The web site for the 2009 One Year Bible Reader
class that is being taught by Phil Smith is:
http://www.oneyearbiblereader.com

SPIRITUAL FORMATION QUESTION #1:
HOW CAN SOMEONE BECOME LIKE JESUS??

Reading and/or Studying the Bible is NOT Enough…

As we get started in this study about a very important portion of God's Word it is important to talk about what it really means to be formed to be like Jesus. Some refer to this process as Spiritual Formation. All that really means is that we are being shaped, molded, and conditioned to be like Jesus.

The Bible is filled with metaphors for this process of Spiritual Formation. There are athletic images like running a race, agricultural images about seeds and harvests, architectural images about buildings and their foundations (or lack thereof). The point is this: the Bible is very clear that simply knowing about God and about the Bible and about theology or other truly important things is in itself completely insufficient.

Why Reading the Bible is NOT Enough…

Reading the Bible ≠ Being Like Jesus

Some might object that this is an overstatement or oversimplification. Let me be the first to say that knowledge of God's Word is important (if it weren't why am I even teaching!?!). However, the people that we find Jesus most often rebuking in the pages of Luke are the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. Now, let's put this in perspective.

The Pharisees were a religious group within Judaism that followed certain customs, traditions, and interpretations of the Law (known to us as the Old Testament). The Teachers of the Law were the religious scholars of the day who may or may not belong to specific groups like the Pharisees (although historians tell us that most of the Teachers of the Law were at least connected to the Pharisees in Jesus' day). These were the best and brightest of their day. They were scholars that we at the same level or possibly even greater than many biblical scholars of today. Each of these men more than likely had MEMORIZED the entire Old Testament. One tradition around the time of Jesus was for a Rabbi (a Jewish teacher) to quote an Old Testament passage to a promising student who in turn had to recite from memory the verse before and after it.

These were people who knew the Word of God better than anyone else in all of Israel and yet Jesus was unhappy with their lives.

So what was missing?

Why Studying the Bible is NOT Enough…

Studying the Bible ≠ Being Like Jesus.

Reading and even memorizing Scripture are not enough to be like Jesus but what about deep, in-depth study? I'm talking about the study with maps, dictionaries, commentaries, books about Greek words and ancient history. Would that kind of study make us more like Jesus. Perhaps. But study alone (even when paired with Bible reading) is not enough to make us like Jesus.

SO WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO BE LIKE JESUS???

Reading + Studying + LIVING the Bible = Being Like Jesus
(Disclaimer: This "formula" assumes that you are a Christian who has committed your life to Christ)

Before we talk about this let me make something 100% clear…doing any of this in a legalistic way or with the idea that you can earn God's grace or favor is not only wrong but is actually harmful to your spiritual formation.

Why are all three of these elements required to become like Jesus?

(1) Reading and study lead to comprehension which makes it possible for us to LIVE out what we learn.
(2) Living out the Bible enables us to determine whether or not our study and reading of Scripture were correct or need more attention.
(3) Being like Jesus means that we are communicating with God and living it out in the world in which we live.

SPIRITUAL FORMATION QUESTION #1:
HOW CAN SOMEONE BECOME LIKE JESUS??

(1) Read, Study, and Live out the Word of God
(2) Do it in a community of believers (a.k.a. a church) that honors God and is primarily concerned about God's Word
(3) Keep doing it!! You will always be learning.
(4) Ask for God's help!

Luke and Acts constitute a substantial portion of the entire New Testament (approx. 25%), so it is no surprise that there are a number of unique elements of this portion of Scripture. The following are various elements of Luke and Acts that are unique to the New Testament or in their specific purpose and goal.

Luke has a lot of material that is unique only to his Gospel...

The Gospel of Luke was written using various sources and information (Luke 1:3), and we see this in the similarities of content that Luke shares with the Gospel of Mark. However, there is a lot of material in Luke that is not found in any other of the Gospels. The following is the material that is unique to this Gospel.

(1) The Infancy Narratives (Chapters 1-2)
(2) Luke's Distinctive Genealogy (3:23-28)
(3) Five Miracle Stories
         Miraculous Catch of Fish (5:1-11)
         Raising the son of the widow of Nain (7:11-17)
         Healing of the crippled woman (13:10-17)
         Healing of the man with dropsy (14:1-6)
         Healing of the ten lepers (17:11-19)
(4) Other Vignettes
         Mary and Martha (10:38-42)
         Zaccheus (19:1-10)
(5) Fourteen distinctive parables
         The two debtors (7:40-43)
         The good Samaritan (10:29-37)
         The insistent friend at midnight (11:5-8)
         The rich fool (12:13-21)
         The barren fig tree (13:6-9)
         Building a tower (14:28-30)
         Preparing for war (14:31-32)
         The lost coin (15:8-10)
         The father and the two sons (15:11-32)
         The prudent steward (16:1-9)
         The rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31)
         The servant's duties (17:7-10)
         The unjust judge (18:1-8)
         The Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9-14)
(6) Certain episodes in the passion narrative, like the trial before Herod and the words from the cross (23:6-12, 34, 40-43, 46)
(7) The resurrection appearances, especiall the Emmaus experience (24:13-53)

(Taken from An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation by David A. deSilva, pg. 315.)

Luke is unique in its place in the New Testament because it has an intentional second volume, the book of Acts...

Luke and Acts make a special contribution to the New Testament because not only do they contain material not found anywhere else in the New Testament but because they are written to "tell the story" that we could not piece together without Luke's writings.

Acts contains a number of unique elements in the New Testament...

Acts contains a number of unique and significant elements that are found nowhere else in the New Testament. The following are just a few of those elements.

-- The preaching of the Apostles and others in the life of the early church
-- The history of the spread of the church from vastly Jewish to primarily Gentile
-- The story of the conversion and ministry of Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus)
-- Insights into the missionary nature of the early church

For these reasons and other it is important to read, study, and appreciate the contribution of Luke-Acts not only to the New Testament but to our understanding of God (a.k.a. theology) and our understanding of the nature and mission of the church.

Luke and Acts, written by the same author must therefore be read as one piece of literature. It is obvious from a study of the two books that the organization is both detailed and intentional. The beginning of Luke begins with the explanation that Rome rules the world and more specifically the world of the Jewish people. But the king is born, his name is Jesus. At the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts Jesus asserts his kingship through his death, resurrection, and ascension. At the conclusion of Acts we see that the gospel has reached Rome and learn from the writings of Paul that many in Caesar's household had become believers (Philippians 4:22). So we see Luke showing that who the true king really is.

Luke also writes in different styles. In the original language in which Luke wrote (called Koine Greek) we see three distinct writing styles emerge in the first three chapters of Luke alone. First, in the introduction we see Greek that is very similar to the scientific and official documents of Luke's day. The infancy stories of John and Jesus are written in very "Hebrew" style that sounds a lot like other Hebrew literature of the day. Starting in chapter three and continuing on throught the rest of the book of Luke, we see a style that is very much like Roman history with a twist, Luke's writing is both historically accurate and theologically rich. 

The following is an illustration of how Luke-Acts is structured to form one literary unit. This is adapted from the rich survey resource of Craig Blomberg entitled, Jesus and the Gospels.

A picture of all four Gospel writers. Luke is the one on the far left signified by the symbol of the bull/calf he is "sitting on". This symbol is because Luke writes his Gospel with Jesus painted as the sacrfice and priest for all nations. By Peter Paul Rubens in 1614.

Authorship

The books of Luke and Acts are technically written by an anonymous author. No where in the text of Luke-Acts does the author explicitly identify himself. However, there are two kinds of evidence that can and do help us to know who the author of the books we call Luke and Acts was.

Internal Evidence

The author of Luke and Acts was a travel companion of Paul. This can be seen in the "we" passages that are scattered throughout the book of Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). We also know that Luke was one of the travel companions of Paul and had a close relationship with him (Colossians 4:14).

External Evidence

The authorship of Luke and Acts being contributed to Luke, the travel companion of the Apostle Paul also comes from early reliable historical sources outside of the Bible itself. These include Eusebius, The Muratorian Canon (which is the earliest manuscript listing the books of the New Testament and many of the authors), Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and the document known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue.

In the history of the church Luke has been unanimously credited as the author of Luke and Acts until more liberal scholarship in the nineteenth century questioned his authorship. It is safe to say that Luke, travel companion of Paul, and first century Christian and missionary was the author of Luke and Acts.

Recipient(s)

Both Luke and Acts are written to an individual named Theophilus (Luke 1:3-4; Acts 1:1-2). Some scholars believe that Theophilus (whose name means "friend of God") is actually referring to a group of people. However, because Luke refers to him as "most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:3-4) most scholars believe him to be a well-known Roman official who more than likely was financing the writing of Luke and Acts. (Paper was scarce in the first century and documents the size of Luke and Acts written by hand on parchment would have been particularly expensive, especially if more than one copy was created.) However, we also know from history that documents like this that were "commissioned" by a wealthy patron were often made for the express purpose of spreading them to larger audiences in multiple copies. It is extremely likely that this is exactly the case with both Luke and Acts. Therefore Luke writes specifically for Theophilus "so that [he] may know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught." (Luke 1:4), and more generally for the believers who would read his two-part work for centuries to come.

The recipients therefore for the books of Luke and Acts are: (1) Theophilus, (2) The early church (especially the Gentile believers), and (3) for all those who would choose to follow Jesus and seek to learn what it means to be the people of God who are living according to his will and acting as his agents and ambassadors in the world.

Dating

There are two theories in scholarship as to when the books of Luke and Acts were written. One is the early dating (60-63 AD) and the other a later dating (70-85 AD). The argument for each theory revolves primarily around one or two features of Luke-Acts: (1) the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and (2) the seemingly abrupt ending of the book of Luke.

Arguments for the earlier dating of Luke-Acts (60-63 AD)

Proponents of an earlier dating for Luke-Acts point to the details concerning the destruction of the Temple (Luke 21:5-38) as a powerful and detailed prediction of the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in AD 70, and also see the seemingly abrupt ending of Acts as appropriate since that was the current situation when Luke was finished writing the book of Acts.

Arguments for the later dating of Luke-Acts (70-85 AD)

Proponents of an earlier dating for Luke-Acts point to the details concerning the destruction of the Temple (Luke 21:5-38) as a powerful and detailed emphasis placed by Luke on an even that had either just recently or in the last decade had transpired. Also, concerning the abrupt ending of the book of Acts simply state that Luke's intentions were simply to show that the gospel reached Rome and that historical details after that point were outside the scope of the purpose for Luke's writing.

While scholars do not really have a consensus concerning the exact dating of Luke-Acts, it seems most likely that the earlier dating is closer to the historical situation out of which Luke wrote both the books of Luke and Acts.

12th Cent. Illuminated Manuscript of LukeIntroduction to Luke-Acts

• Written by Luke, a Gentile Doctor (and possibly also a lawyer) who was a sometimes travel companion of Paul. (Technically Luke-Acts is anonymous, but we early church historians unanimously declare Luke to be the author. This is further evidenced by the "we" passages in Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; and 27:1-28:16.)
• Most likely written between 60-63 AD, but possibly as late as 80 AD.
• The original audience was more than likely primarily Gentile with some Jews also in their communities.
• Both Luke and Acts are dedicated to Theophilus, most likely an important Roman official and the patron (financial sponsor) of this work by Luke.
• Both Luke-Acts were probably widely distributed in the years immediately following their writing.
• Luke and Acts makes up over 1/4 of the entire New Testament.
• Acts is the only book to tell the history of the church outside of what we glean about specific congregations from the epistles.
• Luke-Acts is written in some of the finest Greek in the New Testament with various styles and nuances that show the care and detail that Luke put into both documents.