Stewards Of God's Grace

Stewards Of God's Grace

July 15th

Luke 12:42 'And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?'

LUKE 12:42

A steward is a person who has been entrusted with administering someone else's wealth or affairs. The possessions a steward controls are not his own and he does not have the freedom to do with them as he wishes. He is supposed to carry out the desires of the one who made him steward.

A banker is a steward. He has been entrusted with other people's money. He is free to invest that money wisely in a way that will benefit his depositors and stockholders, but would be sent to jail if he took all that money and simply consumed it upon himself. A steward is accountable (Lk. 16:2) to someone else for the use of that person's money. The money does not belong to him even though it is in his possession.

This parable, and other scriptures (1 Cor. 4:1; Ti. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10), describes every believer as a steward of God's grace. The wealth, talents, and abilities we possess, as well as the revelation of God's love that we've been given, are not our own to do with as we please. We have received these things from God and are therefore accountable to Him for the use or misuse of these gifts. Keeping this in mind is essential for fulfilling our obligation to God as stewards of His 'manifold grace.'

AWMI.net

What is the Book of Acts?

Introduction to Acts

Since the second century A.D., the book of Acts has commonly been called, “The Acts of the Apostles.” In comprehending more thoroughly and correctly the contents of the book, we may more accurately say that it is “The Acts of the Holy Spirit Through the Believers.” We find that ten of the apostles’ “ministries” and “acts” are never mentioned; whereas, several “acts” of non-apostolic believers are mentioned (Acts 8:5-8; 9:10-11, and 17).

The book of Acts is the most significant handbook of information on the workings of the Holy Spirit in the world today. It is the practical working out of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-20, and Luke 24:46-49) and literally fulfills Mark 16:20, “They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.” The Greek word for “working” in that verse is “SUNERGEO,” and it literally means “to be a fellow-worker.”
 (Strong’s Concordance). This relationship between the Holy Spirit and the believers is clearly portrayed throughout the book of Acts.

Whereas “the former treatise” (that is, the Gospel of Luke) dealt with “all that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1), the book of Acts describes what Jesus continues to do and teach through the lives of the believers (His church). We might say, “These are the acts of the resurrected Christ through the believers.”

As a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the witness of Christ and His teachings spread through Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8). Certainly, one of the aims of this book was to show that the Jewish Messiah and His atonement were for all people, for all time.

Authorship

a. Internal evidence: Although no claim is made in the book as to the origin, there is much internal evidence that Luke is the author.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were addressed to Theophilus (Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1). This similarity, coupled with the statement, “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus.”
(Acts 1:1), seems to leave no doubt that Luke was the author.

Furthermore, a careful reading of the book of Acts makes it clear that its author was a companion of Paul and a partner in many of his travels. Other companions such as Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and Trophimus are all excluded from being the author due to the wording of Acts 20:4-5.

However, the Apostle Paul himself stated that Luke was with him during his imprisonment in Rome (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24), making special mention in 2 Timothy 4:11 that “only Luke is with me.” This presence of Luke with Paul during his imprisonment, combined with the narrator’s use of the word “we” throughout his accounts of Paul’s imprisonment, provides conclusive evidence of Luke’s authorship.

b. External evidence: The extra-biblical sources overwhelmingly support Luke as the author of the book of Acts. The Muratorian Canon, which Irenaeus (A.D. 133-200), Tertullian (A.D. 160-200), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215), and Origen (A.D. 185-254) all supported, held Luke to be the author of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke.

The Recipient of the Book of Acts

The recipient of this book, as well as the Gospel of Luke, was a man named Theophilus (Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1). Theophilus could possibly have been a prominent Roman official recently converted to Christianity. The term “most excellent” (Luke 1:3) came from the Greek word meaning “strongest, i.e. (in dignity) very honourable” (Strong’s Concordance).

It is also possible that Theophilus may not have been a person at all. The word “Theophilus” is made of two Greek words: “THEOS,” which means “a deity, especially...the supreme Divinity” (Strong’s Concordance), and “PHILOS,” which means “a friend” (Strong’s Concordance). It may be that Luke wrote to a “friend of God” whose real name he did not mention, or to everyone who was a friend of God (John 15:14).

Whichever the case, Luke’s two-volume work shows us the history of Christianity and bridges the gap between the Gospels and the teaching of the Pauline epistles. It is most valuable in understanding the truth of the Gospel and people’s response to it.

Date of Writing

The time of the writing of this book is probably around A.D. 63 since Luke ends this book with Paul being a prisoner at Rome for at least two years (Acts 28:30). It seems inevitable that Luke would have given the outcome of Paul’s trial if it had been written at a later date. Most historians believe the A.D. 63 year to be correct.

About the Author

a. Internal information: Luke is mentioned by that name three times in the New Testament (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24 [Lucas]). He is the one referred to in the “we” portions of Acts (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16). It is possible that the Lucius spoke of in Acts 13:1 and Romans 16:21 could be the same Luke who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. If the Lucius spoke of in Romans 16:21 was this Luke, then he would be related to Paul.

Luke was referred to by Paul in Colossians 4:14 as “the beloved physician.” In the Gospel of Luke, the attention given to the miracles Jesus performed reflects a physician’s background (see note 2 at Luke 6:6). There is no evidence that he ministered as a physician after his conversion. On the contrary, if he had practiced medicine alongside Paul as some suggest, then he was remiss in not recording even one example of this in the book of Acts.

It is clear, however, that Luke was a close companion of the Apostle Paul. Luke joined Paul in Troas, as can be seen by the narration changing from the third person (Acts 16:4) to the first person plural (Acts 16:10-11). This first-person narration continued until Paul left Philippi heading for Thessalonica. This leads us to believe that Luke left the group in Philippi, then rejoined them again in Acts 20:5.
The rest of the book of Acts continues to use “we,” and Paul’s references to Luke (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24) show us that Luke was with Paul during his imprisonment (A.D. 60 to at least 62). In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul said, “Only Luke is with me.” No doubt, they must have had close fellowship during that time.

b. External information: External evidence about Luke abounds. Eusebius and Jerome both assigned Luke as being a native of Antioch in Syria. Nearly all physicians of his day were Asiatic Greeks educated at Tarsus in Cilicia. This would further lead one to think that Luke was a Greek.

Eusebius wrote, “And Luke, who was a native of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part, companion of Paul, and who was not slightly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us two books, divinely inspired proofs of the art of healing souls, which he won from them.”

Jerome wrote in A.D. 384, “Luke, a physician of Antioch, not unskilled in the Hebrew language, as his words show, was a follower of the Apostle Paul, and the companion of all his wanderings. He wrote the gospel of which the same Paul makes mention.”

Additional material about Luke exists, but it is based mainly on tradition and not fact.

Who was John?

Introduction

Introduction To John

The Gospel of John is unique among the four Gospels. Only seven out of all the events recorded in this Gospel are shared by the other three Gospel writers. This Gospel does not give as much attention to the happenings in the ministry of Jesus as it does to the teachings of Jesus. Many have referred to it as “the Spiritual Gospel” or “the Gospel to the Church.”

The writer carefully selected the events and teachings of Jesus to portray Him as the Son of God. This emphasis on the deity of Jesus (John 1:1) is in stark contrast with the other Gospels where these truths, although present, are not given the same preeminence.

As will be noted when we discuss the date this Gospel was written, it is probable that the Gospel of John was written a full generation after the other Gospels and for the specific purpose of refuting the sect of the Gnostics who believed Jesus was not God. Therefore, we see doctrines expounded much more in this Gospel than the other three (John 3:3; 6:35, 48, 54; 8:56, 58; etc.).

Authorship

a. Internal evidence: Because of the many noticeable differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels, and especially the advanced doctrinal statements, there has been much controversy about the authorship and date of writing. However, there is more internal evidence to establish the origin of this Gospel than in the cases of the other three Gospels.

In John 1:14, the phrase “we beheld his glory” shows that the author was at least an eyewitness of the events he was recording. Many events recorded in this Gospel would support the belief that the author was not only an eyewitness but also very closely associated with Jesus, because of the detailed accounts he gave of private conversations and thoughts (John 3:1-21, 4:4-30, 11:1-44, 13:1-30, etc.).

The terminology used in this Gospel, referring to the “beloved disciple” or “the disciple whom Jesus loved” also points to John. This manner of referring to this disciple is used five times (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, and 20), and in John 21:2-7, we can see that it had to be designated one of seven apostles. Of these seven, we can rule out Simon Peter as the beloved disciple, because of John 13:23-24. Because of this particular title assigned to this disciple, it is probable that the “beloved disciple” was one of the three comprising Jesus’ inner circle of disciples (Matthew 17:1, 26:37; and Mark 5:37). With Peter excluded, that only leaves James and his brother John. James was the first of the disciples to suffer martyrdom, as recorded in Acts 12:1-2. Therefore, John is left as this beloved disciple who testified of these things (John 21:20-24).

Also, the name John is not used in this Gospel except about John the Baptist. If the author did not want to draw attention to himself (hence the use of “the beloved disciple” and “another disciple” [John 18:15-16]) then the lack of mentioning a prominent apostle, such as John, by name could be another indication that John was the author.

b. External evidence: External evidence as to the authorship of John abounds. Irenaeus wrote not later than A.D. 182 “that the Valentinians avail themselves in the most complete manner of the Gospel, according to John.” This quote not only shows the frequent reference to John as being the author of the fourth Gospel by the latter part of the second century but even those who were considered heretics by the church (the Valentinians) also recognized the Gospel of John. Friend and foe alike attributed this Gospel to John.

Tertullian, who wrote in the latter part of the second century, quoted from every chapter of Matthew, Luke, and John. In his work, he said, “Among the apostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us; among the companions of the apostles, Luke and Mark renovate it.”

Clement of Alexandria wrote around A.D. 190, “John wrote a spiritual Gospel, divinely moved by the Holy Spirit, on observing that the things obvious to the senses had been clearly outlined in the earlier Gospels.” He also made nearly 500 quotations from the four Gospels.

The Muratorian Canon, written not later than A.D. 170, says, “Of the fourth of the Gospels, (the author) was John, one of the disciples.”

Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp who was the friend and pupil of St. John, said that John “for sixty years after the Ascension preached orally, till the end of Domitian’s reign; and after the death of Domitian, having returned to Ephesus, he was induced to write (his Gospel) concerning the divinity of Christ, co-eternal with the Father; in which he refutes those heretics, Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans.”

Conclusion About Authorship

From the internal evidence, we can prove that the “beloved disciple” who wrote this Gospel had to be one of seven men mentioned in John 21:2. Peter or James could not be the author. Of the remaining five men, only one, John, was a part of the inner circle of the apostles and would be the logical one to be referred to in such an intimate manner.

This last conclusion is the only point that could be questioned at all, and in the light of the overwhelming universal acceptance of John as the author by the middle of the second century, it can be assumed that John was indeed the author.

It does need to be noted that there have been and still are many who have contested John as being the author of this Gospel. In researching this, I have come across hundreds of pages of debate on this subject. However, the arguments against John being the author are based on suppositions that I find to be incorrect and did not come up until well after the second century had embraced this Gospel and its author, John.

Date of Writing

a. Internal evidence: There is no direct statement within this Gospel to establish a time for its writing. It has been argued at length that the “sophisticated” doctrine taught in this Gospel dates this writing in the latter half of the second century, and some believe even into the third century.

However, it is not hard to believe that an apostle who spent three and one-half years with the most excellent Teacher of all time could have such a clear understanding of the deity of Jesus and His preexistence. Peter made a tremendous statement of his faith in the Deity of Jesus in Matthew 16:16, and Jesus said, “my Father, which is in heaven” had revealed it to him. Evidently, the Apostle John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could do the same.

The thrust of the book is apparent, as has already been dealt with–to reveal Jesus as God in the flesh. This emphasis could be interpreted to be a direct attempt to counter the doctrine of the Gnostics and Nicolaitans, and that would make the date of writing after A.D. 85. This is very possible but cannot be stated as fact based on the Gospel of John alone.

b. External evidence: Again, there is much information outside the Bible about the time John wrote this Gospel. As has already been noted, Tertullian referred to the Gospel of John in the latter part of the second century. Clement of Alexandria in A.D. 190 quoted from the Gospels (including John) nearly 500 times.

Irenaeus, as has already been quoted, stated that John reported the Gospel orally for sixty years before he committed it to write. This would place the date of writing not earlier than A.D. 92 or 93. Irenaeus also quoted from the four Gospels not less than 500 times with 100 of these quotes coming from the Gospel of John. This establishes as certain the widespread use of John’s Gospel in the year A.D. 180.

Again, Clement of Alexandria stated that John wrote his Gospel from Ephesus not long before his death, at the request of friends. The tradition found in these early writings indicates that John died a natural death at one hundred years of age. If these statements are correct, then we would have the dates this Gospel was written as A.D. 92-110. Heracleon actually wrote a complete commentary on this Gospel sometime between A.D. 125-155. This Gospel must have been written a considerable time before that.

About the Author

a. Internal information: John is introduced in Matthew 10:2 as being one of the twelve apostles, brother of James, and son of Zebedee. By comparing Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40, we can also see that John’s mother’s name was Salome and that she followed Jesus during His early ministry (Matthew 20:20) and was with the other women at the tomb on Resurrection morning (Mark 15:40). John was one of the three apostles who were privileged to be with Jesus when the others were not (Matthew 17:1, 26:37; and Mark 5:37).

John and his brother James, in their zeal, wanted to call fire down from heaven and consume the Samaritans but were rebuked by Jesus (Luke 9:54-56). This might be the reason they were given the title “Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder,” by our Lord Jesus (Mark 3:17). Salome, the mother of James and John, asked Jesus (apparently with her sons’ consent) if they could sit next to Him on His throne in His kingdom (Matthew 20:20).

Following the reasoning that we used under Authorship, a. Internal evidence, we can see that John was the “beloved disciple.” He may well have been the “other disciple” mentioned in John 18:15 and 20:4. If so, that would mean John stayed with Jesus during His trial before the high priest (John 18:15). Certainly, John was with Jesus throughout the crucifixion, and Jesus commanded John to take care of his mother, Mary (John 19:26-27).

John became one of the “pillars” of the early church (Galatians 2:9). John was probably the author of four other books in the Bible also: 1Jo, 2Jo, 3Jo, and Re. If this was the same John who wrote Revelation (Revelation 1:9), then we know that John was exiled to the island of Patmos because of the Word of God and his testimony of Jesus.

No mention is made in Scripture of how he died. John did note in John 21:23 that there was a common belief among the brethren in his life that Jesus said he would not die until His second return. John dispelled this in that same verse.

b. External information: There is an abundance of external data on John. Polycarp and Papias were both closely associated with John and supply us with details, along with many others.

A brief summary of external information would be (1) John zealously defended the faith by disputing with the Gnostics and Nicolaitans. One writer reports John as refusing to remain in the same room with one of the heretic leaders (compare 2 John 10-11). (2) John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos (Revelation 1:9), then later returned to Ephesus where he wrote this Gospel and the three epistles, and finally died in Ephesus at the age of one hundred. There are tourist attractions today at the ancient site of Ephesus that are claimed to be John’s tomb.

Many other references to John are available but are too numerous to list and lack verification.

Who was Luke?

Introduction To Luke

The Gospel of Luke is the longest of the four Gospels even though it has been divided into four chapters less than was Matthew. It was written primarily for the Gentile Christians to portray Jesus as the Son of Man. In Luke 3:23-38, Jesus’ genealogy is traced all the way back to Adam. This is quite different than Matthew’s genealogy, which only traces Jesus’ ancestry back to Abraham, and this reflects Luke’s intent to portray Jesus as the Savior of everyone.

The Gospel of Luke only records nine Old Testament prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, while Matthew (the Gospel to the Jews) records twenty-five prophecies; Mark, eleven prophecies; and John, fifteen prophecies. This is more evidence that this Gospel was written with a Gentile audience in mind.

Eusebius and Jerome (A.D. 330 and A.D. 384, respectively) wrote that Luke was a native of Antioch in Syria. If true, that would make Luke the only Gentile writer of Scripture and would further explain the unmistakable effort to present Jesus as the Savior of all people.

Luke’s desire to present Jesus to the Gentiles can also be seen in many of the events that he alone among the Gospel writers reported, such as the widow’s son being raised from the dead at Nain (Luke 7:11-17); Jesus’ forgiveness of the sinful woman who fell at His feet despite the Jew’s objections (Luke 7:36-50); the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37); the parable of the great supper where the guests wouldn’t come (Luke 14:15-24); the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, which illustrated His great love for the lost (Luke 15:1-10); the story of the prodigal son and his brother (Luke 15:11-32); and the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:12-19). The material covered from Luke 9:51 through 18:14 is not given in any of the other Gospels and would be of particular interest to Gentiles. Nearly one-third of Luke’s events are peculiar to his Gospel.

Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, as were Matthew, John, and possibly Mark. However, he stated that he had a perfect understanding of all the events in Jesus’ life, and one of his stated purposes in writing this Gospel was to set those events in their proper order. Thus, Luke was the historian of the Gospel writers.

Luke mentions in his Gospel that many had “taken in hand” to write an orderly account of the life and ministry of Jesus. However, he apparently did not think they succeeded, and therefore, he, being led by the Holy Spirit, set out to give us the accurate account. With many reports in circulation, both written and oral, it is easy to see why an authorized version was needed. The early, extra-biblical sources we have access to mention Luke’s Gospel more than any of the other Gospels and show that Luke accomplished his purpose.

Luke alone mentioned the angels’ appearance to Zacharias and Elizabeth, and except for seven verses in Matthew, all of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus were recorded by Luke. Luke alone also gave us many of the details of Jesus’ life before his baptism by John. These are details that those who were not eyewitnesses themselves would have been interested in and that were apparently missing from the oral accounts.

Luke mentioned historical data more than the other Gospel writers: the taxing took when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2), a listing of contemporary Roman and Jewish rulers (Luke 3:1-2), and Pilate’s and Herod’s jurisdictions (Luke 23:1 and 12). Taken with the book of Acts, which is a sequel to Luke (Acts 1:1), we have much more of the historical facts from which we date Bible events.

Authorship

a. Internal evidence: The internal evidence for Luke being the author of this Gospel comes mainly from the book of Acts. Luke can readily be seen as the author of Acts, and by comparing Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:3, we can see that these two books were written to the same person, with reference being made in Acts to the recent letter written to this man (Theophilus). Thus, we can assume that Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, also wrote this Gospel.

b. External evidence: There is as much or more external evidence to establish Luke as the author of this Gospel as to prove the authorship of any of the Gospels. Indeed, most of the books of the New Testament and their authors had been universally accepted by the latter portion of the second century. Before the year 200, Irenaeus in Gaul, Clement in Alexandria, and Tertullian in Carthage all mentioned the widespread acceptance of the books that comprise our New Testament. Justin Martyr reported that the memoirs of the apostles (as the four Gospels were then called) were read in the weekly services of the church (about A.D. 150) as being equal with the writings of the Old Testament prophets.

The Muratorian Canon is a manuscript that was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and it contains some of the writings of Chrysostom. This document has been dated by scholars from internal evidence as being written in A.D. 170. Chrysostom says, “The Gospel of St. Luke stands third in order, having been written by St. Luke the physician, the companion of St. Paul, who, not being himself an eyewitness, based his narrative on such information as he could obtain, beginning from the birth of John.”

Justin Martyr also stated that two of these memoirs of the apostles were written by two apostles, and the other two, by two of their followers. This would refer to Luke as being a follower of the Apostle Paul (2 Timothy 4:11).

Date of Writing

a. Internal evidence: There is no definite indication within the Gospel of Luke as to the time of writing. Some scholars have argued that Luke’s record of Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21:5-6 dates the book before the destruction of Jerusalem, but as has already been detailed in the Introduction to Matthew (see Life for Today Study Bible Notes, Introduction to Matthew, Date of Writing, a. Internal evidence), that is not conclusive proof.

Luke’s reference to the many who had tried to write down an orderly account of Jesus’ life (Luke 1:1) definitely shows a considerable lapse of time between Jesus’ ascension and Luke’s writing of this Gospel.

b. External evidence: With so many extra-biblical sources mentioning Luke being the author of this Gospel, it is surprising that we have no mention of the date in which it was written.

Valentinus, who wrote between A.D. 139 and 160, mentioned, among other books, the Gospel of St. Luke as Scripture. Heracleon wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, which was put out before the middle of the second century, and some fragments of this still exist. Tatian wrote a harmony of the Gospels shortly after the middle of the second century, called the Diatessaron, and it was prevalent.

From these references, we can see that the Gospel of Luke was accepted and in widespread use by the year A.D. 150. Other recommendations from the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” and Clement of Rome take the date back to no later than A.D. 90. Beyond that, there is no evidence.

Since Luke travelled with Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), it has been suggested that Luke wrote this Gospel during one of Paul’s long imprisonments in Caesarea (A.D. 60-62) or Rome (A.D. 63-64). This is conjecture. Even though it may be true, it cannot be verified.

About the Author

a. Internal information: Luke is mentioned by that name three times in the New Testament (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24). He was the one referred to in the “we” portions of Acts (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16). It is possible that the Lucius spoke of in Acts 13:1 and Romans 16:21 could have been the Luke who wrote the Gospel and the book of Acts. If the Lucius spoke of in Romans 16:21 was this Luke, then he would have been related to Paul.

Luke was referred to by Paul in Colossians 4:14 as the “beloved physician.” His attention to the miracles Jesus performed in his Gospel reflects a physician’s background. There is no evidence he ministered as a physician after his conversion. If he had “practiced medicine” alongside Paul, as some suggest, then he was remiss in not recording even one example of this in the book of Acts. It is clear, however, that Luke was a close companion of the Apostle Paul. Luke joined Paul in Troas, as can be seen by the narration changing from the third person (Acts 16:4) to the first person plural (Acts 16:10-11). This first-person narration continues until Paul left Philippi headed for Thessalonica. This leads us to believe that Luke left the group in Philippi and did not join Paul again until nearly seven years later when Paul again passed through Philippi, and the narration again changes to “we” (Acts 20:5-6). The rest of the book of Acts continues to use “we,” and Paul’s references to Luke (Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24) show us that Luke was with Paul during his imprisonment (A.D. 60 to at least A.D. 64). 2 Timothy 4:11 reveals that for a period of time, only Luke remained with Paul. No doubt they must have had close fellowship during that time.

As has already been noted, Luke wrote this Gospel with all people in mind, not just the Jews, and that would be the natural thing for a follower of Paul to do. There is no reason not to believe that Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ love toward those who didn’t earn it (ex. Luke 17:11-19) reflected the influence of Paul.

b. External information: External evidence about Luke abounds. As mentioned in the beginning of this introduction, Eusebius and Jerome both assigned Luke to being a native of Antioch in Syria. Nearly all physicians of his day were Asiatic Greeks educated at Tarsus in Cilicia. This would further lead one to think that Luke was a Greek.

Eusebius wrote, “And Luke, who was a native of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part, companion of Paul, and who was not slightly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us two books, divinely inspired proofs of the art of healing souls, which he won from them.”

Jerome wrote in A.D. 384, “Luke, a physician of Antioch, not unskilled in the Hebrew language, as his works show, was a follower of the Apostle Paul, and the companion of all his wanderings. He wrote the Gospel of which the same Paul makes mention.”

The Pseudo-Athanasius records, “The Gospel, according to Luke, was dictated by the Apostle Paul, but written and put out by Luke, the blessed apostle and physician.”

Much more material about Luke exists, but it is based mainly on tradition and not fact.

Who was Mark?

Introduction To Mark

Mark’s record is the shortest of all the Gospel accounts. This enables the reader to grasp more of an overall understanding of Jesus’ life than is readily available in the other Gospels. Mark, unlike Matthew, did not write his Gospel to the Jews only. Explanations are given throughout this Gospel that would be unnecessary if all the readers were Jewish. For instance, when Mark mentioned Jordan in Mark 1:5, he referred to it as “the river of Jordan.” Also, in Mark 2:18, he gave an explanation of some of the Pharisees’ traditions, which occasioned their question. Mark 11:13 reveals that the time of figs was not yet. This would be unnecessary to say to a Jew who was familiar with the climate of Jerusalem during the feast of the Passover.
 All of these examples point to this Gospel being written to, or at least to include a Gentile audience.

Authorship

a.) Internal evidence: There is no internal evidence that proves Mark’s authorship. There is a reference to “a certain young man” who was present in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52). It has been supposed that this seemingly insignificant event was recorded because it was about the author, Mark. Mark was the only writer who recorded this. We do know that Mark lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), and use of the word “certain” implies that this was a particular young man who was being pointed out. This reasoning is exciting and could be accurate, but it is not sufficient proof to establish Mark as the author of this Gospel.

b.) External evidence: There is an abundance of evidence outside of the Gospel itself to indicate Mark as having written this Gospel. As with Matthew (see Life for Today Study Bible Notes, Introduction to Matthew, Authorship, b. External evidence), such widespread acceptance of Mark as the author so close to his own lifetime and ministry shows that his family and converts did not contest his authorship and gives further credibility to this belief.

Eusebius (A.D. 330) quoted Papias (A.D. 130) as saying, “Mark, being the interpreter of St. Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them; for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but he was afterwards a follower of St. Peter.”

Jerome, writing in A.D. 384, said, “St. Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle, St. Peter, and the first bishop of the Church of Alexandria, related what things he heard his master preaching, rather according to the truth of the facts, than according to the order of the things that were done.”

Jerome went on to say that Mark wrote a short Gospel at Rome at the request of the brethren there. Peter approved of it and appointed it to be read in the churches by his authority.

These and other references show the early church’s general acceptance of Mark as the author of the second Gospel, and so it is permissible for us to assume the same.

Date of Writing

a.) Internal evidence: Nothing within the Gospel itself pointed to a period when it was written.

b). External evidence: As has already been noted in the quote from Jerome, Mark is recorded as having written his Gospel in Rome. Scholars date that as being approximately A.D. 62-63. Different sources date this Gospel from A.D. 57-68.

About the Author

a.) Internal information: Mark is referred to in Scripture ten times. He is called Mark (Acts 15:39 and 2 Timothy 4:11); John, whose surname was Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; and 15:37); John (Acts 13:5 and 13); and Marcus (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 24, and 1 Peter 5:13). The names Mark, and John, whose surname was Mark, and John all refer to the one we now commonly call Mark, which is evident by comparing these references in Ac. It can also be shown that Marcus was this same Mark by comparing 2 Timothy 4:11 with Philemon 24. Marcus was simply the Greek form of Mark.

It is generally accepted that the Marcus spoke of in 1 Peter 5:13 is also Mark, and there is much external evidence to support this (see Life for Today Study Bible Notes, Introduction to Mark, About the Author, b. External information, quotes from Papias and Jerome). Mark lived in Jerusalem
 (Acts 12:12), and his mother’s name was Mary. He is not mentioned in the Gospels, which might suggest he was converted after Jesus’ crucifixion. This is a view supported by external sources (see Life for Today Study Bible Notes, Introduction to Mark, Authorship, b. External evidence, quote by Papias).

It was at Mark’s house that the early church met to pray for Peter’s release from prison and where Peter first came after his miraculous release (Acts 12:12). There is no record to imply that Peter had been told where the saints were praying, so it is to believe that Mark’s house was a common gathering place for the brethren.

The Scripture doesn’t mention Mark as being present at any of these times, but it is probable that he was, and if not, he at least heard of them through his mother, Mary.

Colossians 4:10 reveals that Mary, Mark’s mother, was the sister of Barnabas, Paul’s companion. That made Barnabas Mark’s uncle.

Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey but left them suddenly at Perga and returned to Jerusalem for reasons not revealed in Scripture (Acts 12:25; 13:5, and 13). Because of this, Paul refused to heed Barnabas’ counsel to take Mark with them on their second missionary journey, and this resulted in Barnabas and Paul parting company (Acts 15:36-40). Later, however, Paul mentioned Mark as being with him (Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24) and even requested Timothy bring Mark to him, saying, “He is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Timothy 4:11).

Peter also spoke of Mark in 1 Peter 5:13 and said, “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus, my son.” It is generally agreed that Mark was not Peter’s natural son but that this is used in a spiritual sense even as Paul spoke of Timothy (1 Timothy 1:2). This scripture reveals that Mark was definitely close to Peter and was with him in Babylon.

b.) External information: Two quotes have already been given (one by Papias and one by Jerome) that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. Irenaeus and Tertullian also used the same word to describe Mark’s relationship with Peter. From this, it is surmised that Mark either translated orally or wrote for Peter.

Jerome, as has already been quoted, said of Mark that his Gospel was approved of Peter and appointed to be read in the churches at his authority.

Eusebius said that Mark wrote his Gospel under the eye of St. Peter. These remarks, if correct, would give a natural explanation as to how Mark was able to record events in the life of Jesus from an eyewitness standpoint. One thing is sure; Mark enjoyed a close relationship with Peter and Paul, which should have uniquely qualified him to write this Gospel.

Jerome went on to say that Mark took his Gospel to Egypt and became the first preacher of Christ at Alexandria and is supposed to have established a church there.

Eusebius also stated that Mark became the first bishop of the church at Alexandria and that he founded a school there. Eusebius also said that he died a martyr’s death at Alexandria.

Who was Matthew?

Introduction To the Book of Matthew

The New Testament has its roots in the Jewish laws and prophecies of the Old Testament. Therefore, it is very appropriate that the Gospel of Matthew comes first among the Gospels: it was written to portray Jesus as the promised Messiah. Jesus is referred to as the “Son of David” nine times in this Gospel (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; and 22:42). Since Matthew was writing to the Jews who were in great expectation for the kingdom promised in the Old Testament to appear (Daniel 7:22 and Acts 2:16-18), he used the word “kingdom” more than fifty times. Also, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” is used thirty-three times and is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. The genealogy listed in Matthew 1 shows Jesus as the Son of David, which would have to be made clear for any knowledgeable Jew to accept Jesus as the Christ.

Authorship

a. Internal evidence: There is no internal evidence to suggest Matthew was the author. The call of Matthew and his subsequent banquet for Jesus are recorded in Matthew 9:9-10, but there is nothing in the account to suggest that Matthew did or did not write it. However, it is clear as one studies this Gospel that the author was writing from a Jewish perspective.

b. External evidence: There is such an abundance of external evidence to prove that Matthew was the author of this Gospel that it cannot be ignored. There is no biblical reference to Matthew being martyred, and the extra-biblical texts that we have about him say he ministered in Judaea for fifteen years (might be supported by Acts 1:26, 15:2; with Galatians 2:1-2), then in Ethiopia and other lands. Whatever the case, we have no reason to believe that Matthew was not still alive toward the end of the first century. Certainly, his family, or converts, lived well into the second century where we have abundant references to Matthew as the author of the first Gospel. If the commonly accepted view among the early church of Matthew’s authorship had not been accurate, it would no doubt have been challenged by those who were closely associated with the apostle. However, no record of any such challenge exists, only references to Matthew as the author.

In A.D. 130, Papias said, “So, Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he was able.” Also, Irenaeus (A.D. 180), Origen (A.D. 230), and Eusebius (A.D. 330) all made reference to Matthew as the author of the first Gospel.

Based on the seemingly universal belief among the early church of Matthew’s authorship and no biblical evidence to the contrary, it can be supposed that Matthew was indeed the author. It is certainly permissible to refer to this writing as Matthew’s Gospel to distinguish it from other Gospel accounts.

I have made a deliberate attempt to show that the evidence for this decision is based on evidence not found in the inspired Word of God, and this conclusion should be received with that in mind.

Date of Writing

a. Internal evidence: Again, there is no internal evidence in this Gospel to establish the date it was written. Many had thought that the prophecies in Matthew 24 show that this Gospel was written before A.D. 70 when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans. They reason that if the destruction of Jerusalem had already taken place, it would be reflected in the writer’s account. However, the Gospel writers wrote with a noticeable detachment that refrained from interpretation or application. Therefore, it is not specific from Matthew’s rendering of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24:1-2 that this account was written before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

b. External evidence: The facts we have access to outside the Bible do not conclusively establish the date of writing either. The date this Gospel was written has been traditionally accepted as being A.D. 37. However, Irenaeus, who wrote in approximately A.D. 180, says that Matthew wrote his Gospel when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. That would date this Gospel around A.D. 61.

There also exists a book called “The Epistle of Barnabas” that Bishop Lightfoot has placed as being written during the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 70-79), given statements made within the epistle. In this epistle, the writer quoted from Matthew 22:14 and introduced the quote by the phrase “as it is written,” which was and is the customary way of referring to Scripture. This would date Matthew’s Gospel before this “Epistle of Barnabas” and would place a limit on that date of no later than A.D. 70.

It is important to note that the authenticity of Irenaeus’ statement and the whole “Epistle of Barnabas” have been questioned by many scholars so that there is no consensus of opinion on them. The time at which Matthew wrote this Gospel can only be placed between A.D. 37 and the end of the first century.

About the Author

a. Internal information: Matthew is mentioned by that name only five times in the Bible
(Matthew 9:9, 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; and Acts 1:13). He is referred to in other references to the twelve apostles, or the “eleven” as they were called in Acts 1:26. He is called Levi in Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, and 29. He apparently changed his name from Levi to Matthew, as Saul changed to Paul.

Matthew was a publican, or tax collector, for the Roman government (Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27), which was a position despised by Jews (Matthew 9:10-11). Matthew was also a Jew, and that made his affinity with the Romans a traitorous act in the eyes of the Jews.

Mark 2:14 calls Matthew, the son of Alphaeus. Luke 6:15-16 calls two other apostles (James and Judas) the sons of Alphaeus also. It is possible that the name Alphaeus was common and that these men were not related. It is also possible that Matthew was the brother of James and Judas just as it appears.

We can suppose that Matthew was “well off” financially, as were all publicans (usually by dishonesty), and as Luke 5:29 would suggest.

There is not recorded for us even one word that Matthew spoke. As with most of the twelve apostles, Matthew personally missed many of the actions of Jesus that he reported in his Gospel [e.g., Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37-43), and Jesus is transfigured (Matthew 17:1-2), etc.].

It can be guessed that Matthew, being one of the twelve apostles, stayed in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1) for at least fourteen years (Acts 15:2 with Galatians 2:1-2) and was a part of the governing head over the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).

b. External information: The external information about Matthew is limited. Dake stated that tradition says Matthew preached in Ethiopia, as well as other lands, and did not die a martyr’s death.

It appears so in most cases

Jesus, The Wisdom Of God

July 12th

Luke 11:49 'Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute.'

LUKE 11:46-49

This phrase 'Therefore also said the wisdom of God,' is a part of Luke's narrative and not the words of Jesus. Luke is saying that Jesus is the wisdom of God, a truth well-established in scripture.

There is no way to access the wisdom of God except through Jesus. Until a person receives Christ, he is missing the only source of true wisdom. Men and women are incapable of receiving the wisdom of God, but those who submit themselves to God have access to the wisdom of God on their own, through the Holy Spirit. We must be dependent upon the Holy Spirit to receive the wisdom of God in our lives.

A Christian who has not received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit can have some revelation knowledge, but it will be limited. One of the greatest evidences that an individual has received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the tremendous amount of God's wisdom that becomes available to him.

The truths of the Gospel, and the power of God that these truths release, can only be imparted through the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Human wisdom, regardless of how eloquent it is, cannot convey the life of God. Much of the preaching of the Gospel today is done in man's wisdom.

 It's impressive to the carnal mind, but it leaves the spirit starving for the touch of God. The greatest need among ministers today is not to have more of the world's education, but to receive the revelation knowledge of the Holy Spirit. Only words spoken by the Spirit of God can reach the spirit of man.
 Spiritual thoughts have to be spoken with spiritual words.
 read (1 Cor. 2:13).

 1 Corinthians 2:13-14  (NKJV)
¹³ These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the ^[a]Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ¹⁴ But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 2:13 NU omits Holy

Holiness Is A Fruit

Holiness Is A Fruit

July 11th

Luke 11:42 'But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone.'

 KJV

 ⁴² “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. NIV

LUKE 11:42-44

When Jesus said, 'and not to leave the other undone,' it is clear that He is not arguing against doing what is right. God's Word stresses holiness in our actions. The Pharisees' error that caused Jesus' rebuke was that they believed their actions could produce a right relationship with God. But a proper relationship with God can only come by humbling ourselves and putting faith in a Savior, who is Jesus. God cleanses our hearts by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and then we have our fruit unto holiness (Rom. 6:22). Holiness is a fruit, not a root, of salvation.

In a similar instance found in Matthew 23:26, Jesus told the Pharisees, 'Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.' True Christianity comes from the inside out. A good heart will change a man's actions, but a man's actions cannot change his heart.

One of religion's favorite doctrines is that if you will just act right, you will be right. Nothing could be further from the truth. You must be born again. And if you are born again, then holiness is a by-product and not the way to a relationship with God.

This is the heart of the Gospel. Every major religion of the world has a moral standard it enforces, but only Christianity offers salvation through a Savior. Presenting holiness in any way other than as a result of salvation is denying Jesus as our Savior and places the burden of salvation on us. Improper emphasis on achieving holiness or salvation through one's own actions can damn that person.

We must trust Jesus completely.

Grow In Grace

Study to show yourself approved!

In the Gospels

Your Daily Devotional With Andrew Wommack

Grow In Grace

July 10th

Luke 11:38 - 'And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.'

LUKE 11:37-41

A sure sign of the error of legalism is misplaced priorities, as we see here with these Pharisees. It is not recorded in Scripture that the Pharisees marvelled at the wonderful works of Jesus. They were too busy looking for something to criticize (Mark 3:2). But they wondered at Jesus not washing His hands.  
This is a classic example of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel
 (Mt. 23:24).

Those who seek to earn righteousness through keeping the Law are consumed with 'doing,' while those who receive righteousness by faith are merely confessing what has already been done. It is that simple!

This is a simple and yet profound difference. If we are still 'doing' acts of holiness to get God to move in our lives, then we are still operating under a 'Law' mentality that is not faith (Gal. 3:12). When we simply believe and confess what has already been provided through Christ, that's grace. 
The Grace of God will forever rule over the limited works of humans!

A person who is living under the Law and a person who lives under grace should have very similar actions of holiness, but their motivations are entirely opposite. The legalistic has their attention on what they think they must do, while the person living by faith has his focus on what Christ has already done for him.

{ It is attempting to do what has already been done for you - While you continue to seek your own solutions = Why seek what has already been done for you when all you must do is have faith and believe the power of the Gospel of Christ! Only fools seek another truth when the real facts are right before them!}

For instance, since the Scriptures teach us to confess with our mouths and believe with our hearts, and we will receive from God. The legalistic thinks it means I can get God to heal me by confessing, 'By his stripes, I am healed.' 

However, the person who understands God's grace will not just confess the Word to get healed. They will admit totally that, 'By His stripes, I am healed' because they really believe it has already been done. 
{It has to be total Faith alone, not just a group of certain words!}

Analyzing our 'mindset' is the simplest way of discerning whether we are operating in true Bible faith or a legalistic counterfeit. If the motive for our actions is to be accepted with God, that's legalism.

 If we live wholly out of faith and upon the gratefulness for what God has already done, that's grace. 

Grow in grace!

{Brackets  added by Blogger}

What does this mean?

The heart benevolent and kind
The most resemble GOD
  - Robert Burns " A Winter Night "

KIndness in Judgement is nothing less than a sacred duty,
- Wm Barclay, The Gospel of St. Matthew

Blessed be the Lord; for He has wonderfully shown His steadfast love for me. 
- Psalm 31:21 

But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.
Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; 
He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
 - Luke 6:35

A kind word is like a spring day.
 - Russian Proverb

Be kind and merciful. Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier.
Be the living expression of God's kindness -  kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, 
kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm greeting.
In the slums, we are the light of God's kindness to the poor. To children, to the poor, all who suffer and are lonely, always give a happy smile. Give them not only your care but also your heart. 
Because of God's goodness and love every moment of our life can be the beginning of great things. 
Be open, ready to receive and you will find Him everywhere. Every work of love brings a person face to face with Almighty God! 
- Mother Teresa, In the silence of the Heart

And it is here that the Saints serve us yet again. Kindness recovers all its Apostolic quality in them. 
In the Saint it is never sentimental; never divorced from reality; never undisciplined; never evasive.
On the other hand, it is ever-present; never excluded by their concern for God's Holiness; never driven away by any pride in their own virtue. The cheapening of the word in the world and the neglect of this grace in the sanctuary are both correct in the Saint. He reveals kindness as a " Fruit of the Spirit '. He shows is grounded in the very Nature of God. It flows directly from His Faith. 
It is Super Natural Love disclosing itself in costly affection towards his fellow humans... That is why it has a robustness and pertinacity unknown to the sentimental kindness of the World! ...
- W.E Sangster, " The  Pure Heart "

" Seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all these things will be given to you! " 
 - Matt 6:33

The  Kingdom of God - is the Central theme of the teachings of  Jesus involving an understanding of His own person and works!

In the process of growing in faith, I have come to discover something of the Kingdom of God in the depths of my being. -My experience has been that when the Kingdom of God is within you it becomes a living reality!  
 William Sykes  - " The Kingdom of God "  pp233 in { The Eternal Vision }