Why did Luke write the book of Luke (and the book of Acts) and why is it relevant today?

Luke explains at the beginning of his gospel that he wrote it for someone, a man called Theophilus, who like Luke, had heard about Jesus and the tumult caused by his life and death. They had not met Jesus, did not live where he had lived and were not of his Jewish nationality. They had heard remarkable things about him and wanted to know what was accurate, what could be confirmed by evidence.   

The written record of Luke will have relevance to anyone who similarly is intrigued by the life and death of Jesus, having not met him, lived where he lived and been of a different nationality, but wanting to explore the truth about him.

What other written records would Luke have seen?

The gospel written by Mark, probably based on the recollections of the apostle Peter, was written earlier, and Luke would have had sight of a copy of this book before embarking on his own. It appears that there was also a book of quotes of which there are no copies today. Scholars call this ‘Q’, possibly a set of notes taken by one of Jesus’ disciples.  

How did Luke go about discovering the facts?

Luke wrote one account about Jesus and the church beginnings. However, it is now contained in the bible in two sections, the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, separated by the gospel of John. You can skip past John and it makes sense when reading from one straight on to the other. Half-way through the book of Acts in chapter 16 (verses 8,9) Luke joined in and became part of the history. Up to Acts chapter 16 verse 8, Luke uses ‘they’, here referring to Paul’s journeying. From verse 9 onwards it becomes ‘we’. We can therefore assume that Luke joined Paul at Troas and was with him in the events detailed through to the end of the book.

Luke was with Paul when he (that is Paul) wrote to the church in Colossae, sending his greetings and Paul calling him a physician (Colossians chapter 4 verse 14).

To establish the accuracy of the facts, Luke wanted to obtain eye-witness accounts. In legal processes two witnesses were important in confirming facts. Luke would have sought out as many eye-witnesses as he was able to locate. He then would have checked their statements and recorded the information that was corroborated by more than one person. He would have heard Pauls’ story and in his journeying with him would have met people who had met Jesus.

The amount of detail in his book seems to confirm that Luke had obtained these eye-witness accounts directly. Luke was with Paul when he (Paul) was arrested and imprisoned in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts chapter 21. This may have been the time when Luke took the opportunity to travel around Israel retracing Jesus’ steps, seeking out and talking to as many eye-witnesses as he could find. When he was satisfied that he had gathered accurate attested information it would get included in the book. The detail of the early chapters and other references strongly suggest the Luke spoke to Jesus’ mother Mary and/or her remaining family. He would have either spoken to the named people in the book or sufficient people who knew them to be satisfied with the accuracy of the information.

The book written by Luke should not therefore be seen as comprehensive but includes everything that he could confirm as factual. For example, the gospel written by Matthew has some different material. However, Matthew was himself one of Jesus’ disciples and could write from his direct recollections.

Luke skilfully draws this material together into a helpful structure, using themes he considered important and having regard to time-lines where possible. Having done all the research he must have felt strongly that it was worth recording. We do not know how it went down with Theophilus but the book evidently became well used and found its way into the New Testament when it was compiled.