Also, on what grounds can one say that Luke is “incredibly uncomfortable” with atonement theology? How can one reach that conclusion just because it isn’t a prominent theme in his gospel? That seems reaching too much.

Can you also go a little bit more in depth by what you mean when you say, “Luke presents Jesus’ primary ‘atoning’…work as done in heaven rather than on the cross”?

In Acts, the suffering and death of Jesus wasn’t only an example to be followed, it was also proclaimed. Is this not one of the primary points in Peter and Paul’s sermons in Acts 2, 3, 13 etc.?

Literary linking with the Suffering Servant is not enough, for Paul is linked with the Suffering Servant motif in Acts as well. Would you say that Atonement is found through Paul as well? Quoting Robert O’Toole on the comparison of Jesus in Luke with Paul in Acts: “Both have the Suffering Servant Motif; Jesus during his passion is suffering as does the servant (Isaiah 50:6; 52:14; 53:2-12); the Suffering Servant motif is explicitly brought out by the use of the same Greek words for “led” (Isaiah 53:7-8; Luke 23:1) and “handed over” (Isaiah 53:6, 12; Luke 23:25). Moreover, Jesus is silent before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9) as is the Lamb in Isaiah 53:7, and Jesus and the Suffering Servant are both innocent (Luke 23:4, 14-15, 22; Isaiah 50:9; 53:9; cf Acts 8:32-33). The Christ is also seen in Acts 26:23 to be the Suffering Servant who will bring light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6); he shares this task with Paul who is to open the eyes of the Jews and Gentiles (Acts 26:18; Isaiah 35:5; cf. 42:7; 61:1 LXX) to turn from darkness to light (Isaiah 42:16). Paul is “handed over” in Acts 28:17 and he too is “led” in (Acts 25:6, 23; cf. Luke 23:1; Isaiah 53:7) and declared to be innocent (Acts 25:18-20, 25; 26:31-32; cf. Isaiah 50:9; 53:9).”

Speaking broadly, it seems to be that Luke presents Jesus’ primary “atoning” (if that’s the proper word) work as done in heaven rather than on the cross. Jesus’ suffering and death is rather an example to be followed by the church as laid out in Acts.

From what I read of your comments, Luke still has an atonement theology of Jesus’ death, it just isn’t the primary focus of his work. I have no problem with that. But Luke still has the theology.

As regards to the suffering servant. In Luke 4, Jesus is identified as the prophet in Isaiah 61, the one anointed by the Spirit. I would be prepared to argue that this prophet is the same servant that we call the suffering servant because in Isaiah 42, the servant is anointed by the Spirit of God and preaches the same message. This servant then would be the same servant of Isaiah 53. Also, would not the divine pronouncement at Jesus baptism in Luke 3:22 find its source in Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, again linking Jesus to the suffering servant in Isaiah?

Luke does hold to Jesus as the suffering servant, just not as loudly as Mark and Matthew and Paul would. If you aren’t careful, you will miss it. I wouldn’t build my doctrine of the atonement primarily on Luke’s corpus, but I will boldly proclaim that he holds to the doctrine.

As for Biblical Theology…I actually find the notion appealing, though in different ways than most. I see the Bible as a myriad of different voices and theological formations comining from very different historical and cultural places. “Biblical theology” is a rather chaotic thing, with many contradicting views and varying focuses. I actually like this. I think we should embrace contradiction, using the Bible as a foundation for forming an open theology encouraging different voices and experiences to express themselves. Can we make a “system?” Well…I don’t think such a thing is really possible or ultimately helpful.

I must also ask, how did Jesus give his body and blood for his disciples as we see in Luke 22:19-20? Also, wouldn’t the predestined plan of God in Acts 4:27-28 include Isaiah 53 and Yahweh crushing his Servant? If so, then Luke would have atonement theology. He just did not devote a section of his work to explicitly state it. 

One can certainly read the atonement theologies of others into the few spaces in Luke-Acts that potentially could lead to such ideas (and you would not be alone in doing so). Yet, I think we must be careful, especially considering the atonement-heavy parts of Mark (deliberately?) left out in Luke. As for Luke’s references to the suffering servant in Isaiah 52-53, that also requires a careful read…as Luke actually doesn’t explicitly connect it to Jesus’ suffering (a term Luke may not like for Jesus) and death (if I recall correctly). Despite the places for atonement within Luke…one must admit that he at the very least seems far less comfortable with it or far less willing to promote it compared to other NT writers.

Let me give an example to show what I am talking about by asking a question. Does this sound like an adequate understanding of the gospel if I were to define the Gospel as, “Heavenly Father’s plan to help us have peace in this life and joy in eternity. The gospel is centered on the Atonement of Jesus Christ and requires us to have faith in him, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end”? Think that one over and let me know.

I must also say that the atonement is a central part of the Good News of Jesus Christ, not the Gospel itself. Hence I stated “…we do not preach the full gospel…” when we leave out the atonement. We are not proclaiming all of the good news.

In regards to “Dr.” Luke,I agree that Luke has no explicit exposition of “atonement theology” but I have to ask, Brother ham, are you saying that Paul’s strong views of atonement would not be in Luke’s mind though he does not explicitly write out a doctrine of atonement in his works? I don’t think one could sit under Paul and not come away understanding Jesus’ death as an atonement and ransom for sinners. Would you say that we cannot form a systematic theology having done our biblical theological studies; that is to say can I not make a system of thought having examined each book on its own terms? Is there no unity within the pages of Scripture? I am curious not only for brother ham’s view to this question but the other authors here on the site. Can there be a systematic theology formed after doing proper biblical theology?

I must also ask, how did Jesus give his body and blood for his disciples as we see in Luke 22:19-20? Also, wouldn’t the predestined plan of God in Acts 4:27-28 include Isaiah 53 and Yahweh crushing his Servant? If so, then Luke would have atonement theology. He just did not devote a section of his work to explicitly state it.

Then what of Luke, who specifically avoids “atonement theology” at all turns in his gospel? Is it not possible to have variable understandings of what the “gospel” means?…of what it means to be “Christian”?