Dr. Richard L. Strauss
March 13, 1974

 

Tonight we embark on a new study: the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. And for our source of study we're going to use four books—four textbooks: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We call them Gospels. The word gospel comes from a Greek word that means literally "the good message" or "the good news." So we have the good news according to Matthew; he's the one who saw it and wrote about it. We have the good news according to Mark, and the good news according to Luke, and the good news according to John. Four different men sharing with us the same good message, the same good news.

These were the men who wrote it down for us. Of these men, three were Jews: Matthew, Mark, and John. One was a Gentile: Luke. Three Jews, one Gentile.

You can break them down in another way, too. Two of them were apostles, that is, two of the twelve apostles wrote Gospels. Those two, of course, were Matthew and John. One was a close associate of an apostle and probably saw the Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh as a very young man; that was Mark. He was a personal friend of the apostle Peter. The early church fathers told us this. They had some inside information that was passed down to them. I don't know exactly where they got the information but they told us. Men like Papias, and Irenaeus, and Tertullian, said Mark was a very close friend and associate of the apostle Peter. So Matthew and John saw it with their own eyes; Mark saw a little of it probably as a young man and he got a lot more information direct from the apostle Peter.

Luke was not related to the 12 apostles at all, but Luke was a very close personal friend and traveling companion of the apostle Paul. And of course Paul had some opportunities to get some first-hand information from the apostles. And God taught him a lot firsthand. And God led Luke into truth directly, and also by careful investigation—as we're going to see tonight when we get to the first chapter of the book of Luke.

1. The Difference between the Four Gospels and their Perspectives

a. Synoptic Gospels

Now of these four gospels, three of them are called the synoptic gospels. I want you to learn that name because I'll probably use it quite often during the course of this study and it's something you ought to know if you don't already know what it means. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic Gospels. Many of you English teachers or students of words know the derivation of that word. Syn means "together." Optic, well you know what that is. It means to "see." Synoptic means "to see together." That's all it means.

In other words, Matthew, Mark, and Luke kind of see things together. It's what it means. They are the synoptic Gospels. They look at things from the same general point of view.

John is a little bit different. He's not one of the synoptic Gospels. His is a supplementary Gospel. It looks at things from a little different point of view. It takes a little different perspective and tells us a lot of things that Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the synoptic Gospels—don't tell us.

Let me give you a few illustrations.

In the synoptic Gospels, the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ seems to be centered in the northern part of Palestine, in Galilee, whereas in the Gospel of John—you read it through and it seems like the Lord's ministry is centered mostly in Judea, in and around Jerusalem. John sees fit to tell us more about those things in Jerusalem than he does about those things in Galilee, even though Jesus was in Galilee far more. John picks out those events surrounding Judea and Jerusalem. So we've got the setting. One seems to take place more in Galilee the other in the southern part of Palestine and Judea.

Secondly, the synoptic Gospels—if you just take them at cursory reading at face value—seem to cover only about a year in the ministry of our Lord. Where as you study the Gospel of John, there is at least three years and maybe four years. We know that the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ lasted from between three and four years because of the Gospel of John. We would never be able to discover that from the synoptics but we know that from the Gospel of John. So the time period is a little different perspective. Not contradictory, he just tells us more than the other writers, that's all.

There's a third observation. The synoptic Gospels have many incidents in common with each other whereas the Gospel of John records incidents that aren't found in the synoptics, that have very little in common with the other three.

And then another observation: the synoptic Gospels seem to emphasize the deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, there are great discourses included: the Olivet Discourse and the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, and the parables of the Kingdom are three great discourses in Matthew. But yet John seems to lay more emphasis on the words of Christ than the synoptics. They emphasize the deeds of Christ; John emphasizes the words of Christ.

I would say that the synoptic Gospels would emphasize the humanity of the Lord Jesus whereas the Gospel of John gives more emphasis than they do on His deity. There's another difference. So you see, they're not contradictory. They are complementary and supplementary. They look at things from a different perspective.

But if we want to get the true picture, we have to look at all four. We're going to study all four together, interweave the events of the life of Christ from the synoptics and from the Gospel according to John.

b. Likeness to Ezekiel’s Vision

Now each Gospel has a distinctive character. All the way from the time of the second century, in a church father named Irenaeus, the four Gospels have been likened to the vision that Ezekiel had of the cherubim. Would you turn to Ezekiel chapter 1, please? I'm not saying this was intended to be, I'm just saying that Bible teachers through the centuries, beginning all the way back in the second century, saw a similarity between the faces on Ezekiel's vision and the four Gospels. I think it's interesting enough to call to your attention. Ezekiel is describing four living creatures and each one had four faces.

"Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a human being, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle" (Ezekiel 1:10).

Four faces. Let me show you how the church fathers likened this to the four Gospels.

And the reason is clear. We note the emphasis and the theme of each of these books. Each one seems to lay stress on a different aspect of Christ's person and work.

Matthew: Christ is the Lion King

For instance the Gospel according to Matthew seems to lay emphasis on Christ as the king. It's a fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9.

"Behold, your King is coming to you" (Zechariah 9:9).

You know that passage predicting that Jesus will ride into Jerusalem on a donkey's back and that will be the method by which the king will be presented to the nation. And there's a great emphasis in the book of Matthew on the kingship of Jesus Christ—on His descendancy from David and His qualifications to be the Messiah, the King. So over in Matthew 21—I'm not saying that these passages do not appear in the other Gospels, I'm just saying now that the key verse of the Gospel would then be Matthew 21:4-5.

"This took place"—that is, the triumphal entry—"to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: 'Say to Daughter Zion, "See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey"'" (Matthew 21:4-5).

So Zechariah 9:9 would be the key verse in the Old Testament. Matthew 21:4-5 would be the key verses in the Gospel.

The lion is the symbol of the kingship, you see. It's the regal animal, the ruling animal of the animal kingdom. The lion.

Mark: Christ is the Servant Ox

Mark, on the other hand, seems to lay emphasis upon the servitude of Jesus Christ. The ox is the servant animal. The ox is the one who does the work for man. The key Old Testament passage would be Isaiah 42:1.

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations" (Isaiah 42:1).

And the key verse in the Gospel of Mark would probably be Mark 10:45.

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

Now there's a similar verse in Matthew but we're trying to point out the emphasis of the Gospel as a whole.

Luke: Christ is the Son of Man

The emphasis of Matthew is on the kingship of Jesus. The emphasis of Mark is on His servant character.

Luke seems to refer to the man's face in Ezekiel's vision because the emphasis is on the Son of Man. The Old Testament passage—the key passage looking forward to the life and ministry of Christ—would be Zechariah 6:12.

"Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord'" (Zechariah 6:12).

Here is the man; behold, the man. Jesus Christ loved to use this phrase to refer to Himself: The Son of Man. He uses it most frequently in the Gospel of Luke. The key verse might be Luke 19:10.

"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

John: Christ is the Son of God Who Soars above the Heavens like an Eagle

John, on the other hand, emphasizes the deity of Christ—that He is in fact the Son of God. The key Old Testament prediction would be Isaiah 40:9.

"You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, 'Here is your God!'" (Isaiah 40:9).

And John presents the Lord Jesus Christ as the eagle soaring above in the heavens with great power and strength. A symbol of deity itself. Jesus Christ was God in flesh and that's the very reason for the writing of the Gospel of John, is it not?

Thomas bows down before the Lord Jesus having seen the nail prints in his hands and the spear wound in His side. "Thomas said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" (John 20:28).

Then the apostle John appends this very important reason for the writing of the book:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-31).

John wrote these things that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It's the book that emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ.

2. The Audience for Each Gospel Book

Now each gospel seems to be written for a particular group of people. That's something that's not often called to our attention but I think it's something that's important in the understanding of these four gospels.

a. Gospel of Matthew Written for the Jews

Matthew seems to be written primarily for the Jews. We find some distinctive things in the Gospel according to Matthew that would relate to the Jews.

In Matthew 1:1-17 you'll notice that the genealogy of Jesus Christ in this book is traced back to Abraham. It's all the further it goes. Luke's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam—Jesus is the Son of Man, you see. But Matthew's genealogy goes back to Abraham because Jesus is the Messiah who is to come of the seed of Abraham and be the king of the Jews. The Jewish emphasis takes it back to Abraham.

In the annunciation of Christ's birth to Joseph, I think the emphasis on the fact that this One is coming of the virgin Mary and will have legal claim through Mary, His natural mother, and Joseph, His adoptive father, to the throne of David. That is an emphasis that's distinctly Jewish.

And then the title for Jesus in Matthew 1:23 ("They shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is 'God with us'") taken from Isaiah 7:14. That's a distinctively Jewish name. Emmanuel, meaning "God with us."

Remember the wise men from the east, asking:

"Where is the One who has been born King of the Jews? We saw His star when it rose and have come to worship Him" (Matthew 2:2).

"King of the Jews." No other Gospel calls Him that in this context. King of the Jews, you see.

Then the purpose stated for His coming:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

This ties Jesus specifically with the Old Testament Jewish Law. You see, distinctively Jewish.

Then there's an interesting commission given to the Jews only. We talked about this in our study of dispensations over in Matthew 10. Remember this?

"“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans'" (Matthew 10:5).

Distinctively Jewish emphasis here.

Then there's some parables in Matthew that aren't found in the other Gospels that seem to have a distinctively Jewish flavor to them, like the Parable of the Marriage Feast and the Parable of the Ten Virgins. These are built in Jewish custom.

And then Christ is frequently called the Son of David. As a matter of fact, He's called the Son of David eight times in the book of Matthew that I could count, and only a couple times in each of the other Gospels. So the emphasis again: distinctively Jewish.

The kingdom. The Jews. The Son of David. The genealogy. The purpose for His comings commissioned of the disciples. All these things. It's written for Jews.

b. Gospel of Mark Written for Romans

On the other hand the gospel of Mark seems to be written for Romans. Let me tell you why I feel this way; I'm adapting this from a book called A Guide to the Gospels by Graham Scroggie. It's an excellent volume to study the Gospels.

There is in the gospel of Mark some interesting interpretation of Aramaic words. Now the Jews spoke Aramaic. That was the native tongue of the Lord Jesus. If you're writing something for Jews you didn't have to interpret Aramaic words. They knew what they meant. But if you were writing for Romans, you'd have to tell them what these Aramaic words meant because they wouldn't know.

Let me give you a few illustrations.

"James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means 'sons of thunder')" (Mark 3:17).

You wouldn't have to tell a Jew what Boanerges means. He would know that it means "sons of thunder," but a Roman would have to be told that, you see, because that's an Aramaic word.

"Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means 'son of Timaeus'), was sitting by the roadside begging" (Mark 10:46).

You wouldn't have to tell a Jew that Bartimaeus means "son of Timaeus." He knows what it means. Bar means "son of" but you'd have to tell a Roman that because he doesn't know Aramaic or Hebrew.

A couple more:

"'Abba, Father,' He said" (Mark 14:36).

Does that sound familiar to you? That same phrase is found in the book of Romans. You see you wouldn't have to tell a Jew that Abba means "Father" but you have to tell Roman. He doesn't know that. So we're quite certain Mark was written for Romans.

"And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' (which means 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?')" (Mark 15:34).

He wouldn't have to tell a Jew what those words mean; they would know. But a Roman needs to be told.

Then there is the explanation of some Jewish customs—which Matthew never does.

"It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath)" (Mark 15:42a).

Every Jew knew what the preparation was. The Romans didn't know that. They had to be told that the preparation meant the day before the Sabbath.

I find this one particularly interesting having just come back from Palestine:

"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple" (Mark 13:3a).

You wouldn't have to tell a Jew that sitting on the Mount of Olives was opposite the temple. You people who have been there and have been on the Mount of Olives know when you sit on the side of the Mount of Olives, the temple site (there is no temple there now, but the Mosque of Omar is, and the Dome of the Rock) is in full view from the Mount of Olives.

But there's little things like that, written for the sake of you underprivileged folks who haven't had the joy of going to the Holy Land, you see! This is there for you. It used to be there for me but now I've been there so it isn't there for me anymore because now I know about that. I really hope you can all go someday, too, because it really is a thrilling experience."

Then there's some Latin words in the Gospel of Mark. Of course they're in Greek form, but they are Latin words not found in the other gospels. There's the word for "execution," a word for "pot," and the word farthing, and a word for "centurion." These are distinctively Latin.

That's why we conclude Mark was written for the Romans.

c. Gospel of Luke Written for Greeks

OK, Matthew for the Jews. Mark for the Romans. Luke for the Greeks.

Luke was written primarily for Greeks. It's addressed to a Greek. His name is Theophilus. The whole introduction to Luke—which I think we're going to get to tonight for a few minutes—is the same kind of introduction found in the Greek historical literature. It's a very common Greek historical introduction. How he got the idea, and the records and the information, for this report and this account.

Then there's a whole section in Luke--some of which is found in Matthew and Mark, but a good bit of it which is not—which is distinctively of a Gentile flavor. It's the section begins in chapter 10 and goes through chapter 18. There are some ideas found in there, some stories like the Parable the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which are not found in the other gospels. They're not even found in the synoptics which have a Gentile flavor to them, which would lead us to believe that Luke was written for the Greeks.

d. Gospel of John Written for Everyone

Matthew for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks. John? For everybody.

That's about the only way we can summarize John, because the universality of the gospel is so clearly emphasized in the book of John. Look at John 1:11-12. How can you escape the universality of the gospel?

"He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:11-12).

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him" (John 3:16-17).

The universality of the gospel. The word world—now listen to this; this was an astounding thing to me when I discovered it--the word world is used in the gospel of John 77 times. Think of that: 77 times. It's only used 15 times in Matthew, Mark, and Luke combined. Seventy-seven times in the gospel of John. The universality of the gospel.

John was written for all.

e. Four Gospels in Harmony

You ask, "Well, why four gospels? Why couldn't God have told one of these fellows the whole story and had it written down in one gospel?"

I have a book at home called The Life of Christ in Stereo. A fellow has tried to write the gospel record using fragments from every gospel in King James language, and write it in one story without repeating anything. It's a very interesting book; I enjoy reading it. But the thought occurred to me, if that's the way God wanted the gospel record to be written, I think He would have written it that way. I'm really not sure that that's what He intended to be done. He gave us four gospels and they don't all tell the story the same way.

That's why He gave us four, so we could have various viewpoints and perspectives. No contradictions, just different accounts. There are four different men are writing their perspective on what they saw or learned about the life of Jesus Christ. The human element is their own style, vocabulary, and viewpoint. But it doesn't affect the divine inspiration. It's just what God wanted each one to be. Each tells us just what God wanted us to know. If you want the complete account, you read what all four writers say about each story.

Now there are books available called harmonies of the gospels. They do not seek to weave the story together in one account like The Life of Christ in Stereo. Rather, they put the four accounts side by side. Now, I think that's probably a better way to do it. You can read each gospel through if you follow the column through each page, or you can look across the page and see what each one contributes to this account.

I think it's a valuable thing to own a harmony of the gospels, and the Lord willing, I'm going to be using one in this study. It's one that uses the old American Standard translation. It's a work that was done originally in 1922, by A.T. Robertson. I don't think it's ever been superseded, frankly, as far as being a harmony of the gospels is concerned. A.T. Robertson puts the four gospel records in parallel columns using the American Standard Version, which is a very good translation of the Bible that was done back in 1902. It's not modern English but it is an update on the King James Version anyway. It is very reliable: A Harmony of the Gospels.

3. Prologue to the Gospel of Luke

Turn now, please, to Luke chapter 1. Let's take about 10 minutes on the prologue of Luke.

Why are we starting in Luke? Because Luke is the only one who tells us where he got his information and why he wrote. (Well, John tells us why he wrote at the end of this book, but I mean in an introductory fashion.)

You say, "Why don't we start in John? The first verse in John goes back to eternity past."

True. That's what we'll study next time. But Luke tells us in an introductory manner why he wrote, where he got his material—so since it's an introduction, we'll include it in this introductory lesson tonight. We'll cover four verses in Luke.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4).

All right, let me get my Harmony of the Gospels open here because I like the American Standard Version of this passage.

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed" (Luke 1:1-4, ASV).

Luke is the only one who says he studied all the materials available at a later date, and then tried to put it down in an orderly account. That doesn't mean the other accounts are disorderly but it means in some way Luke tries to add something to what's already available in written form on the life of Christ.

Frankly I doubt whether Matthew or John were in writing at this time. It's quite probable that Luke had the gospel of Mark in his possession when he wrote, but he wants to add some things he's learned about the life of Jesus Christ, that he's researched and studied.

He's the only one who mentions anything about his sources. He says he got a report from eyewitnesses. He says:

"Many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning these matters which have been fulfilled among us even as they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:1-2).

The accounts we have of the life of Jesus Christ come to us from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, particularly the word about the Lord Jesus Christ. The accounts didn't come from legend or fable; they came from facts from eyewitnesses. When we take the report of several eyewitnesses in any court of law, we believe it. It happened that way because they agree that this is what happened. We have many, many, many more eyewitnesses that Luke consulted--and that other gospel writers consulted as well when they wrote these things down. Now, Luke wasn't an eyewitness himself but he probably had eyewitnesses to refer to. He knew Mark and had the record Mark gave. He knew Paul, who had close association with Peter and James and other apostles, and probably learned much from them. But the point is, he delved into these things carefully and he researched them diligently.

Let me read you the American Standard Version of verse 3.

"It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately" (Luke 1:3, ASV).

Luke was a careful scholar as well as a man of God, who wrote by inspiration of God's Spirit. He didn't just write things down because he heard them, because they were hearsay or legend. He screened everything very carefully. He checked his information out with eyewitnesses. He researched it in a scholarly manner, superintended all the time by the Spirit of God. You see, even though he went about this in a scholarly way and traced these things accurately, God was controlling him as he studied and as he wrote.

Those words in verse 3 are very interesting. Do you see them? "From the first."

That's the Greek word that means literally "from above."

To my knowledge, this is the only time it's translated as "from the very first." I wonder if Luke isn't telling us that even though he traced these things accurately, there was a divine power guiding him. I wonder if he's not claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a very general way right here in the third verse of his book.

"Having traced the course of all things accurately from above..."

Notice then to write these things in order—not necessarily chronological order but at least a logical order. He wanted to present these things so that from the beginning to the end, it told a story and made an impact; and traced things in a logical, consistent, systematic way; and presented them to us in the same way.

The gospel of Luke is a beautifully constructed manuscript, carefully done. I studied Koine Greek, which was the Greek of the common people. But I have read that these first four verses would pass for the best classical Greek. Luke was a scholar and he traced these things carefully, presented them logically and orderly—yet all the time directed by God, writing by inspiration of God's Spirit.

And he's writing it for a specific person. The man's name is Theophilus. A great name. It means "a lover of God." It comes from the word phileo, which is the noun "love." You know that word. Theos is the word for "God." He wrote it to a man whose name is the God Lover. Now we don't know who Theophilus was, but he has a title here: most excellent Theophilus.” This would indicate he was probably a man of some prestige or prominence or distinction, and maybe a man of some wealth. He's addressed as “most excellent Theophilus.” It could be that he was a Roman procurator or governor of some Roman province. He was probably a Gentile because this is really a Greek name. It's not a Jewish name or a Roman name; it's a Greek name. And in all probability, this man was a very noble individual who maybe held some high governmental position. He may even been a man of means who was willing to have Luke's gospel copied and disseminated. We don't know.

It's interesting that the "most excellent Theophilus" is dropped in the book of Acts, which Luke also wrote for Theophilus. It's a little more familiar there. It just says:

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1).

Maybe Theophilus came to know the Lord through the gospel of Luke and Luke drops the formal title now and he's just a friend and brother in Jesus Christ. I don't know. I'm using my imagination just a little bit but it's kind of fun anyway, isn't it? He was a man evidently who came to love his God.

What are you in love with tonight? Do you love the Lord? Theophilus must have to have obtained a name like that. He may not have been given that name when he was first born, but he assumed it later. I know a lot of Christians that are in love with pleasure. They just live to have fun and follow their hobbies and their recreational activities, but God comes second. There are some Christians who love possessions. Thank God He's pointed that out to some believers who've gotten it right in their lives. I've had two men tell me this week, "You know, I'm beginning to get my mind unscrambled and my whole brain in gear-spiritually speaking—and beginning to understand what God really wants me to put first. And here I've been killing myself to make money and destroying my life and my family as I've been doing it. I want to get that straightened out before the Lord."

Theophilus was the man who loved the Lord. Jesus was first in his life; not pleasure, not possession, not praise. Oh, some Christians just love to have the limelight. They have to have the praise of men. They love that praise; they love that preeminence. What is it you're in love with tonight? Oh, that God would help us fall in love with Him and with His son Jesus Christ. What a beautiful name: Theophilus, a lover of God.

Notice while why Luke wrote the gospel.

"I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:3b-4).

"I told you these things; I want you to have them in your hands, and I want you to know them." What things? Well, those things that Jesus began to teach and to do. We turn over to Acts 1, remember, and it says:

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1).

That's what this is about—it’s about Jesus. All that He began to teach and do. And Luke says to Theophilus, "I'm writing this to you so you can know with certainty." It's a Greek word that means "intensive knowledge, thorough knowledge." "That you can know—thoroughly, fully, completely, intimately—the things about which I told you: things about Jesus Christ."

Luke wrote this book that we may know the Lord Jesus Christ more intimately, that we might enter into a more precious and blessed relationship with Him. And as we come to know Him better by studying these records about Jesus—four different men who wrote a good message to us, the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ—as we study what they wrote, we're going to get to know the Lord Jesus better. To get to know Him better is going to be to love Him more. That's really what we're after, isn't it? A deeper love for the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope you'll stick with us. We may be here years but what better place can we be than just learning about the Lord Jesus? Getting to know Him better and growing to love Him more.

[Editor’s note: This series ran on Wednesday nights from March 1974, to April 1984: 255 messages.]

Closing Prayer

Heavenly Father, we ask You that as we move through these great records—which have been given to us for our edification, and our blessing, and our learning, and our growth—we may grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, that our love for Him may abound yet more and more. Father, we stand here before You tonight, praying that as we move through these gospel records, more and more people may become interested in learning to know not only about the Lord Jesus, but know Him better. We pray that this room will begin to fill as people week by week dig into the Word, learn about the Lord Jesus, and appropriate this knowledge to everyday life. God, use it to transform us, to change our way of living as each day we grow in Christ’s likeness. We pray it in His precious name. Amen.

 

 

Check the list for other messages in the Life of Christ series.