Luke the Historian

By Johnny Stringer

Luke’s accuracy in historical and geographical matters is so thoroughly established that to deny it would be pure folly. This fact has not always been recognized.

In the mid-nineteenth century, a scholar named Eduard Zeller launched a severe attack on the historical accuracy of Acts. Among those who accepted his flawed conclusions was an eminent Scottish archaeologist named Sir William Ramsay. In fact, Ramsay led an archaeological expedition with the intention of proving that Acts was the error-filled product of a 2^nd-century writer. It turned out, however, that Ramsay proved the opposite of what he had set out to prove. His years of research compelled him to describe Luke as “among the historians of the first rank” (St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 4). In 1897 he published his conclusions in the famous volume just referenced, in which he defended the proposition “that Acts was written by a great historian” (p. 14).

Today, Luke is widely accepted as a remarkably accurate historian. The distinguished Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White states: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament, p. 189). Colin Hemer’s comparison of Luke with the well-known historian Josephus is telling: “The work of Luke is marked by carefulness but that of Josephus by carelessness” (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, p. 219).

Luke wrote of events that occurred over a geographical area ranging from Jerusalem to Rome, including such vastly diverse regions as Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. His history spans a period of about 30 years in which the political and territorial situations were always changing. Boundary lines and political offices were in a constant state of flux. And Luke did not write in generalities; he did not omit technical details so as to avoid mistakes. Yet, his detailed references have proved to be accurate. Rackham observes that such accuracy as is found in the book of Acts would have been impossible for one writing 50 years later (The Acts of the Apostles, p. xliii).

Critics have challenged Luke’s accuracy, but archaeological discoveries have overturned the challenges. One such instance was the charge that Luke erred in the term he used to designate the ruler of Cyprus in Acts 13:7. The term Luke used (translated “deputy” in the KJV) means proconsul. For many years critics argued that Luke should have used the term procurator because, they explained, Cyprus was an “imperial” province, and imperial provinces were ruled by procurators. Archaeology, however, has proved Luke to be right and his critics wrong. Cyprus was indeed an imperial province, and therefore governed by a procurator, when it first came under Roman jurisdiction. However, what Luke’s critics did not know was that in 22 B.C., Cyprus was made a “senatorial” province, and senatorial provinces were ruled by proconsuls. In fact, archaeologists have found coins and inscriptions on Cyprus using the term proconsul as the title of its rulers. According to Luke, the proconsul ruling Cyprus when Paul visited the island was named Sergius Paulus—an interesting point in view of the fact that an inscription discovered on the north coast of Cyprus included the words, “in the proconsulship of Paulus.”

A similar example is found in Luke’s account of events in Thessalonica. The word Luke used in Acts 17:6 for “rulers” is a specific title: politarchs. This word is not used as an official title anywhere else in Greek literature. Consequently Luke was charged with using the wrong title to refer to these city officials. However, once again, Luke has been proved right and his critics wrong. Archaeologists have found a number of inscriptions that unquestionably prove that the term politarch was an official title of certain city officials in ancient Macedonia. One of these inscriptions was found on the ancient arch that spanned the famous highway leading into Thessalonica. On this arch there is a listing of seven names of magistrates who wore the title politarch.

Luke’s historical accuracy has held up under the most intense and zealous scrutiny. All attempts to discredit this inspired author have themselves been thoroughly discredited. &.

The Degenerating Nature of Sin

By Bob Myhan

In the last issue of the Faith Builder we dealt with the deceptiveness of sin. This, we believe, is its principal trait. While the particular deception may not always be the same, every sin will deceive in some way. Many of its other characteristics are variations on the first. That is, it often has the opposite trait from what it seems to have. This makes it all the more dangerous. While one may discover some of these variations by experience, there is always another one that has perhaps escaped one’s notice. But the more we can learn about sin’s character, the greater the chance of us not being deceived thereby.

Not only is sin deceptive, it is also degenerating. By this we mean it will cause degeneration in one who is enslaved thereto. This is the reason that “evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). From this passage we learn that sin is degenerating precisely because it is deceptive.

David—in Psalm 1—illustrates the degenerating nature of sin in describing the man who is blessed.

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night (verses 1-3).

Notice the degeneration: walking in the counsel of the ungodly leads to standing in the path of sinners which leads to sitting in the seat of the scornful. The only way one can avoid winding up “in the seat of the scornful,” therefore, is by having his delight in the law of the Lord and meditating in it day and night. Those who fail to do this are deceived into thinking that the counsel of the ungodly is wise, which is the only reason one would walk therein.

The degenerating nature of sin is illustrated in the account of Amnom raping his half-sister, Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1-19).

Amnon apparently could see no way for him to satisfy his lust for her inasmuch as virgins were kept in isolation. But his friend named, Jonadab, was a “very crafty man” (1-3).

Amnon walked in the counsel of the ungodly when he took the advice of Jonadab (4-11). He stood in the way of sinners when he raped Tamar (12-14) and he sat in the seat of the scornful when—after the rape—he “hated her exceedingly, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her” (15-19).

Needless to say, family relations also degenerated. Tamar’s brother, Absalom, harbored such ill will against Amnon that—two full years after the rape—he arranged for Amnon’s murder (2 Sam. 13:23-33).

Jude—speaking of false teachers—gives three examples of sin’s degenerating nature:

¹¹ Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. (v. 11).

Cain degenerated to the point that “murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:12).

Balaam degenerated to the point that he “taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality” (Rev. 2:14).

Korah degenerated so that he stood up against Moses and Aaron with such audacity that his horrific  death served as a sign that Moses and Aaron had truly been chosen by God to lead His people (Numbers 16:1-50). More than 14,950 people died because they walked “in the counsel of the ungodly” Korah.

The inspired writer of the epistle to the Hebrews also shows how the deceptiveness of sin can lead to degeneration of the sinner’s character.

¹² Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; ¹³ but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:12-13).

Notice, again, the degenerating nature of sin: deception, hardening of the heart in unbelief and finally, “departing from the living God.”

Yes, sin is surely degenerating. As someone has said, “It will take you further than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay and cost you more than you will want to pay.” &