, a point being emphasized in most recent discussions. Here the great name is Hans Conzelmann, who insists that Luke divided time into three parts: the period of Israel (Luke 16:16), the period of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 4:16 ff.; Acts 10:38), and the period since the ascension, which is, of course, the period of the Church. He thinks that Luke’s work is dominated by his theology. This raises the question whether we should give up thinking of “Luke the Historian” and begin to think rather of “Luke the Theologian”!

That Luke is interested in theology is beyond doubt. He writes, not with scientific objectivity, but because he is a Christian, because the things of which he writes matter intensely to him and he wants them to matter to his readers too.

But it is an unwarranted step to go on from there to suggest that Luke was more concerned with a point of view than with what happened. After all, it is possible to commend a point of view, theological or otherwise, by sticking closely to the facts. Conversely, it is possible to do harm to one’s endeavors by marring the presentation of the point of view with factual inaccuracy.

This should be urged in the face of some of Conzelmann’s contentions. For example, he maintains that Luke’s geography is not to be taken seriously, that he may have known very little about the actual position of places in Palestine. He says that Luke uses the term “Jordan,” for instance, not for a specific locality but for the sphere of John the Baptist. He sees no point in trying to locate the desert in which Jesus’ temptation occurred, for this term is only a way of referring to the separation between Jordan and Galilee. And so we could go on.

But this approach fails to take note of the many accurate geographical references, particularly in Acts (and the link between the Gospel and Acts is strongly upheld in recent discussions). It is perhaps worth noticing that Bultmann, who can scarcely be called a defender of conservative opinions, finds no difference between Luke’s Galilean geography and that of Mark.

We are still at only the beginning of what appears to be a very interesting debate. But some preliminary observations may be made. One is that Luke’s status as a historian does not really seem to be in dispute. Those who previously saw him as a good historian will still see him so.

But his stature as a theologian is becoming clearer. Luke selected and arranged his material to bring out his purpose. He lets us see something of God’s plan. The God who worked out man’s salvation in Christ and his cross continues to work in the Church, the people of God. God is active in all of life.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.