THE SOTERIOLOGY OF LUKE
- A serendipitous find I made in a second-hand bookshop the other day was "Luke and the Restoration of Israel" by David Ravens. The main burden of his book is that Luke never embraced the new covenant in the blood of Jesus, but regarded the old covenant as still valid. This is borne out by the fact that there are only two mentions of blood in the gospel of Luke and Acts. The first mention is in Luke 22:19 b - 20 where Wescott and Horst list this as a Western non-interpolation. It is one of the numerous places at the end of the gospel of Luke where Codex Bezae , the Old Latin, Codex Koridethi and the Old Syriac, usually suffixed by c and s, are representative of what has come to be known as the Western text and depart from the Textus Receptus, although Western is no longer apparently regarded as a geographical term, but is still used because of its entrenched place in the literature. To recap, the Western text in the fourth edition of Metzger and Ehrman's book "The Text of the New Testament" is regarded as of equal importance with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as a first generation direct descendant of the original Autograph so the textual evidence for Luke 22:19b - 20 not being in the original autograph is reasonably solid.
The other place where blood is mentioned in Luke/Acts is in Acts 20:28. The significant fact here in my opinion is that Luke is faithfully reporting Paul's speech and obviously knew that salvation by the blood of Christ was central to Paul's theology. The combined effect of both observations is to reinforce the very considerable difference of Luke's theology from that of Paul and to underline his own idiosyncratic approach to the death of Jesus.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My sense is that Luke does discuss the blood of the New Covenant in Luke 22. There are likely two traditions of the wording of the Last Supper in the NT and Luke's is close to Paul's in 1 Corinthians 11, not like Matthew and Mark that a scribal addition is more likely to have followed. More than that, Luke uses Servant imagery to discuss Jesus' suffering that places him in some kind of a substitutionary mode. The picture of washing tied to responding to Jesus also points to some kind of cleansing tied to Jesus' work in Acts. So the distance is not as great between paul and Luke as you suggest. Rather, Luke highlights who saves more than concentrating as Paul does on how it works as well. If Luke really was that different than Paul I do not think he would have included the remark he does to the Ephesian elders in Acts.