The sermon on 'The Gospel of Luke' initiates a long-term study of the book, emphasizing sequential exposition of scripture. The speaker clarifies that while the authorship and date of Luke are not definitively known, strong internal and external evidence suggests Luke as the author, likely written in the early 60s AD. The Gospel of Luke is recognized as a synoptic gospel, sharing much content with Matthew and Mark, but also contains unique material, contributing significantly to the New Testament. Luke is described as a careful historian, sourcing eyewitness accounts to ensure the reliability of the gospel. The sermon highlights the central role of women in Luke's narrative and discusses the overlap of divine inspiration and human activity in its writing. Additionally, the relationship between Luke and Acts is explained, with Acts serving as a sequel that fulfills promises made in Luke. The ultimate goal of studying Luke is to deepen knowledge and love for Jesus, encouraging believers to engage deeply with scripture.

The title of the message is very simply, The Gospel of Luke. And I won't belabor the point, we have lots of weeks to go through The Gospel of Luke. This will hopefully at least set the stage for that. We don't believe that sequential exposition is the only kind of legitimate preaching, but we've always believed that it should be the normal diet of the Word of God for our church. So what does that mean?

It means that we may take little bits of time where we focus on one thing, that nothing comes before it, nothing goes after it. We hit a topic that we think is important. So we do that. But normally, the normal pattern is going to be for us to work section by section, through chapter by chapter, through books of the Bible. The preacher finds that safer than trying to anticipate what we need.

What we need is the Word of God, the whole counsel of God from Genesis to Revelation. You're going to have a hard time to find a passage of Scripture that the people of God don't need. So we just trust that we can find something profitable every week as we work through another section of another chapter of another book of the Bible. So more than anything else, I would rather be doing sequential exposition. But I'll say this.

If you do that for a period of years in a row, every week is sort of a heavy lift from a study standpoint. So it's really nice and refreshing to hit a time where we just do some some one-off topics where the studying is a lighter lift and I appreciate the ability to do that. So we're at the end of that now and back to sequential exposition. Let's ask for the Lord's blessing. God, if you won't bless us in the study of this, who will?

No one can. So we just cry out to you that your spirit would be undertaking to use preaching of the Gospel of Luke for our encouragement and strengthening and just the refreshing of our hearts. I pray that that would be so week by week for however long it takes us in Jesus' name. Amen. So, the length of time I think will probably be about two years in the Gospel of Luke.

So, this is a long-term project, but who cares? What else are we going to rush off to? Do you want to rush off to something else? We're in a gospel. It doesn't get better than the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There's nowhere better to be. There's nowhere to rush off to really. And so I know I'm going to enjoy the next two years because I get to read Ryle week by week. And others. I have a lot of others.

I've shown you my big stack of books. The Gospel of Luke. Who wrote it and when? The answers are we don't 100% know and we don't 100% know. We don't 100% know who wrote it.

We don't know 100% when they wrote it. There's nothing in the inspired contents of Luke that identifies Luke as the author or tips us off as to when it was written. But there is evidence both inside of Luke and Acts and outside of them that strongly points to Luke being the author and the book of Acts concludes at a point that we can roughly locate in history so we can make very educated guess about the dates when these New Testament books were written. Okay, internal evidence that Luke wrote Luke. First we should acknowledge that Acts is the sequel to Luke.

If the New Testament were ordered just a little bit differently and you had Luke and then Acts right after it, no one would ever question or forget this, that Acts is the sequel to Luke. In fact, that is one of the distinctives of Luke. That's one of the things that makes Luke different from each of the other Gospels. It is the only Gospel that has a sequel. Both are written to the most excellent Theophilus.

We see that in Luke chapter 1. We see it again right at the beginning of Acts chapter 1. And Acts picks up exactly where Luke ends up with the ascension of Jesus. So we get to the very end of Luke, it will end with the ascension of Jesus, and then when you go to Acts chapter 1, Acts begins with the ascension of Jesus. The disciples witness Jesus being taken up into heaven.

The author of Acts references his quote, former account, which certainly is the Gospel of Luke in the very first verse of Acts. You have Luke finishing up, then Acts chapter 1 verse 1, the author of Acts references his former account to the same person, the most excellent Theophilus. And so clearly Acts is the sequel. I mean, they're knitted together, and so there's no doubt that Acts is the sequel to Luke. Also, there are a series of we passages in the book of Acts, multiple, many we passages where the author of Acts identifies himself as participating with the Apostle Paul in various parts of the history being accounted.

So, we, the author of Acts, and the Apostle Paul, and some of their companions. And by comparing the limited number of specific individuals mentioned in those we passages, Luke is the obvious choice. So a little detective work with the we passages in Acts points us to Luke being the author. In terms of external evidence that Luke wrote Luke, this Gospel has only ever been called the Gospel according to Luke from the earliest days of church history. So you can go back to what we believe is the very oldest copy of Luke, and it is headed that way according to Luke.

It essentially universally accepted by everyone that Luke wrote Luke until the mid 1800s. So from the time of the disciples to the mid 1800s everyone just thought Luke wrote Luke and the mid 1800s is the time when so many things about Scripture began to be doubted in so-called Christian scholarly circles. It's not just Luke that comes into question as being the author of Luke, but a thousand other things about Scripture come into question during the same time period. That should make you suspicious of all those things. More external evidence.

The early church fathers, who are the early church fathers? They are the disciples of the disciples, and in some cases the disciples of the disciples of the disciples. So you get a couple of generations in. But within the first couple hundred years of Jesus living and dying, you have what are known as the church fathers, early church leaders, but most of them can be traced back to the disciples of Jesus Christ. Some of them being the direct disciples of the disciples.

I'm going to reference Polycarp here in a little while, and He was trained by the Apostle John. Can you imagine? Who discipled you? Oh, the Apostle John. That's Polycarp.

They held Luke to be the author of this gospel in their own writings. Meaning, if you go to the writings of the early church fathers, many of them reference the gospel of Luke and mention that Luke is the author of that gospel. So, I would say this. Luke wrote Luke. It didn't used to be controversial at all.

Everyone used to affirm that. But, nothing in this Gospel rises or falls on Luke being the author. If it did, Luke would have identified himself as the author of Luke in Luke, but the inspired Luke didn't. And so what you need to know is nothing depends on Luke being the author of this, but the evidence inside and outside of Luke really points to Luke. When were Luke and Acts written?

Well, Acts ends with Paul alive and in prison in Rome. So, this must be before Paul was martyred in 67 or 68 AD. He's alive at the end of Acts, so Acts was written before he died and was martyred in Rome in 67 or 68 AD. And there's no mention in Acts of Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome after the great fire of Rome. Nero probably set that fire himself.

You've heard Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Supposedly he really played the fiddle as the great fire of Rome was going on. That happened in 64 AD. There's no mention of the fire or the persecution in Acts, and so Luke and Acts were almost certainly written before 64 AD. Most scholars believe based on other clues that Luke was the second gospel to be written and if that's so then the earliest date could only be so early.

So all that said I believe the best guess is that Luke and Acts were both written in the very early 60s AD. Somewhere probably 60 to 62 AD, probably both Luke and Acts were written. That is essentially 30 years or less from when Jesus was crucified and resurrected. So depending on who's doing the dating, the crucifixion of Jesus was either 30 AD or 33 AD. So you're talking about less than three decades from when Jesus died and was resurrected.

Meaning, it's during the lifespan of eyewitnesses of Jesus. This is a really important point. It's written early, during the lifespan of eyewitnesses. So, that is the author and date, almost certainly Luke wrote Luke, and most likely in the very early sixties AD. How does Luke compare to the other three gospels with Matthew, with Mark, with John?

Luke is known as a synoptic gospel. What is a synoptic gospel? It means that you put it alongside Matthew and Mark. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are three gospels that are considered together to be the synoptic gospels. Synoptic is a Greek word meaning seen together.

And Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called this seen together because they have a lot of overlap. They're very easily compared, often recounting many of the same events and words of Jesus. So you can find unique material in all of the Gospels, but there's the most overlap between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and it's a lot of overlap. And there's very little overlap with John. That's why you have Matthew, Mark, and Luke known as the synoptics gospel, seen together, taken together, and then you have John as sort of a different category, because the Gospel of John doesn't have much of what's in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John has much that isn't in any of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

So the Gospels are sort of segregated that way. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the synoptics, and then John viewed separately. That said, Luke also has a good amount of unique content. In fact, almost everything that we read in chapter 1 and 3, this focus in chapter 1 on John the Baptist and the details about the birth of Jesus, most of that is unique to the Gospel of Luke. So it definitely has contributions of things that cannot be found in any of the other Gospels.

And much in what we will find when we get to chapters 9 to 19, now think about that, that's a lot of chapters, 9 to 19 will be unique to Luke. The Nelson Study Bible has a note that says one third of Luke is unique. So I don't know how he did his counting, but I'm happy to take his word for it. A third of this gospel of these 24 chapters is a unique contribution, and so why do we need it? For the math nerds, you know who you are, and others.

It's not just Janet, it is also others. In terms of word count, Luke is more than 14% of the New Testament. Acts is more than 10% of the New Testament. So Luke wrote essentially 25% or a quarter of the New Testament. This is a massive contribution to the New Testament.

Almost one out of four words in the New Testament were penned by Luke. So, wow do we owe Luke. Now, let me give you some assorted points that I've collected up from my reading. I'm going to give you seven things about Luke and then we'll end. Number one, Luke as a name, as an individual, is mentioned separately, meaning not counting any of the wee passages in Acts, but just his name appears three times in the New Testament.

Here they are. Colossians 4, 14, which says, Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you. Luke appears in Paul's letter to the Colossians, greeting the Colossians. Luke, and he's called the beloved physician. So he's a loved individual, and he's a physician.

By the way, we'll be noticing the emphasis in the Gospel of Luke on Jesus' healing ministry. Luke appears as a Gospel writer, appears to be enthralled with Jesus' healing ministry. That shouldn't surprise us. He was a physician. Jesus could do all the things Luke couldn't do as a physician.

And why does it show up in the Gospels? The next appearance of the individual Luke, 2 Timothy 4 verse 11. Where Paul writes to Timothy. 2 Timothy 4 verse 11, Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful for me in ministry.

So in 2 Timothy 4 verse 11, Paul only has one ministry companion with him. At times he had many with him, but at this time he only had one and it was Luke. And He's sending for Mark to come too. This is going to factor in later. Finally, the third appearance of the individual or the name Luke is Philemon 23 and 24.

Philemon is a single chapter so you don't list chapters. Philemon 23 and 24, which says, Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers. So, Luke is listed with a short list of individuals who are fellow laborers to the Apostle Paul, and Mark is also in that list of fellow laborers who are sending their greetings to Philemon. So that's number one. Luke is mentioned separately three times and there they are.

We only encounter him three times. He's a beloved physician. He is the only one with Paul when he writes in 2nd Timothy, and he's a fellow laborer on a short list along with Mark and a few others. Number two, in Colossians 4, I just read a verse from Colossians 4, but in Colossians 4, Paul names his fellow workers who are of the circumcision. So that means Jews.

He lists his fellow workers who were Jews of the circumcision. Then Paul mentions some others, most with Greek names like Epaphras and Demas, and Luke is in with them. So the two lists of the circumcision Jews and then others, lots of Greek names and Luke is in with them. I take from that that Luke was not a Jew And if that is correct, Luke is the only Gentile author of a book in the Bible. So there are some other sections of Scripture like Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel 11 that reflect Something written by a non-Jew, but only book of the Bible would be, by a Gentile would be Luke and he's written two and a quarter of the New Testament.

By the way, in support of this, Luke quotes the Old Testament less than the other gospel writers. We're going to encounter less quotations of the Old Testament than we would in any of the other gospels. And when he does quote the Old Testament, it is almost always from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which is called the Septuagint, but he's quoting from the Greek translation. So all this points to Luke being a Gentile. Number three.

Luke was a frequent companion of the Apostle Paul and also of Mark. Luke, who are your close friends? He's probably going to, in the short list, Paul's definitely going to be there and Mark's definitely going to be there. Mark's another gospel writer. You're saying, Luke, where did you get the contents of this?

Jesus appeared in person to Paul, and one of his close friends was another gospel writer and most think the Gospel of Mark had been written by the time the gospel of Luke has been written. The point is he's got access to and contact with some great sources. Never wonder about the sources of Luke as a gospel writer. Two of his closest friends are Mark the gospel writer and the Apostle Paul. He has access to and contact with eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death and resurrection because of his friends.

As I said in the weekly email, two of the four Gospels were written by disciples. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus. John was a disciple of Jesus. Two of the Gospels were not written by disciples. Mark was not, but Mark was frequently, frequently with Peter.

Many think that Mark's gospel is essentially Peter's gospel. Then Luke was not a disciple, but he was always with Mark and Paul. I said before John discipled a man named Polycarp, one of the early church fathers. Polycarp discipled a man named Irenaeus, also known as a church father. So this would be a spiritual grandson.

So grandpa, John the Apostle, son Polycarp, and grandson Irenaeus in a spiritual lineage. Irenaeus wrote that Paul and Luke were inseparable. So it's really consistent with what we see in the New Testament, but you have somebody who was discipled by somebody who was discipled by John saying, these two were inseparable. Paul and Luke were always together. The ESV has this note.

Eusebius reports that Paul quoted from the Gospel of Luke by saying, according to my gospel. Who is Eusebius? Eusebius was born in 260 AD. So this is getting a couple of centuries from Jesus' life and death and resurrection. But still early, but he's known as the father of church history.

So the man who sort of wears the informal title of the father of church history says that Paul quoted from the Gospel of Luke saying, According to my gospel, Eusebius says Paul claimed Luke's gospel as being his own. Number four, Luke is widely recognized by scholars as a careful historian. All these scholars analyzing the Gospel of Luke, writing about the Gospel of Luke, studying the Gospel of Luke, and uniformly say, what a careful historian. Luke right here at the beginning says that he set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us. He says, it seemed good to me also having had a perfect understanding of all things from the first to write to you an orderly account.

And everybody who studies Luke says, yep, that's what he did. He gave us an orderly account. He writes like a historian. He names details that we would need like a historian would, like a careful historian would. The Reformation Heritage Study Bible has this note.

Luke stands out as an example of one who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, even as he searched out the facts from eyewitness sources, a beautiful overlap of divine sovereignty and human activity." So, could God have put Luke into a trance and just this is what flows out of the trance. Yes. Is that how the Gospel of Luke was written? No! Luke chased down the eyewitnesses and got a careful accounting of these things that happened and then he was inspired by God to write the Gospel that he did.

This is kind of the interlocking of the sovereignty of God and the human activity of Luke. Number five, let's let Dr. MacArthur have this one. This is the first Gospel that we will be in without John MacArthur being alive. So we're giving him number five.

MacArthur says this in his study Bible, The high profile Luke accords to women is particularly significant. From the nativity account where Mary, Elizabeth, and Anna are given prominence, chapters 1 and 2. To the events of resurrection morning where women again are major characters, chapter 24. Luke emphasized the central role of women in the life and ministry of our Lord. MacArthur actually doesn't mention this but it is true.

In Luke we're going to encounter women who supported financially Jesus' ministry. So Luke is definitely putting women in a prominent place in Jesus' ministry. Number six, the purpose is clear. Chapter 1 verse 4. That you may know the certainty of the things in which you were instructed.

Gospels have already been written when Luke is writing. Why is he writing? Just to nail home the certainty of the things that are being taught as coming from eyewitnesses. Do you need assurance that the Gospels are true? Friends, we're told to bet our lives on it.

If you're following Jesus, you are betting your life and your eternity that these things are true. And so I'm thankful for how Luke begins his gospel that these are eyewitness accounts and he wants you to know the certainty of the things that we're studying about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Luke is not just a history. It's not a history book. It's not just a biography.

It's not just about the life of Jesus, especially when you put Acts in there. Listen to Joel Green, who has written the New International Commentary on the New Testament. Joel Green is at least at the starting line of commentators that I'll be reading. A couple of them are going to be voted off the island in a year. We'll see who's most profitable.

I can't read all that all through for two years, but I'll keep two or three of them along with the other things that I'm reading. Joel Green, New International Commentary on the New Testament says this, New Testament says this, in the Gospel of Luke's choice of events to foreground it all and in its ordering of those events in terms of temporal and causal relations, Luke inevitably provides more and less than what actually happened. Now that's a really interesting thing to say. What does he mean? He says He provides less than what actually happened.

What does that mean? He doesn't give you every detail. He doesn't say what happened before, what happened after. In most of these instances, he's selecting things to bring forth into his Gospel. He's much more selective than a person charged with writing a full history of something would.

I mean, if that was the target, then he misses the target wildly, but that's not the target. So you get less from Luke than all that actually happened. He's telling you the things that he's telling you for the reason of establishing the gospel as reliable and establishing the gospel in your mind. But he's also providing more than what actually happened. In what way?

I mean he's drawing conclusions from this. He's making theological doctrines, drawing them out of the things that he's teaching. So he does say more than what actually happened. He tells you how to interpret those things and less than what actually happened. He doesn't give you everything like a comprehensive history would.

That's a good point. Number seven, What is promised in Luke is fulfilled in the book of Acts. That's how this gospel and its sequel, the book of Acts, relate to each other. In Luke 2.32, Simeon prophesies that Jesus is a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles. What is the Book of Acts?

The fulfillment of that. In the final chapter of Luke, Jesus says to the disciples that repentance and remission of sin should be preached to all nations beginning at Jerusalem. What is the book of Acts if it's not a fulfillment of promises made to what Jesus would be and do being fulfilled after His death and resurrection? So that's number seven. What is promised in Luke is fulfilled in the book of Acts.

Applications, I'll just give you one. Have you ever heard the phrase, I know you've heard the phrase, I won't make it a question, I'll make it a statement. You have heard the phrase, to know Him is to love Him. So it is with Jesus, to know Him is to love Him. Do you love Him enough?

Would you like to love Him more? Well, the one way to love Him more is to know Him more. How are we going to know Him more? Let's go slowly, carefully, through a gospel, through the gospel of Luke, Because to know Him is to love Him. To study a Gospel more in greater depth will be to know Jesus more.

And if you know Him more, surely if you have a new heart, you'll love Him more. Surely you'll love Him more. Would that be okay if that was the legacy of our couple of years in the Gospel of Luke? That we know Him more and we love Him more? J.C.

Ryle says this in his introduction to Luke. I have a strong conviction that we want more reverent, deep-searching study of the Scripture in the present day. We want a more clear knowledge of Christ as a living person, a living priest, A living physician, a living friend, a living advocate at the right hand of God, and a living Savior soon about to come again. Most of Christians know little of Christianity, but it's skeleton of doctrines. If I can do anything to make Christ in the Bible more honorable in these latter days, I shall be truly thankful and content.

If we come out of Luke knowing more of Christ as a living person, and a living priest, and a living physician, and a living friend, and a living advocate at the right hand of God, and a living Savior soon about to come again. If Luke would make us expect Jesus' return more, it would be time so well spent. So pray for this. You should be praying for your time in the Gospel of Luke. That it would help you to know Him better.

So then you would love Him better, let's pray. God, may it be so. May it be so. In a couple of years, if you don't return, If things work out like we anticipate them working out, we'll be at the end of Luke. I pray that at that time, look back and see that we know you better, and because we know you better, we love you more.

We could never love you enough. Help us, God. Use our time in the Gospel of Luke to help us. We pray in Jesus' name, Amen.