Luke and the Synoptic Gospels

When I was in college, I chose to take History of the New Testament. It was taught by a liberal Chaplain who was also a professor at the small college I attended. He looked at the New Testament from a purely historical perspective. When we studied the synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke), we focused on the discrepancies between the Gospels. The differences were called discrepancies.

Little rabbit trail...
Yesterday on the way to church, my husband cornered me and challenged me to sit through Sunday school. In the process of having and nursing 3 children over the past 5 years, I have gotten out of the habit of being able to focus and sit and listen (without talking) for any period of time. I haven't been able to sit through a church service in a long time without one of my children needing me. And I have seen this in myself, but it took my husband's challenge and encouragement to go and sit through Sunday School.

I am so thankful I did! I left that college class unsettled about the Synoptic Gospels. I chalked it up as one of those things I just didn't understand and likely never would. I struggled with it. It left me unsettled, but I just didn't know what to do with it! But, yesterday during Sunday School, the light went on and I was so blessed to sit and listen as the teacher (who had been called at the last minute and did a great job) explained why the synoptic gospels are different. They are NOT discrepancies, but rather differences in perspective.

Let me back up and explain one more quick thing--one more quick rabbit trail. This summer I had a unique experience that I will never forget. A friend, her granddaughter, and I all saw the same event happen--a little girl fall across the street on the sidewalk--but we all saw different things. My friend saw a little girl hit her head and her granddaughter get upset. The granddaughter saw a little girl she didn't know fall and two adults not run out the door and across the street to help. I saw three little children run to the window to stare and gawk at the little girl who had fallen, but from where I stood, I did not see her hit her head. I only saw her fall on her leg and scrape her knee. I knew the little girl and I knew she was not a little girl who did not like to be stared at. We all saw different things in that moment. We were all eyewitnesses to the same event.

That experience taught me a lot about perspective. It's important to know what everyone else has seen. Sometimes there are things we each miss. Sometimes things look different from different angles. And we all bring different background knowledge to the situation.

Another example...Francis Chan wrote the book Crazy Love from a strongly Southern California perspective--I grew up there, so I think it's okay for me to say that. In Southern California, faith is very black and white. You go to church if you are a believer and you don't go if you're not. His writing style in his second book is very reflective of that. It is very blunt. He makes inflammatory statements and then explains them.

But, back to what I learned yesterday. I am using my notes and the teacher's handouts as my sources.

Matthew, an apostle, was a Jew writing to the Jews about the coming of the King.
Mark, a Jew, was writing to the Gentiles from a Jewish perspective, a concise telling of Christ's mission and work to bring about the salvation of man.
Luke, a Gentile, was the only gentile contributor to the new Testament, was writing to the Gentiles from a Gentile's perspective!

Perspective! They were all retelling what happened. Early writers worked for patrons because they didn't get money for books back then. That often shaped how they retold what had happened. That was why the church fathers took everything that was written and then went about confirming what was scriptural and what was not. Those books then became the canon of scripture in the New Testament. Because they were writing for a patron, the authors writing could end up very biased. Josephus' writings are an example of that. Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100), was a Jewish historian who became a Roman citizen and wrote for Roman patrons. So, he cast the Romans in a good light and the Jews in a bad one.

But, back to Luke. Luke's account was determined to be scriptural.
Luke was a gentile writing to the gentiles. He includes particular details that are unique to a gentile perspective. He will retell what Mark said (which was brief) and then often add details that were very pertinent to Gentiles. An example is the story of Naaman and the Widow of Sidon in Luke 4:25-28. Naaman and the Widow of Sidon were both gentiles themselves. They are not mentioned in Matthew or Mark for that reason! But, to Luke that was important. Luke is also the only one to include Mary's account as a witness. Josephus is known for writing that women's accounts as witnesses are not worth anything.

Luke was writing about the universal kingdom--that Christ is the universal Savior and that he came to establish a universal, not a Jewish, Kingdom. This can also be seen in how he traces the lineage of Christ. He traces it back to Adam. Whereas, Matthew traces the lineage back to Abram.

My mind has now found peace and understanding about the Synoptic Gospels. That is a blessing to me. The differences are not discrepancies--I understand that now. It was just a matter of difference in perspective! I wanted to share this this morning in the hope that it might encourage you if you've ever wondered about it, too!

PS please forgive all of my rabbit trails. I need to get this posted and go get Eli who has now woken up!