Set in Order: Luke's Sure Treatise and the Canon of Scripture

Luke the gospel writer opens the first volume of his two-book treatise with the prologue that reads thus:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: ....

By making a comparison between the opening salvos of each volume, we can learn a great deal of just what Luke has in mind, in terms of his purposes and themes in his portrayal of Jesus Christ the Lord.

First, he refers to his audience twice as "Theophilus," a single individual bearing the title commonly given to Roman governors, proconsuls and prefects (local and regional rulers). This was not the only governor to convert to the Gospel of Christ. Recall also Sergius Paulus, whom the Scripture names as "an intelligent man," who was "amazed at the word of the Lord."

The name "Theophilus" -- depending upon which voice -- passive or active -- we assume the nomenclature supposes, either means "Friend of God" (and thus a son of Abraham, for Abraham was called "God's friend) or else "beloved of God," a title given uniquely to Solomon under the older covenant, and to all the saints (especially in the Johannine writings) under the New Covenant (for all the saints are priests and kings in training).

First Luke notes that he is well aware, that "many" have taken it upon themselves to write what we today call "gospels." This was a common practice in Luke's day, and he had consulted these "many" in the making of his own treastise. He wishes a more "orderly" account than the ones which precede his, otherwise would there be no reason for him to pen another when many already exist. But Luke has not just any order in mind.

Exodus 40 indicates that the setting in order of what is holy belongs to the duties of the priests. This the Lord ordered of Moses and his men of great skill in the making of the tabernacle of Glory. It's elements, which represent people under the newer covenant, had to be first "set in order" before the Glory of God would visit the Tabernacle (Church). This is God's design for reformation. It only comes one way, His way. It comes by way of the setting of the Church of Jesus, who walks among the lampstands, in order, "just as the Lord commanded Moses."

Note the phrase, "Just as." This requires technical, litgurgical skill. God is a perfectionist, and with good reason. He deserves the very best, and nothing less. His utter holiness and perfection remain compatible with nothing else. If it is to be good enough FOR God, it must come FROM God.

This is because God is sovereign in worship, and cannot suffer another to usurp his authority to determine how He is to be worshipped. After reproving the Corinthians for failing to follow the dominical liturgy (called "apodosis" in 1 Cor. 11), the divine pattern of worship handed down to the apostles from Christ Himself, Paul wrote, "The rest will I SET IN ORDER when I come [to visit you]" (1 Cor. 14).

Paul viewed his task as just the same as that of the kings and priests of old, to set the Church of the Lord in precise conjunction with the commandments of God. Josiah had done likewise, and it says of Him that no passover like his was celebrated in Israel since the days of Samuel the prophet. Josiah was taken of godly fear and set his heart in order to do all and only that which the Lord commands for his divine worship.

Luke also was such a man. He took extremely great pains to make sure that all he wrote, was true and correct, and ordered just so, so as to say nothing that was not approved by the apostles -- to which he refers as "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word," "from the beginning [of the ministry of Christ]." This is described by Luke as a precondition for the apostolic office in Acts 1.
Luke self-consciously writes holy Scripture, which will be used to set the pattern for all generations of believers, in what they are to do and to teach. Thus, does Luke set in order, not only an accurate and technically precise account of all that Jesus began (and then continued in volume 2 -- Acts) to do and to teach, but he also sets the pattern for biblical historiography, developing and extending the tradition of the earlier "historical prophets," who constructed the kings and chronicles history narratives of the older testament. Luke writes in their tradition, but with much stronger emphasis upon proof and precision.

He knows he is up against skeptics in his day, especially regarding resurrections, which doctrine went directly against the philosophical tone of the day in Greek culture (Gnostics wanted little to do with bodies in the first place, so why bring them back?). And Luke is concerned to write a man well educated in the teachings of Greek philosophy and Roman mythology. The Greek saying common among Platonists (and others) was "soma sema," a play on words -- meaning the body is the tomb, where "soma" refers in Greek to the human body, and "sema" to an ordinary grave.

These are surely believed, and not probably adopted, as they were "delivered down to us." But by whom and when? These were delivered over a period of forty days, in the forms of "teaching and doing" by the Lord Jesus Christ who established these as utterly accurate by their attending miracles - infallible proofs - which he showed to his apostles. They were not merely ministers of that handed down apodosis, the were eyewitnesses of their infallible truths.

Thus, were the apostles unique in their ministry, and none after "the twelve" - the apostle Paul being the lone exception as "one born untimely," can ever hold the apostolic office, or form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). Neither is any pope (so-called) an "apostle" for our day as Rome is wont to claim. The very idea betrays the divinely-ordained qualifications for the office. Rome is anything but "set in order" according to the Word of the Lord.

Now these traditional teachings of Christ form the basis of the "pattern of sound words," found throughout the Newer Testament, peppered here and there, and also the sermons of the book of Acts, found flowing from the mouths of the apostles. It may be possible, and ought to be considered, that a careful collection and comparison of these sayings might be used to reconstruct (only partially to be sure) some of what the Lord Jesus taught during that fascinating and pivotal forty days to which Luke refers, and which probably form the literary outline for his two-volume treatise.

Theophilus, having received his initial training in the Christian faith has done what we would all do -- he has told Luke that he wants to know more about the Lord Jesus. So Luke has set about the task with the greatest care. So Luke provides the historical ordering (chronology with details filled in) to provide the context in which the catechism (pattern of sound words) taught to Theophilus arose. In other words, Luke is "contextualizing" that pattern of sound words with a broader narrative to show how they came to be, and why they are both so sure and important to the Christian faith.

Luke expresses and reiterates in his two-volume treatise how that the Lord Jesus constantly taught the same things both in His very public mortal ministry, and then later more privately in his resurrected teaching ministry. The Lord is found saying, "this is that which I said to you when ....".

Throughout both treatise volumes, one can see that Luke has done his research. He often indicates this with phrases like, "And they (or she) treasured these things up in their hearts." Unusual phenomena - miracles and extraordinary teachings -- make a lasting impression. People remember them when shocked by them. There is simply no way Luke could know that these people had treasured up historical memories unless he had interviewed them.

Luke was a traveler. This we know. He was also a highly-skilled physician - a trained and educated individual, well-familiar with the idea of research. And thus he plied his training in new ways, to promote the cause and kingdom of Christ by becoming something of what we might call today a journalist, or investigative reporter.

Ancient historians had long been doing this, from Polybius and Herodotus, to contemporaries of Luke like Cornelius Tacitus and Flavius Jospehus. Luke adapted much of contemporary historiographical trends to his research methods -- he was an information hunter. But he fell well-within the more traditional bounds of Jewish prophetic-history writing in terms of the way he handled the material he collected.

For one thing, he ran it all past the apostles for their approval, making sure that nothing he promoted contradicted what Christ had passed down to the apostles, teaching them for forty days. Luke's Gospel also took into account all that was already written -- the many "gospel" sources with which he shows himself quite aware.

This tells against the hypothetical document called "Q" (which abbreviates the German word for "source" -- "Quelle" [say KVEL uh]), which liberal scholarship insists was used in forming the different editions -- called redactions -- of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. "Q" allegedly covers the material in Luke and Matthew, which they share, but which is not found in the Gospel of Mark. But Luke knows of many entire Gospel sources -- whole Gospels -- and has interviewed many sources directly, as is indicated by numerous textual indicators in the Gospel of Luke itself.

This begs the question -- why should we believe liberal scholars who are 19 or 20 centuries ex post facto (Latin for "Johnnie come latelies") when Luke assures us repeatedly of not only his direct access to three different sets of immediate, historical and prima facie sources? This is extremely counter-intuitive to put it delicately. Without the delicacy, the phrase "historiographical insanity" comes to mind.

In short, Luke knows of all the writings of other Christians -- the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and any of the Epistles then extant that Peter, James, John and Paul -- the latter his traveling companion -- wrote. The letter to the Colossians even ends with a greeting to them from "Luke the beloved physican" by Paul's relating it to them. And Paul bids them circulate this letter among the other churches (Laodicea is not far away, and he wants it sent there after the Colossians have read it, even though it is not directed to them specifically).

But Luke says "many," implying that he also knows of Gospel accounts we do not. Not everything made it into the canon of Scripture. John says (John 21) that "MANY other wonderful things Jesus did and said," but supposed the world could not contain the volumes -- hyperbollically were he to write them down -- as the many accounts probably recorded some of these also.

Luke's absolute confidence that he has "a perfect understanding of all things" shows the exacting care he took to make certain that he had everything not only true and correct, but very precisely so, such that he could employ without hesitation, that technical liturgical term of the Exodus. His account was guaranteed to bring Glory, for it was set in order according to the apodosis of Christ.

So just as the Lord commanded, so Luke wrote.