This coming Sunday, we will celebrate the liturgical feast of the First Sunday of Advent. Advent is the season of preparation for the birth of Christ. It is also the beginning of a new liturgical year, known as “YEAR C.” The year will have five seasons: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Ordinal or Ordinary time (which falls between Epiphany and Ash Wednesday and between Pentecost and the Feast of Christ the King, which we celebrated last week,) Lent and Easter. Each liturgical year highlights a particular evangelist: “Year A” reads almost exclusively from the Gospel of Matthew, “Year B” from Mark, and “Year C” from Luke. The Gospel of John is left for special occasions such as funerals and other feasts throughout the year.

This coming Sunday we will start the Gospel of Luke. Of course, we will not be reading this Gospel in a linear style, from beginning to end, but rather, we will be reading the Gospel topically. The Lectionary writers will give us a pericope (small section) of the Gospel that best fits within the theological and liturgical theme of each Sunday. Since we will be hearing a great deal about Luke, it is important to say a few words about this Gospel.

Some believe the Gospel of Luke was written around the year eighty, approximately fifty years after the death of Christ. Some believe that the date is closer to the year ninety. Yet others believe the Gospel was written between the year ninety and the year one-ten. The majority opinion, however, is that Luke was written between the year eighty and ninety. The book is part one of a two-book story (Luke and Acts of the Apostles) written by the same author who is believed to have been a disciple of Paul. This theory has been challenged by some theologians who believe Luke contradicts some of the teachings of Paul and therefore cannot be his disciple. I believe that these points of the departure between the two can be explained by cultural context differences and theological intent. In other words, Paul was a Jew, educated by Jews, with a kin understanding of Jewish history and theology, and well acquainted with Jewish forms of speaking and writing. Luke, on the other hand, was a Gentile who shows some lack of knowledge about Jewish history and tradition, and who often gets dates wrong when talking about Jewish events. There is also a difference in theological intent between Paul and Luke. Paul is writing long expositions on his theology of grace and salvation, with the intent of showing how Jesus fulfills the law once and for all. Luke wants to write a religious, yet deeply political, history of Jesus and the disciples who followed him during his life and afterwards. The differences between the two do not make it improbable that Luke was the historical disciple of Paul we meet in Colossians 4:14, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you.”

Luke is unique because it is not addressed to a church but to a specific person we meet on Chapter 1 verses 3b and 4: “I decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Both Luke and Acts begin with the same statement about the intended recipient of the books. The intent is to provide this Theophilus “certainty” about the things he has heard and learned about the followers of Christ, who by then were called, “Christians.” (The original name of the movement was, “Followers of The Way,” or simply, “The Way.”) Some have conjectured that perhaps Theophilus is a local magistrate or judge and that some of the people coming before his courtroom were these Christians about which he knew little. Some believe that he is a prominent Christian convert, and even a house church leader, who requested theological instruction from Luke, and whose intention was for this story to be read aloud in his congregation for the edification of all. Some translate the word Theophilus (Lover of God) and believe the letter was written to knew converts in need of instruction. This third suggestion sounds suspicious to me. Why a code name? Why not just say, “To new converts in order to present a more orderly account of Jesus and his followers”? I tend to side with those who believe this is a local magistrate because the words, “Most Excellent” are usually reserved for people of high standing and Empire officials.

The structure of the Gospel also leads me to believe this is an orderly account of Jesus, written for theological and political reasons. Luke takes forty-one percent of the Gospel of Mark and introduces into it approximately twenty-three percent of content common to both he and Matthew (Known historically as the “Q” source.) The rest of the Gospel (about thirty-five percent) is material exclusive to Luke himself and not seen in any other Gospel. When you study this material (The infancy narratives, the entire chapter 15, the Emmaus narrative of Chapter 24, etc.) you begin to see a very interesting narrative with deep theological and political consequences. Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures and everything in the first epoch of salvation history (from creation to Jesus) pointed directly to him: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27.)

Everything Jesus accomplished during his life and ministry (The second epoch of salvation history,) was about the inclusion of the lost, the outcast, those isolated from God, and the Gentiles into God’s promises to Israel. In Christ, all Gentiles and outcasts are inheritors of the promises God gave Israel: “There will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent…  I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents… We had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” (Endings to the three parables of Luke 15.) Therefore, Jesus posed no threat to the Roman empire, in fact, the main purpose of his mission on earth was to bring those who did not originally belong to God’s call to Israel into that promise and history. Jesus was a King of peace and inclusion who posed no threat to Caesar.

The third epoch of salvation history is the epoch of the Church. Luke wants his audience to know that in the same way that Christ posed no threat to Rome, his disciples pose no threat to Rome.  Their Job is to make disciples of all nations, bringing those who did not know Jesus into the fold. The story of the Church (Acts) is a story of inclusion of those who were “out of The Way” into “The Way” or the Church. These assertions about a loving, peaceful, inviting, and inclusive Jesus and Church have deep political consequences. The Church poses no threat to the Empire but wishes for the Empire to accept the Lord Jesus. If Theophilus is in fact a Magistrate or a new convert with great influence on matters of state, then presenting the church in these terms aims to reduce animosity towards Jesus, the Messiah and his Church.

On the way of making this political assertion, Luke gave us a deeply theological Gospel that highlights in a unique way the inner goodness of people seen as enemies (the Good Samaritan, for example.) The important role women played in the early movement (women who followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, down the via dolorosa, stood watch at the cross, prepared his body for burial, and were the first witnesses to the resurrection.) Jesus’ love for the lost and the outcast, including “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 15:1-3,) etc.

I will write more about Luke later, but at least for now, I hope this blog post will spark your curiosity about this Gospel. I invite you to join me in the reading and studying Luke-Acts this next year. I promise you this evangelist and the story he has to tell will change your life.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Fr. Roman+