Luke 1 commentary

LUKE 1 COJMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account
of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among
us,
BARCLAY, “AN HISTORIAN'S INTRODUCTION (Luke 1:1-4)
1:1-4 Since many have set their hands to the task of drawing up an account of
the events which were completed amongst us, telling the story just as those who
were the original eye-witnesses and who became the servants of the word handed
it down to us, I too made up my mind to carry out a careful investigation of all
things from the beginning, and to write to you, Theophilus, your excellency, an
orderly account of them, so that you might have in your mind a full and reliable
account of the things in which you have been instructed.
Luke's introduction is unique in the first three gospels because it is the only place
where the author steps out upon the stage and uses the pronoun "I." There are
three things to note in this passage.
(i) It is the best bit of Greek in the New Testament. Luke uses here the very form
of introduction which the great Greek historians all used. Herodotus begins,
"These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus." A much later
historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, tells us at the beginning of his history,
"Before beginning to write I gathered information, partly from the lips of the
most learned men with whom I came into contact, and partly from histories
written by Romans of whom they spoke with praise." So Luke, as he began his
story in the most sonorous Greek, followed the highest models he could find.
It is as if Luke said to himself, "I am writing the greatest story in the world and
nothing but the best is good enough for it." Some of the ancient manuscripts are
very beautiful productions, written in silver ink on purple vellum; and often the
scribe, when he came to the name of God or of Jesus, wrote it in gold. Dr.
Boreham tells of an old workman who, every Friday night, took the newest and
shiniest coins out of his pay packet for Sunday's offering in church. The
historian, the scribe and the workman were all filled with the same idea--only the
best is good enough for Jesus. They always gave their utmost for the highest.
(ii) It is most significant that Luke was not satisfied with anyone else's story of
Christ. He must have his own. Real religion is never a second-hand thing. It is a
personal discovery. Professor Arthur Gossip of Trinity College, Glasgow used to
say that the four gospels were important, but beyond them all came the gospel of
1

personal experience. Luke had to rediscover Jesus Christ for himself.
(iii) There is no passage of the Bible which sheds such a floodlight on the
doctrine of the inspiration of scripture. No one would deny that the gospel of
Luke is an inspired document; and yet Luke begins by affirming that it is the
product of the most careful historical research. God's inspiration does not come
to the man who sits with folded hands and lazy mind and only waits, but to the
man who thinks and seeks and searches. True inspiration comes when the
seeking mind of man joins with the revealing Spirit of God. The word of God is
given, but it is given to the man who is seeking for it. "Seek and you shall find"
(Matthew 7:7).
BARNES, "Forasmuch as many - It has been doubted who are referred to here
by the word “many.” It seems clear that it could not be the other evangelists, for the
gospel by “John” was not yet written, and the word “many” denotes clearly more than
“two.” Besides, it is said that they undertook to record what the “eye-witnesses” had
delivered to them, so that the writers did not pretend to be eye-witnesses themselves.
It is clear, therefore, that other writings are meant than the gospels which we now
have, but what they were is a matter of conjecture. What are now known as spurious
gospels were written long after Luke wrote his. It is probable that Luke refers to
“fragments” of history, or to narratives of “detached” sayings, acts, or parables of our
Lord, which had been made and circulated among the disciples and others. His
doctrines were original, bold, pure, and authoritative. His miracles had been
extraordinary, clear, and awful. His life and death had been peculiar; and it is not
improbable - indeed it is highly probable that such broken accounts and narratives of
detached facts would be preserved. That this is what Luke means appears farther
from Luk_1:3, where “he” professes to give a regular, full, and systematic account
from the very beginning - “having had perfect understanding of “all things from the
very first.” The records of the others - the “many” - were broken and incomplete. His
were to be regular and full.
Taken in hand - Undertaken, attempted.
To set forth in order - To compose a narrative. It does not refer to the “order”
or “arrangement,” but means simply to give a narrative. The word rendered here “in
order” is different from that in the third verse, which “has” reference “to order,” or to
a full and fair “arrangement” of the principal facts, etc., in the history of our Lord.
A declaration - A narrative - an account of.
Which are most surely believed among us - Among Christians - among all
the Christians then living. Here we may remark:
1. That Christians of that day had the best of all opportunities for knowing
whether those things were true. Many had seen them, and all others had had
the account from those who had witnessed them.
2. That infidels now cannot “possibly” be as good judges in the matter as those
who lived at the time, and who were thus competent to determine whether
these things were true or false.
3. That all Christians do “most surely believe” the truth of the gospel. It is their
life, their hope, their all. Nor can they doubt that their Saviour lived, bled, died,
rose, and still lives; that he was their atoning sacrifice, and that he is God over
all, blessed forever.
2

CLARKE, "Many have taken in hand - Great and remarkable characters have
always many biographers. So it appears it was with our Lord: but as most of these
accounts were inaccurate, recording as facts things which had not happened; and
through ignorance or design mistaking others, especially in the place where St. Luke
wrote; it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to inspire this holy man with the most
correct knowledge of the whole history of our Lord’s birth, preaching, miracles,
sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension, that the sincere, upright followers of
God might have a sure foundation, on which they might safely build their faith. See
the note on Luk_9:10.
Most surely believed among us - Facts confirmed by the fullest evidence - των
πεπληροφορηµενων πραγµατων. Every thing that had been done or said by Jesus Christ
was so public, so plain, and so accredited by thousands of witnesses, who could have
had no interest in supporting an imposture, as to carry the fullest conviction, to the
hearts of those who heard and saw him, of the divinity of his doctrine, and the truth
of his miracles.
GILL, “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,.... From hence, to the end of
Luk_1:4 is a preface of the evangelist to his Gospel, setting forth the reasons of his
writing it; and which he wrote and sent to the excellent Theophilus, for the further
confirmation of him in the faith of Christ. It seems that many had took in hand, or
attempteo set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely
believed among us; that is, they undertook to write and publish a very particular and
exact narrative of the birth, life, actions, doctrines, miracles, sufferings, death,
resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; things which Luke, and other Christians,
had the fullest and strongest evidence, and were confidently assured of, and most
firmly believed, even with a full assurance of faith. By these many, he cannot mean
the authentic historians of evangelical facts, as Matthew and Mark; for they two
cannot, with any propriety, be called many; and besides, it is not so very clear and
certain a point, that they had, as yet, wrote their Gospels; nor would this evangelist
suggest any deficiency, weakness, and inaccuracy in them, as he seems to do: nor
does he intend such spurious writers as the authors of the Gospels according to the
Nazarenes, Hebrews, and Egyptians; of Nicodemus, Thomas, Matthias, and of the
twelve apostles; and still less, the Gospels of Cerinthus, Basilides, and other heretics;
since these would not have passed without a censure from him, for the falsehood,
fabulous, and trifling stuff in them, as well as for the wicked and heretical opinions
propagated by them; and besides, these pieces were not extant when this Gospel was
written: but he seems to design some honest and well meaning Christians, who
undertook to write, and did write an account of the above things, which were firmly
believed by all; and which they took from the apostles, and first ministers of the
Gospel, from their sermons and discourses, and from conversation with them; and
which they committed to writing, partly to help their own memories, and partly for
the benefit of others; in which, no doubt, they acted an upright part, though attended
with weakness: wherefore, the evangelist does not censure them as false, wicked, and
heretical, nor approve of them as divine and perfect for though they honestly meant,
and designed well, yet there might be many things collected by them, which were
impertinent, and not proper to be transmitted to posterity; and what might be wrote
with great inaccuracy and deficiency, and in a style the Holy Ghost thought improper
things of this kind should be delivered in: and therefore the evangelist, moved and
inspired by the Spirit of God, set about the following work, and under the same
3

influence completed it. The phrase, αναταξασθαι διηγησιν, "to set forth in order a
declaration", is as Dr. Lightfoot observes, out of the Talmud (h), agreeably to the
Jewish way of speaking,
"R. Chasdai said to one of the Rabbins, who was ‫אגדתא‬ ‫,מסדר‬ "setting in order a
declaration" before him. &c. or relating in order a story before him.
HENRY, “Complimental prefaces and dedications, the language of flattery and the
food and fuel of pride, are justly condemned by the wise and good; but it doth not
therefore follow, that such as are useful and instructive are to be run down; such is
this, in which St. Luke dedicates his gospel to his friend Theophilus, not as to his
patron, though he was a man of honour, to protect it, but as to his pupil, to learn it,
and hold it fast. It is not certain who this Theophilus was; the name signifies a friend
of God; some think that it does not mean any particular person, but every one that is
a lover of God; Dr. Hammond quotes some of the ancients understanding it so: and
then it teaches us, that those who are truly lovers of God, will heartily welcome the
gospel of Christ, the design and tendency of which are, to bring us to God. But it is
rather to be understood of some particular person, probably a magistrate; because
Luke gives him here the same title of respect which St. Paul gave to Festus the
governor, kratiste (Act_26:25), which we there translate most noble Festus, and here
most excellent Theophilus. Note, Religion does not destroy civility and good
manners, but teaches us, according to the usages of our country, to give honour to
them to whom honour is due.
Now observe here, I. Why St. Luke wrote this gospel. It is certain that he was
moved by the Holy Ghost, not only to the writing, but in the writing of it; but in both
he was moved as a reasonable creature, and not as a mere machine; and he was made
to consider,
1. That the things he wrote of were things that were most surely believed among
all Christians, and therefore things which they ought to be instructed in, that they
may know what they believe, and things which ought to be transmitted to posterity
(who are as much concerned in them as we are); and, in order to that, to be
committed to writing, which is the surest way of conveyance to the ages to come. He
will not write about things of doubtful disputation, things about which Christians
may safely differ from one another and hesitate within themselves; but the things
which are, and ought to be, most surely believed, pragmata peplērophorēmena - the
things which were performed (so some), which Christ and his apostles did, and did
with such circumstances as gave a full assurance that they were really done, so that
they have gained an established lasting credit. Note, Though it is not the foundation
of our faith, yet it is a support to it, that the articles of our creed are things that have
been long most surely believed. The doctrine of Christ is what thousands of the
wisest and best of men have ventured their souls upon with the greatest assurance
and satisfaction.
2. That it was requisite there should be a declaration made in order of those
things; that the history of the life of Christ should be methodized, and committed to
writing, for the greater certainty of the conveyance. When things are put in order, we
know the better where to find them for our own use, and how to keep them for the
benefit of others.
3. That there were many who had undertaken to publish narratives of the life of
Christ, many well-meaning people, who designed well, and did well, and what they
published had done good, though not done by divine inspiration, nor so well done as
4

might be, nor intended for perpetuity. Note, (1.) The labours of others in the gospel
of Christ, if faithful and honest, we ought to commend and encourage, and not to
despise, though chargeable with many deficiencies. (2.) Others' services to Christ
must not be reckoned to supersede ours, but rather to quicken them.
JAMISON, “Luk_1:1-4.
It appears from the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apostolic Epistles, that the
earliest preaching of the Gospel consisted of a brief summary of the facts of our
Lord’s earthly history, with a few words of pointed application to the parties
addressed. Of these astonishing facts, notes would naturally be taken and digests put
into circulation. It is to such that Luke here refers; and in terms of studied respect, as
narratives of what was “believed surely,” or “on sure grounds” among Christians, and
drawn up from the testimony of “eye-witnesses and ministering servants of the
word.” But when he adds that “it seemed good to him also to write in order, having
traced down all things with exactness from their first rise,” it is a virtual claim for his
own Gospel to supersede these “many” narratives. Accordingly, while not one of
them has survived the wreck of time, this and the other canonical Gospels live, and
shall live, the only fitting vehicles of those life-bringing facts which have made all
things new. Apocryphal or spurious gospels, upheld by parties unfriendly to the
truths exhibited in the canonical Gospels, have not perished; but those well-meant
and substantially correct narratives here referred to, used only while better were not
to be had, were by tacit consent allowed to merge in the four peerless documents
which from age to age, and with astonishing unanimity, have been accepted as the
written charter of all Christianity.
set forth in order — more simply, to draw up a narrative.
CALVIN, “Luke is the only Evangelist who makes a preface to his Gospel, for
the purpose of explaining briefly the motive which induced him to write. By
addressing a single individual he may appear to have acted foolishly, instead of
sounding the trumpet aloud, as was his duty, and inviting all men to believe. It
appears, therefore, to be unsuitable that the doctrine which does not peculiarly
belong to one person or to another, but is common to all, should be privately sent
to his friend Theophilus. Hence some have been led to think that Theophilus is
an appellative noun, and is applied to all godly persons on account of their love
of God; but the epithet which is joined to it is inconsistent with that opinion. Nor
is there any reason for dreading the absurdity which drove them to adopt such
an expedient. For it is not less true that Paul’s doctrine belongs to all, though
some of his Epistles were addressed to certain cities, and others to certain men.
Nay, we must acknowledge, if we take into account the state of those times, that
Luke adopted a conscientious and prudent course. There were tyrants on every
hand who, by terror and alarm, were prepared to obstruct the progress of sound
doctrine. This gave occasion to Satan and his ministers for spreading abroad the
clouds of error, by which the pure light would be obscured. Now, as the great
body of men cared little about maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and few
considered attentively the inventions of Satan or the amount of danger that
lurked under such disguises, every one who excelled others by uncommon faith,
or by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was the more strongly bound to do his
utmost, by care and industry, for preserving the doctrine of godliness pure and
uncontaminated from every corruption. Such persons were chosen by God to be
the sacred keepers of the law, by whom the heavenly doctrine committed to them
5

should be honestly handed down to posterity. With this view therefore, Luke
dedicates his Gospel to Theophilus, that he might undertake the faithful
preservation of it; and the same duty Paul enjoins and recommends to Timothy,
(2 Timothy 1:14.)
1.Forasmuch as many. He assigns a reason for writing which, one would think,
ought rather to have dissuaded him from writing. To compose a history, which
had already employed many authors, was unnecessary labor, at least if they had
faithfully discharged their duty. But no accusation of imposture, or carelessness,
or any other fault, is in the slightest degree insinuated. It looks, therefore, as if he
were expressing a resolution to do what had been already done. I reply, though
he deals gently with those who had written before him, he does not altogether
approve of their labors. He does not expressly say that they had written on
matters with which they were imperfectly acquainted, but by laying claim to
certainty as to the facts, he modestly denies their title to full and unshaken
confidence. It may be objected that, if they made false statements, they ought
rather to have been severely censured. I reply again, they may not have been
deeply in fault; they may have erred more from want of consideration than from
malice; and, consequently, there would be no necessity for greater fierceness of
attack. And certainly there is reason to believe that these were little more than
historical sketches which, though comparatively harmless at the time, would
afterwards, if they had not been promptly counteracted, have done serious
injury to the faith. But it is worthy of remark that, in applying this remedy
through Luke to unnecessary writings, God had a wonderful design in view of
obtaining, by universal consent, the rejection of others, and thus securing
undivided credit to those which reflect brightly his adorable majesty. There is
the less excuse for those silly people, by whom disgusting stories, under the name
of Nicodemus, or some other person, are, at the present day, palmed upon the
world.
Are most surely believed among us The participle πεπληροφορημένα, which
Luke employs, denotes things fully ascertained, and which do not admit of
doubt. The old translator has repeatedly fallen into mistakes about this word,
and through that ignorance has given us a corrupted sense of some very
beautiful passages. One of these occurs in the writings of Paul, where he enjoins
every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind, (Romans 14:5,) that conscience
may not hesitate and waver, tossed to and fro (Ephesians 4:14) by doubtful
opinions. Hence, too, is derived the word πληροφορία , which he erroneously
renders fullness, while it denotes that strong conviction springing from faith, in
which godly minds safely rest. There is still, as I have said, an implied contrast;
for, by claiming for himself the authority of a faithful witness, he destroys the
credit of others who give contrary statements.
Among us (17) has the same meaning as with us. (18) He appears to make faith
rest on a weak foundation, its relation to men, while it ought to rest on the Word
of God only; and certainly the full assurance (πληροφορία) of faith is ascribed to
the sealing of the Spirit, (1 Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 10:22.) I reply, if the
Word of God does not hold the first rank, faith will not be satisfied with any
human testimonies, but, where the inward confirmation of the Spirit has already
6

taken place, it allows them some weight in the historical knowledge of facts. By
historical knowledge I mean that knowledge which we obtain respecting events,
either by our own observation or by the statement of others. For, with respect to
the visible works of God, it is equally proper to listen to eye-witnesses as to rely
on experience. Besides, those whom Luke follows were not private authors, but
were also ministers of the Word By this commendation he exalts them above the
rank of human authority; for he intimates that the persons from whom he
received his information had been divinely authorized to preach the Gospel.
Hence, too, that security which he shortly afterwards mentions, and which, if it
does not rest upon God, may soon be disturbed. There is great weight in his
denominating those from whom he received his Gospel ministers of the Word;
for on that ground believers conclude that the witnesses are beyond all exception,
as the Lawyers express it, and cannot lawfully be set aside.
Erasmus, who has borrowed from Virgil (19) a phrase used in his version, did
not sufficiently consider the estimation and weight due to a Divine calling. Luke
does not talk in a profane style, but enjoins us in the person of his friend
Theophilus to keep in view the command of Christ, and to hear with reverence
the Son of God speaking through his Apostles. It is a great matter that he affirms
them to have been eye-witneses, but, by calling them ministers, he takes them out
of the common order of men, that our faith may have its support in heaven and
not in earth. In short, Luke’s meaning is this: “that, since thou now hast those
things committed faithfully to writing which thou hadst formerly learned by oral
statements, thou mayest place a stronger reliance on the received doctrine.” It is
thus evident that God has employed every method to prevent our faith from
being suspended on the doubtful and shifting opinions of men. There is the less
room for excusing the ingratitude of the world, which, as if it openly preferred
the uncertainty arising out of vague and unfounded reports, turns from so great
a Divine favor with loathing. But let us attend to the remarkable distinction
which our Lord has laid down, that foolish credulity may not insinuate itself
under the name of faith. Meanwhile, let us allow the world to be allured, as it
deserves, by the deceitful baits of foolish curiosity, and even to surrender itself
willingly to the delusions of Satan.
LIGHTFOOT, “[Forasmuch as many have taken in hand, &c.] Whereas it was
several years after the ascension of our Lord before the four books of the holy
gospel were committed to writing; the apostles, the seventy disciples, and other
ministers of the word, in the mean time everywhere dispersing the glad tidings:
no wonder if any pious and greedy auditors had, for their own memory's sake
and the good of others, noted in their own private table-books as much as they
were capable of carrying from the sermons and discourses which they so
frequently heard. Nor is it more strange if some of these should from their own
collections compile and publish now and then some commentaries or short
histories of the passages they had met with. Which, however they might perform
out of very good intentions, and a faithful impartial pen, yet were these writings
far from commencing an infallible canon, or eternal unalterable rule of the
Christian faith.
It was not in the power of this kind of writers either to select what the Divine
7

Wisdom would have selected for the holy canon, or to declare those things in that
style wherein the Holy Spirit would have them declared, to whom he was neither
the guide in the action nor the director of their pen.
Our evangelist, therefore, takes care to weigh such kind of writings in such a
balance as that it may appear they are neither rejected by him as false or
heretical, nor yet received as divine and canonical: not the first, because he tells
us they had written even those very things which the heavenly preachers had
delivered to them; not the latter, for to those writings he opposeth, that he
himself was one that had perfect understanding of things from above. Of which
we shall consider in its proper place.
[To set forth in order a declaration.] A kind of phrase not much unlike what was
so familiar amongst the Jews, an orderly narration: saving, that that was more
peculiarly applied by them to the commemoration of the Passover. And yet it is
used in a larger sense too, who was he who set forth in order a declaration.
[Of those things which are most surely believed among us, &c.] Let us recollect
what the unbelieving Jews think and say of the actions, miracles, and doctrine of
Christ; and then we shall find it more agreeable to render this clause, of those
things which are most surely believed among us, according to what Erasmus,
Beza, our own English translators, and others, have rendered it, than with the
vulgar, of the things which are fulfilled amongst us. They had said, "This
deceiver seduceth the people, those wonders he did were by the power of magic;
'but we do most surely believe those things which he did and taught.'"
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
Nineteen hundred years have not dimmed the luster of this glorious chapter nor
cast any shadow over the hard historical facts related therein, facts which have
been etched into the conscience of all mankind and which are indelibly written
into the pages of the world's authentic records. The account here was written by
a brilliant physician, scientist and literary genius, following years of patient and
thorough research, and who had the incomparable opportunity of examining all
of the sources, written and oral, that had any bearing on the events narrated.
Luke's vivid, scientific account is as far above the subjective guesses of modern
scholars as the sun in heaven is above the mud-flats of earth. If men would know
what really happened at that pivotal point in history which would split all time
into the two segments called B.C. and A.D., then let them read it here. This is
what happened!
This chapter contains the author's preface (Luke 1:1-4), the record of the
annunciation to Zacharias (Luke 1:5-23), the conception of Elizabeth (Luke
1:24-25), the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:26-38), and Mary's visit to Elizabeth
(Luke 1:39-56), the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:57-66), the prophecy of
Zacharias (Luke 1:67-79), and a one-sentence summary of John the Baptist's
early life (Luke 1:80).
THE PREFACE
8

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 eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed
good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first to
write thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the
certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)
This preface is not a statement of what Luke proposed to do, but a record of
what he had already done. "The tense of the verbs shows that he wrote these
verses after he had completed the body of the Gospel."[1]
Here also is a glimpse of the true meaning of the doctrine of the inspiration of the
Holy Scriptures. "All scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16 RSV), and
"Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21); but this
does not mean that God's inspiration comes to the lazy and inactive mind, but
rather to the diligent seeker of truth, as beautifully exemplified by the research
of Luke. As Barclay expressed it, "The word of God is given, but it is given to the
man who is seeking for it."[2] God guided his inspired authors by guiding their
purpose, their research, and by protecting them from error, yet leaving the
writer free to express the truth discovered in the terms and vocabulary that he
already knew.
Many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative ... This indicates that Luke's
written sources were numerous. "Many" is incapable of meaning only five or six.
Even as many as eight are called "few" in Scripture (1 Peter 3:20); and we are
therefore presented with the declaration which reveals a much larger number,
perhaps as many as a score, or even more. Thus, the very first line of this Gospel
disproves the notion that Luke got most of his Gospel from Mark. As a matter of
fact, the solid evidence is all against the assumption that Luke ever saw either
Matthew's or Mark's Gospels. As the scholarly Macknight stated, "Without all
doubt, had he been speaking of them, he would not have passed them over in
such a slight and casual manner."[3]
Matters which have been fulfilled among us ... By these words, Luke affirmed
that his record dealt with nothing that was new or novel in the faith of the very
extensive Christian community already established throughout the
Mediterranean world. The word for "fulfilled" in this clause means "fully
established" (English Revised Version (1885) margin); and this means that the
total content of Luke's Gospel was already the faith of the whole church at the
time he wrote in 60 A.D.
Who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word ... Luke's
mention of eye-witnesses of the things he recorded "from the beginning" and
"from the first" (Luke 1:3), along with the conspicuous birth narrative in the
first two chapters is very nearly the equivalent of saying that he had interviewed
the Virgin Mary herself, a conclusion that will appear mandatory in the
narrative itself. This is devastating to the wild, subjective theories with regard to
Luke's source for the first two chapters. This is also the end of all attempts to
late-date the Gospel; for, even at the time Luke wrote, the Virgin Mother was not
9

less than eighty years of age, even allowing for the annunciation to have occurred
when she was fifteen years old.
Ministers of the word ... The Greek word Luke used here for "ministers" is
[@huperetai], a word used in medical terminology "to refer to doctors who
served under a principal physician."[4] Thus, Doctor Luke referred to a group,
including the apostles themselves, who served as lesser DOCTORS under the
Great Physician. There are numerous uses of such a medical vocabulary
throughout Luke.
It seemed good to me also ... This removes any doubt that Luke disapproved of
previous writings on the Christian faith, for he here plainly placed himself on the
same platform with previous authors.
Having traced the source of all things accurately from the first ... The words
"from the first" are a translation of the Greek term [@anothen], the same word
which is rendered "from above" in John 3:3. G. Campbell Morgan insisted on
the latter meaning here, which would make this an affirmation by Luke of the
fact of his inspiration. Hobbs said that there is no reason why both meanings
should not apply here.[5]
To write unto thee in order ... There is no way to know exactly what Luke
intended by this, other than the inherent truth that his record is systematic. It
does not seem to be strictly chronological in every instance; but it is not affirmed
here that it is.
Most excellent Theophilus ... The use of "excellent" denominates Theophilus as a
man of equestrian rank, that is a knight, the term being used of such officials as
the governor of the province (Acts 23:26). The name Theophilus means "one who
loves God," but there is no reason to suppose that Luke used this name otherwise
than as the personal cognomen of his friend, who might also have been his
patron. The omission of the title "excellent" in Acts 1:1 supports the speculation
that Theophilus was governor of an unnamed province when Luke was written,
but that he was no longer governor when Acts was penned.
That thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast
instructed ... The Greek word here rendered "things" is actually "words"
(English Revised Version (1885) margin); and the last clause means "which thou
wast taught by word of mouth," unmistakable references to the oral instruction
received by Christians in those times, prior to and after their acceptance of the
faith. This makes the implications of this passage to be of epic proportions.
Despite the fact of there having been "many" written portions of the gospel
message, even so important a person as Theophilus had received only word-of-
mouth teaching, indicating the universality of the word-of-mouth method of
instruction. This fully accounts for the word-by-word correspondence to be
found in certain episodes recorded in the synoptic Gospels, all of them written
independently. Luke's Gospel was written for the precise purpose of confirming
the accuracy of the oral instruction Theophilus had already received. The
glimpse afforded here, as Dummelow said, "is all that is really known, as
10

distinguished from what is guessed about the sources of the synoptic Gospels."[6]
One other implication of vast significance appears in this preface. Whereas the
oral instruction received by Theophilus was admitted by Luke to have been
absolutely correct, and whereas the "many" writers had written of the things
Luke recorded, this Gospel was composed for the purpose of greater "certainty"
(Luke 1:4) than could have been held in respect of oral teachings, and with a
design of giving an account of "all things" (Luke 1:3) that were pertinent to the
holy faith, as contrasted with implied inadequacy of the "many" written
accounts, this latter implication of inadequacy, or incompleteness, being the sole
fault of the "many" writers before him. There is not the slightest hint that Luke
was writing to correct false teachings of the writers cited.
[1] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 17.
[2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1956), p. 2.
[3] James MacKnight, Harmony of the Gospels in Two Volumes (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), Vol. I, p. 34.
[4] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 19.
[5] Ibid., p. 21.
[6] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Macmillan
Company, 1937), p. 736.
COKE, "Luke 1:1-3. Forasmuch, &c.— Forasmuch as many have undertaken to
compose a narrative of those things which have been accomplished amongst us,
Luke 1:2 as they who were from the beginning eye witnesses, and afterwards
ministers of the word, delivered them to us; Luke 1:3. I have also determined,
having exactly traced every thing from the first, to write, &c. "This must refer,"
says Dr.
Doddridge, "to some histories of the life of Christ which are now lost; for
Matthew and Mark, the only evangelists who can be supposed to have written
before Luke, could not with any propriety be called many; and of these two,
Matthew at least wrote from personal knowledge, not the testimony of others.
One must readily conclude, that the books referred to are lost, as none of the
apocryphal gospels now extant, published either by Fabricius, in his Cod.
Apocryph. Nov. Test. or by Mr. Jones in his History of the Canon, can with any
shew of reason pretend to equal antiquity with this of St. Luke; but I cannot
suppose with some of the ancient fathers, that the evangelist here intends the
gospels of Basilides, Cerinthus, and some other early heretics, since he seems to
allow these histories, whatever they were, to have been at least honestly written,
according to information received from the most capable judges; and it is
strange that Eusebius should imagine the words to be intended as a severe
11

censure on the now-unknown compilers of these histories, whoever they were."
This appears to be a fair and candid state of the case: Dr. Macknight however
observes upon this preface, that, at first sight of it, one would be apt to think,
that Luke speaks here of the other gospels, and their authors; yet the character
which he gives of the writers whom he had in view, makes it evident that they
were historians of a different kind from the evangelists, properly so called; for
theywrote according to the information they had received from the eye-witnesses
and ministersoftheword;whereastheevangelists,being eye-witnesses themselves,
wrote from their own personal knowledge, improved by inspiration; at least
Matthew and John were in both these respects writers of this character; and as
for Mark, though he was not an apostle, he was most probably an early disciple,
and consequently an eye-witness of the greatest part of the things which he has
related. Epiphanius affirms, that he was one of the seventy. But, to set the matter
in another light, if we interpret St. Luke's preface of the evangelists, we must
allow, that he had none but Matthew and Mark in view, since, by the
acknowledgment of all, John did not write his gospel till long after Luke's was
published;—but that he should call two historians many, is hard to be conceived.
Further, if the gospels of Matthew and Mark were abroad when Luke was
writing, we may be assured that he would peruse them; and as he speaks of
persons who had composed histories of Christ's life, he could not by any means
overlook authors of their character. On this supposition, can it be imagined, that
while his own gospel was penned under the direction of the Spirit, according to
the information that he had received from those who were eye-witnesses, he
would only say, of an eye-witness, and an apostle, on whom the Spirit hath
descended, or even of an apostle's companion, that they had taken in hand to
give the history of Christ's life, and not rather have mentioned both them and
their works with particular approbation. The probability of this opinion is
heightened by the following consideration: It makes the gospels appear with a
noble and beautiful propriety; for, on a supposition that St. Luke wrote before
the rest, we conceive the reason why theyhave passed over in silence the many
miraculous circumstances with which the conception, birth, and circumcision
both of the Messiah's forerunner, and of the Messiah himself were honoured,
together with the prophesies of Simeon and Anna uttered at our Lord's
presentation in the temple, as also the history of his childhood and private life:
Luke had accurately, and at great length related all these things, without
omitting any particular that deserved to be mentioned. On the other hand, if we
think that Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke, their gospels will appear
defective in these important points, and no reason will offer itself to justify such
material omission. Instead of have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration, Heylin, Doddridge, &c. read, have undertaken to compose a history.
The word πεπληροφορημενων, Dr. Doddridge renders, confirmed with the
fullest evidence: it implies both that fulness of evidence by which any fact is
supported, and likewise that confidence, or fulness of assent, by which facts so
supported are believed. Compare 2 Timothy 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:7 in the Greek.
BENSON, "Luke 1:1-2. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand — Who they
were to whom the apostle here alludes, who had, from vague reports, (for so his
words seem to imply,) rashly published narratives not entirely to be depended
on, it is impossible for us now to discover. It is true, the word επεχειρησαν, have
12

undertaken, used here by Luke, does not necessarily imply any censure on the
writers of such accounts, but the scope of the place seems to imply it, if not on all,
at least on some of them: for if all, or even most of them, had furnished true
narratives, the number was an argument rather against a new attempt than for
it. Grotius justly observes, that the spurious gospels, mentioned by ancient
writers, are forgeries manifestly of a later date than the time of Luke. That there
were, however, some such performances at the time when Luke began to write,
the words of this evangelist are a sufficient evidence: for, to consider this book
merely on the footing of a human composition, what writer of common sense
would introduce himself to the public by observing the numerous attempts that
had been made by former writers, some of whom at least had not been at due
pains to be properly informed, if he himself were actually the first, or even the
second, or the third, who had written on the subject; and if one of the two who
preceded him had better opportunities of knowing than he, and the other fully as
good? But the total disappearance of those spurious writings, probably no better
than hasty collections of flying rumours, containing a mixture of truth and
falsehood, may, after the genuine gospels were generally known and read, be
easily accounted for. At midnight, the glimmering of the taper is not without its
use, but it can make no conceivable addition to the light of the meridian sun. It
deserves, however, to be remarked by the way, that whatever may be thought to
be insinuated here by the evangelist, concerning the imperfect information of
former historians, there is no hint given of their bad designs. It is justly observed
here by Dr. Campbell, that the very circumstance of the number of such
narratives, at so early a period, is itself an evidence that there was something in
the first publication of the Christian doctrine, which, notwithstanding the many
unfavourable circumstances wherewith it was attended, excited the curiosity and
awakened the attention of persons of all ranks and denominations; insomuch
that every narrative, which pretended to furnish men with any additional
information concerning so extraordinary a personage as Jesus, seems to have
been read with avidity. To set forth in order a declaration — Greek,
αναταξασθαι διηγησιν, to compose a narrative; of those things which are most
surely believed among us — As the great foundation of our common faith. The
expression, πραγματων, refers not only to the things believed, but also to the
things performed by Christ and his apostles; this first history of Luke being
designed to record what Jesus himself said or did, Acts 1:1; and his second, to
relate the acts of the apostles: and the participle, πεπληροφορημενων, translated,
most surely believed, is rather to be understood as referring to the fulness of that
evidence with which the things were attended, than to the confidence with which
they were credited. It not only signifies that the doctrines were taught and the
things done, but that they were taught and done with such circumstances, as laid
a foundation for πληροφορια της πιστεως, a full assurance of faith, as to the
truth of the doctrines, and the reality of the facts. Even as they delivered them,
which from the beginning — Of Christ’s ministry; were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word — Because the persons, according to whose information
the writers referred to by Luke composed their histories, are said to have been
eye-witnesses as well as ministers of the word, ( του λογου,) several writers have
supposed that, by the word, Luke meant Christ himself, one of whose titles is, the
Word, John 1:1, and, the Word of God, Revelation 19:13. Others, however, by
the word, understand the transactions of our Lord’s public life; his sermons,
13

miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension, because these things were the great
subjects of the preaching of the apostles, who were eye and ear witnesses of them.
And to Christians these were matters of such moment, that the knowledge,
consideration, and remembrance of them, were the great business and comfort of
their lives. It is no wonder, therefore, that those who were able should set down
in writing such particulars of them as they had learned, whether from the
conversations or sermons of the apostles and eye-witnesses. But histories thus
drawn up, though they might contain many things highly worthy of the notice of
Christians, must needs have been defective both in their matter and manner.
Wherefore, Luke, having attained a thorough knowledge of our Lord’s history
from the very beginning, thought fit to give a more full, regular, and connected
account of it than had hitherto appeared, as he signifies in the next verse.
BURKITT, "This gospel, together with the Acts of the Apostles, were written by
St. Luke, the beloved physician and companion of St. Paul, who wrote, as did the
rest of the evangelists, by the special direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost;
where we may profitable remark the wonderful wisdom of God, who, in order to
the confirming of our faith in the truth of the gospel, raised up a sufficient
number of witnesses to testify the verify and infallible certainty of all that the
gospel delivers unto us. Now this evangelist, St. Luke, dedicates this gospel,
together with the Acts of the Apostles, to Theophilus, who was, as some think, an
honourable senator; or a renowned and eminent person in the church, as others
suppose: but many take the word Theophilus, not for a proper name, but
common name, signifying every one that loveth God; to whom St. Luke
addresses his discourse.
The first four verses of this chapter are a preface to the following history, and
acquaint us with the reasons which induced St. Luke to write, namely, because
divers persons in that age had imprudently and inconsiderately set upon writing
gospels, without direction from the spirit of God, whose errors and mistakes
were to be corrected by a true narrative. This St. Luke declares he was able to
make, having had perfect understanding and knowledge of the truth of those
things he was about to relate; partly by his familiarity with St. Paul, and partly
by his conversation with the other apostles, who, constantly attending our
Saviour, were eye and ear witnesses of those things that are the subject matter of
the ensuing history.
Hence learn, 1. That there were some apocryphal writings (or writings which
were not of divine authority) relating to the New Testament, as well as to the
Old; as the books of Asher, Gad, and Iddo, are recited in the Old Testament, but
were never received into the canon of the scripture: so were there some gospels,
or historical relations of our Saviour's life and actions, wrote by persons which
the church never received, as not having the impress of God's ordination.
Note, 2. That the gospels which St. Luke and the other evangelists wrote, have
nothing of fallibility or uncertainty in them; they wrote nothing but what they
either heard, or saw themselves, or else received from those that were eye and
ear witnesses of matter of fact. It seemed good to me to write, having had perfect
knowledge of all things from the very first.
14

BI 1-4, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
St. Luke’s preface
These four verses arc a preface, and a very valuable preface, because they are a
declaration from the author himself of the manner in which we are to regard his
work.
I. St. Luke gives us to understand that HE HIMSELF WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS
OF THE EVENTS HE IS ABOUT TO RECORD, but that ha had taken pains to
inquire, and had a perfect understanding of all the history of the Lord Jesus Christ.
II. St. Luke tells us that he had undertaken to write his Gospel BECAUSE MANY
HAD UNDERTAKEN TO DO THE SAME THING BEFORE. The question arises
whether he means us to understand that he is adding one more to authentic and
trustworthy histories already existing, or whether he intended rather to supersede
and correct unauthorized and imperfect histories. Possibly neither the one view nor
the other is entirely and exclusively true. It may be that St. Luke was aware that
authentic histories were already in existence, but he may have known also that other
and spurious accounts had been composed, and therefore have been desirous of
helping Theophilus to choose the true and reject the false by setting down for his use
such an orderly account of the life of Jesus Christ as he himself had been able to
collect.
III. Again, WHO WAS THEOPHILUS? Some have thought that the name, signifying
as it does “one who is dear to God,” does not refer to any one particular person; it is
probable, however, that Theophilus was a real person, perhaps an important man at
Antioch, St. Luke’s city, for whose confirmation in the faith St. Luke was induced to
write. Quite in keeping with the general scheme of God’s government that this should
have been so. Works which are instinct with the Spirit of God often go far beyond
their immediate aim. The Epistles, which are the precious inheritance of the
universal Church, were addressed originally to particular portions of the Church,
some of them only to individuals, and the greater number of them were called forth
by circumstances which have long passed away. And so we need not be surprised to
find that a Gospel addressed to Theophilus has become the possession of all
throughout the world who follow his good example.
IV. Lastly, let it be noticed that St. Luke did not write to Theophilus with the purpose
of giving him his first notions of Christian truth, BUT ONLY OF ESTABLISHING
HIM IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN
ALREADY INSTRUCTED OR CATECHIZED. This was almost of necessity the course
which would be followed in the time of the apostles; but it is also the course which is
generally followed by ourselves now: we do not gain our first notions of Christian
truth from Scripture or indeed from any written book; we are instructed and
catechized by our fathers and mothers and teachers, and when we come to years of
discretion, and are able to think for ourselves, we find from careful study of God’s
Holy Word that those things which we have learnt as children are indeed the truth of
God which is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
(Bishop Harvey Goodwin.)
The purpose of the Gospel
I. THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS GOSPEL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY FOR
THE ACCOUNT OF THE PURPOSE OF ITS COMPOSITION. Theophilus, whoever
15

he was, was already a disciple, and had been instructed in the things which were
most surely believed in the Church. He desired to know the certainty of those things.
St. Luke believed that it was his vocation to give him what he wanted. If Theophilus
was an individual, he represented the need of the Church generally. That which was
good for him might, if God pleased, be good for ages to come.
II. MANY, ST. LUKE SAYS, HAD ATTEMPTED THIS TASK BEFORE HIM. They
had taken in hand to set forth A DECLARATION of the things, &c. The declaration
had been made already—contained in the preaching of the apostles and their helpers.
What was wanted was a continuous narrative of the things which made the substance
of the declaration, for it was a declaration of things, not of opinions. The preaching
concerned a Person, the narrative must exhibit a Person. Who the “many” were St.
Luke does not say. Nor does he pronounce upon the merits or demerits of his
predecessors. That was not his calling. There was a better judge than he of the
genuine and the spurious. We may safely affirm that he was not afraid if the
experiments to produce a life of our Lord were ever so numerous; if some of them
were ever so confused and erroneous. He could not believe the word which he
preached unless he had confidence that what was true would live, that what was false
would be, sooner or later, divided from it.
III. The next clause of the introduction has perplexed many, perhaps has given pain
to some. WHAT! ARE WE NOT ABOUT TO READ THE STORY OF AN EYE-
WITNESS? St. Luke does not claim that character. He has received these records
from those who were eye-witnesses. He has examined their reports carefully. He does
not say that he ever saw Christ whilst He was walking in Galilee or Judaea. He seems
to imply the contrary. Now here is a difference between him and some of the other
evangelists, perhaps between him and all the other three. Is it a difference which puts
him below them? According to their own judgment and confession, assuredly it is
not. They tell us that they did not understand the words and acts of Jesus whilst they
were walking with Him, whilst they were eye-witnesses of what He did. They
misapprehended the particular words and acts. They misapprehended their relation
to each other. They misapprehended the Person who was the Speaker of the words
and the Doer of the acts. What they all say—what no one says so frequently as the
beloved disciple—is, that the things which they could not understand at first came to
them with full power and revelation when they saw Him no more. No doubt to be
eye-witnesses of a fact or a person is an honourable distinction, but an eyewitness
may glorify himself on that distinction, and attribute a worth to it which no careful
student of evidence will concede. There are qualities necessary in an eye-witness
besides his eyes. One who possesses these qualities may tell us what they do not tell,
may open to us the very sense and purpose of what they do tell. It is so in all cases: if
we believe the evangelists—those of them who were eye-witnesses—it is preeminently
so in this case.
IV. WHAT DOES ST. LUKE MEAN BY THE WORD? If the expression occurred in
St. John’s Gospel it would cause no perplexity. We should assume at once that he was
speaking of the Word which was in the beginning and was made flesh. But it has been
customary to assume that no other of the evangelists ever fell into this kind of
language. I cannot doubt that the apostle who survived to the end of the age was
specially appointed to remove confusions which had haunted the readers of the
earlier Gospels. But every Jew could read, as well as St. John, that the Word of God
had come to Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel. Every Jew who read their prophecies
believed they had conversed with this Word as with a living person. The thought, “He
with whom we have conversed is that same Person—He has in human flesh revealed
Himself to us,” was not a strange speculation, the refinement of a later age. It was the
simplest way of connecting the old world with their day. It was the great escape from
16

the rabbinical traditions which buried the Divine Person under the mere letter of the
books. Formally to assert the force of the prophetical phrase—to make it prominent
before all others—was not St. Luke’s calling.The King, the Christ, is his subject. If we
admit any direction of the minds of those who wrote these books—indeed, any
special callings of men in this world at all—we can perceive why the tasks of the
different evangelists should be different. We can perceive also why each should
inevitably at times adopt forms of speech which appear more characteristic of
another.
V. “IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO.” Some may cry, “Was he not then taught by
the Spirit of God?” I imagine that he who described the Day of Pentecost, and
referred the whole existence and work of the Church to the Spirit of God, had quite as
awful a feeling of His government over himself as any of us can have. The freedom of
his language shows me how strong his feeling was; our sensitiveness and
unwillingness to connect the Spirit with the operations of the human intellect,
indicate the weakness of ours. We ask for distinctions about the degrees and
measures in which the Spirit has been or will be vouchsafed. The Evangelists make
no such distinctions. I think they dared not.
VI. The next clause teaches us much on this subject, and would teach us more if it
had not been unhappily perverted in our version. What St. Luke says is that it
seemed good to him to write, HAVING FOLLOWED OUT ALL THINGS WITH
CAREFUL DILIGENCE FROM THEIR SOURCE, JUST as a man traces the source of
a river from its mountain-bed through all its windings. Instead of being absolved
from this diligence by the presence of the Divine Spirit, he felt himself obliged by that
Spirit to spare no labour, not to omit the most solicitous examination of what he
heard, not to give himself credit for understanding it at the first, but to wait for that
clear, penetrating light which could distinguish between his own impressions and the
truth of things,
VII. There is one word more in this preface which I cannot pass by. St. Luke
professes to write to Theophilus IN ORDER. The narrative is to be an orderly or
continuous one. Can we then discover that order? Clearly it is very different from that
of common biographers. I think you will find that what the evangelist traces are the
steps by which a King claimed dominion over his subjects; how they were prepared
for Him; how He was prepared for going forth among them; how He manifested the
powers of His kingdom; how He illustrated the nature of it; what kind of opposition
He encountered; what battles He fought; who stood by Him; who deserted Him; how
He seemed to be vanquished; how He prevailed at last. The more steadily we keep
before ourselves the thought of a Kingdom of Heaven—a kingdom actual in the
highest sense, explaining the nature and forces of every kingdom that has existed on
the earth, showing what in those kingdoms must abide, what must pass away—the
more shall we adhere to the letter of the Gospels, the more shall we enter into their
spirit. (F. D. Maurice, M. A.)
Pulpit Notes
1. The reason which Luke gives for writing this Gospel would seem at first sight
to be an excellent reason for not writing. It is thought by superficial persons to-
day that there are already sufficient religious books before the world. What is the
error of such reasoning? Forgetfulness of the fact that Christianity presents
different aspects to different minds, so that no statement of it can ever exhaust its
intellectual and spiritual riches. Every Christian student writes a life of Christ for
himself. The facts of Christianity are few and simple, but the truths arising out of
17

them are innumerable and profound. The preaching of the Word can never be the
same by any two men who diligently inquire into its meaning for themselves and
fearlessly express the results of their investigation.
2. At the time of Luke’s writing, the facts of Christianity were not only known as
matters of current turnout—they were most surely believed. Not enough that the
events of the Christian history be not discredited. They must be received with all
faith and love, and become elements of our own spiritual life. When this is
realized a new emphasis will characterize the tone of the Church.
3. Noticeable that Luke enters upon his work with the utmost candour and
fearlessness. Does not propose to evade anything or skilfully slur over anything.
Distinctly says that he will begin at the beginning, and trace the whole history
through all its windings, difficulties, and successes. This is precisely what is
wanted for our own day, viz., a distinct and complete idea of the ground which is
occupied by Christian history.
4. The principle of tradition runs through this prefatory note in a remarkable
manner. First of all come the eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word; then come
the writers with whom they were immediately associated; then come such men as
are represented by the “most excellent Theophilus;” and afterward would come
the persons to whom Theophilus communicated the information with which he
had been put in trust. Thus one age becomes the debtor of another, and we
ourselves are to-day the treasurers of the ages. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)
The preface to the Gospel
I. From this preface to St. Luke’s Gospel we learn, first, THAT THERE WERE
ALREADY EXISTING IN THE EVANGELIST’S DAY MANY “GOSPELS”:
“Forasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a consecutive account concerning
those matters which have been fully established among us.” Christianity has ever
been the grand inspirer of Christendom’s literature. Probably more has been written
about Jesus Christ, His character and teaching and work, than about all other things
put together. For it is not in religious books alone that we see the signs of His
presence and sway. We can scarcely take up a volume on any grave subject—ethical,
philosophical, historic, biographic, aesthetic—without ever and anon catching at
least glimpses of the passing shadow of the Son of Mary. The unconscious tributes of
literature to Jesus the Nazarene arc surprisingly many and emphatic. And, observe,
our evangelist does not censure these attempts at biography. He does not hint that
those memorabilia are to be rejected. For aught we know, some of these sketches
were as truly inspired as the Gospel of St. Luke himself. What though they have not
come down to us? There is reason for believing that some Scriptures—for instance, a
letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians—have been lost. But this does not detract from
the worth of those we do have. Eternity will not exhaust what memoirs of the Divine
Man we do have.
II. From this preface to St. Luke’s Gospel, we learn, THE SOURCE OF THE
GOSPELS: “Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-
witnesses and ministers of the Word.” The source and basis, then, of these primitive
Gospels was the contemporaneous oral gospel or tradition of the original apostles.
Need I add that it is still the only kind of tradition which the Church is at liberty to
accept as the authorized gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ?
III. From this preface to St. Luke’s Gospel, we learn, THAT INSPIRATION IS
COMPATIBLE WITH FREE-WILL: “It seemed good to me also to write unto thee in
18

order, most excellent Theophilus.” So far as his own consciousness was concerned,
he seems to have set himself to his task spontaneously, and arranged his narrative as
seemed to him best. Yet the judgment o! the Christian sense from the beginning has
been that in thus composing his recital he was Divinely inspired. These facts cast
light on the doctrine of inspiration. They show that one may be inspired, and yet act
with entire freeness. The sacred writers have often been compared to AElolian harps,
played on by the Holy Spirit or Divine Breath of God. The comparison is beautiful
and just, so far as it goes. But it does not cover the whole truth; it fails to recognize
the human element in inspiration. But let the sacred writers be compared to different
musical instruments, for example, a flute, a cornet, a trumpet, an organ, &c., played
on, indeed, by one and the same Divine Breath, but giving forth different melodies,
according to the character of each distinct instrument; and the comparison becomes
more complete and just. The source of the melody is Divine, and common to them
all; the character of the melody is human, varying according to the temperament and
peculiarity of the writer.
IV. From this preface to St. Luke’s Gospel we learn THAT OUR EVANGELIST WAS
QUALIFIED TO WRITE A GOSPEL: “Having traced the course of all things
accurately from the first.” His habits of observation as a physician would naturally
lead him to scrutinize closely all alleged facts. He at least would know whether the
Church of his day was following cunningly devised myths. In short, he exercised the
“critical faculty.”
V. From this preface to St. Luke’s Gospel we learn our EVANGELIST’S PURPOSE IN
WRITING: “That thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein
thou wast instructed.” For knowledge of facts rather than theories was then, as it still
is, the need of the times. Such is the preface to the Gospel according to St. Luke. And
as St. John’s prologue may be taken as the prologue to the Gospel, so St. Luke’s
preface may be taken as the preface to the Gospels. And this suggests our first
concluding thought: The advantage of having several Gospels. And herein is an
immense advantage. First, the having several Gospels is a key to the detection of
imposture: where the testimony is false, it is perilous to multiply witnesses. Again,
the having several Gospels helps us to understand better the myriad-sided Divine
Man. And yet the four Gospels are but one Gospel. This is the circumstance which
makes it so profitable for us to study the Gospels in synchronous lessons. The habit
protects us from partial and unsymmetrical views; for the Gospels, like stones in
mosaic, are mutually complemental. Secondly, let us thank God that He prompted
His servants to note down, so early in the Christian era, statements of the apostolic
testimony; for the rich result is that, instead of uncertain and fickle tradition, we
have permanent contemporary records. Lastly, be thou thyself a Theophilus, Friend
of God; and the Spirit will write a Gospel to thee also. (G. D. Boardman.)
Introductory consideration
The four evangelists are so called, not in same sense as Eph_4:11, but to designate
them as evangelical historians. The nature and degree of correspondence between the
four furnish a strong proof of the credibility of each and all.
I. THE AUTHOR OF THIS GOSPEL UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE
LUKE. Companion of St. Paul (Act_16:1-40. to end; 2Ti_4:11). A physician (Col_
4:14). Said also to have been a painter, but no more authority than a very late
tradition for this statement. If, however, he did not paint the faces of the Virgin and
her Son with the colours of the limner, he did what was of much more importance;
he, in this book, drew to the life an exquisite portraiture of their character, which
19

continued with us long after the masterpieces of the ancient painters have vanished,
and which will continue to the end of time—the antidote of superstition, the guide of
the serious inquirer, and the admiration of all good men.
II. THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THIS GOSPEL.
1. The Church took great care to distinguish genuine Gospels from spurious.
Clear testimony to the universal reception of these four, and only these, as
canonical from the beginning.
2. If Luke was one of “the seventy,” then was he also miraculously qualified to
compose this history; if not, yet both his human and Divine qualifications for the
work might be safely rested solely on his being called to preach the Gospel, and to
act and write under the eye and approval of St. Paul.
3. Various circumstantial particulars respecting the destruction of Jerusalem,
foretold in this Gospel, and nowhere else, have been exactly fulfilled.
4. Mutual dependence and connection of this Gospel and the other three. (James
Foote, M. A.)
The power of truth
St. Luke had no authority to suppress these other Gospels, nor does he reprehend or
calumniate them; but he writes the truth simply, and leaves it to outswear falsehood;
and so it has done. Moses’ rod has devoured the conjurors’ rods, and St. Luke’s story
still retains the majesty of the Maker, and theirs are not. (Dr. Donne.)
Luke and Theophilus
Luke a physician, like the few; Theophilus a patient, like the many. (J. J. Van
Oosterzee, D. D.)
Historical belief in the Divine truth of Christianity
1. Its necessity.
2. Its certainty.
3. Its insufficiency when unaccompanied by a living faith. (J. J. Van Oosterzee,
D. D.)
Luke is
1. The predecessor of believing searchers.
2. The condemner of unbelieving searchers of Scripture. (J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.
D.)
The highest aim which a Christian anther can propose to himself
1. To correct what is faulty.
20

2. To strengthen what is weak.
3. To arrange what is confused. (Ibid.)
Most excellent Theophilus
Civil dignities and honours not destroyed, but ennobled, by citizenship in the
kingdom of God. (J. J. Van Oosterzee, D. D.)
The fear of God makes men truly great and excellent. (Starke.)
St. Luke’s preface
Luke is the only one of the synoptists who begins his Gospel with a preface. His
preface is historico-critical, while the introduction of John is historico-doctrinal. The
prominent points in this short preface are—
1. It cautions us against erroneous or defective statements of facts.
2. It directs us to the apostles as eye-witnesses of the life of Christ.
3. It proves the faithfulness of the evangelist in tracing the facts to the primitive
source.
4. It brings out the human side in the origin of the sacred writings.
5. It teaches that “faith cometh by hearing,” and that the gospel was first taught
by catechetical instruction or oral tradition, but then written down by reliable
witnesses for all ages to come. This written Gospel is essentially the same with the
preached Gospel of Christ and the apostles, and together with the Epistles is to us
the only pure and infallible source of primitive Christianity. (P. Schaff , D. D.)
The order in Divine things
From faith to knowledge; from knowledge to still firmer faith. (Van Oosterzee.)
Other narratives of Christ’s life
It appears from this that narratives of the actions of Jesus, and of the events
connected with His life and ministry, had been written by many individuals before
Luke composed his history. This fact proves that the actions ascribed to Jesus had
made a great noise in the world, and that a high degree of curiosity had been excited
to peruse everything recorded concerning Him. Can we then suppose that Luke refers
to these writings or to the other Gospels? We have reason to believe that Matthew’s
Gospel was originally written in Syro-Chaldaic, which was the language spoken by
the Jews in our Saviour’s time, and that it was not translated into Greek till some
time afterwards. Mark’s Gospel was short, and John’s was not published till many
years had elapsed after the destruction of Jerusalem. But as the evangelist says that
many had undertaken to record the actions attributed to Jesus, it is evident that he
alludes to more than one or two productions. Besides, though not asserted, it is
implied, that the writings referred to were either defective or incorrect, for if they
21

contained no arrors, nor were marked by great defects, the fact that they were
numerous was a reason against adding to their number. We conclude, then, that
Luke does not here refer to any of the other Gospels. Who, then, could be the writers
of those narratives of which the evangelist did not approve? Were they the friends or
the enemies of Christianity? There is no reason for supposing that the Scribes and
Pharisees ventured to publish anything in writing against Jesus or His religion. They
seem at first to have been satisfied by circulating false reports respecting His
Resurrection, and afterwards by endeavouring to overwhelm Christianity by the
strong arm of persecution. It is probable, therefore, that the objectionable narratives
to which Luke refers were written by the friends of Christianity. But the zeal of
friends has frequently been more injurious to the Christian religion than the malice
of its enemies. We can easily conceive the pernicious consequences that may have
arisen from erroneous statements, exaggerated facts, and fanciful explanations, given
by honest but ignorant or ill-informed writers. The most judicious and effectual
remedy was accordingly adopted by St. Luke. It consisted in making a proper
selection and accurate statement of the most important facts as procured from the
most undoubted authority. This, accordingly, was done; and the consequence has
been that all the defective or erroneous accounts of our Saviour which were then
circulated have entirely disappeared, as darkness flies at the approach of the morning
sun, while the Gospels which contained the only correct history have been duly
valued, copied, and preserved. (J. B. Thomson, D. D.)
Many workers needed
Luke undertook to be very minute and exhaustive in his statement of gospel facts. He
was going to do better than many other writers had done. He says so with cool
frankness: “Forasmuch … to me also.” That is a curious expression. We expected him
to say, Forasmuch as many have done this work, there is no need for me to do it. But
he makes the very fact that there were other writers, a reason why there should be
one more. That was good reasoning; it should prevail in all the lines and departments
of Christian life and action. The contrary policy often supersedes it, and brings
ministers and churches into great discomfort and enfeeblement. Men will say, You
have so many helpers, you have no need of me. They are always more or less
dishonest men—not intentionally so; intentional dishonesty is perfectly vulgar and
wholly detestable, and nobody lays claim to it; but when men say, There are so many
preachers, I need not be one: so many deacons, I need not be another: so many
helpers, there is no need of me—they are not conducting a Christian argument, they
are with all their graciousness unconsciously jealous and spiteful. Luke reasoned in
the right way; he said, Many men are taking up this subject, I will do what I can in it;
I think I can beat some of them. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)
The preface the best part of the book
Will the book be as good as the preface? I fancy not—when the subject is Jesus
Christ. The first sentence is often the best. Why? Because the subject grows. No man
can ever prepare his imagination for the glory of that theme. The young preacher
feels this; he buckles to with a brave heart, and says he will work honestly all day, and
pray most of the night, and produce such discourses as will satisfy his best ambition.
He empties his inkhorn, does all he can, and then puts his young hand upon his
mouth and says, Unprofitable! I have failed. I had an ambition high as heaven, bright
as the unclouded noon; but I have failed! He does not do justice to himself. The Lord
does not pronounce that judgment upon him. He says, Thou hast not failed; industry
22

never fails; conscience always succeeds; thou hast won a right bright crown I Cheer
thee I It is not the man who has failed; it is the God who has exceeded all ever
thought of in prayer, all ever dreamed of in poetry. Still, we expected more from Luke
than from the others, and we get more. He does not see some things as Mark saw
them. It is fashionable—shall we say, with due mental reservation, pedantic?—to
point out that Luke was the observing writer. Mark observed a good many things that
Luke never saw, or at least never recorded. Matthew also had his own way of looking
at things; and as for St. John, what was he looking at? Apparently at nothing, for his
inner eyes were fastened on the soul of Christ. If Luke had sharp eyes, what ears John
had! for he heard whisperings of the heart, throbbings and beatings and sighings:
and what a gift of expression I for he turned all that he heard into noble, sweet music
for the soul’s comforting in all the cloudy days of Church time. But Luke says he will
set down things “in order”; the others have been good historians, but a little wanting
in the power of grouping and classifying; good historians, but poor editors; Luke will
break things up into chapters, and verses, and paragraphs, and sections, and he will
attend to chronological sequence. We need mechanical men in the Church, people
who know when to begin a new paragraph, and to codify laws, and to do a good many
useful little things. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)
Religion a reality
In spite of our professions and general convictions, we do not give to the truths of the
gospel their full weight as infallible certainties; we do not embrace them as realities.
I. IT IS A REALITY THAT GOD IS SUPREME; THE UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGN,
AND THAT HE RIGHTFULLY CLAIMS THE LOVE AND THE ENTIRE
ALLEGIANCE OF ALL HIS CREATURES.
II. IT IS A MOST AWFUL FACT THAT A POSITIVE REBELLION AGAINST THE
ETERNAL KING HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THIS WORLD, AND THAT WE ARE ALL
DEEPLY INVOLVED IN ITS CONSEQUENCES.
III. THE REDEMPTION OF SINNERS, UNDER THE ALARMING
CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE DESCRIBED, BY THE SON OF GOD IS A MOST
MERCIFUL PACT ANNOUNCED TO US IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. IV THAT
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GREAT REDEMPTION, ON YOUR PART, MUST BE A
REALITY.
V. RELIGION IS A REALITY IN ITS GREAT AND HAPPY EFFECTS, WHICH ARE
SANCTIFICATION AND SALVATION. (Essex Remembrancer.)
To write unto thee in order
In order
A work wall shaped into an artistic whole a history advancing by well-marked steps,
and systematically progressive; an inter-connection easily perceptible of causes and
effects—these for a Greek mind constituted the best material for carrying conviction.
Now it is precisely this kind of evidence which is to be drawn from the third Gospel.
And the preamble leads us even to think that such was the deliberate intention of the
author. (Professor Godet.)
23

If it be said that Luke says that he wrote “in order” (ᅚν ταξει), I answer that there are
other orderly arrangements besides those of time and place; and that if a work is a
religious memoir, the arrangement would be regulated, though not exclusively, by
the reference of the facts to the religious end in view. (Prebendary Row.)
The person to whom the Gospel is addressed. The name “Theophilus” signifies a
lover, or beloved of God; but it would be very unnatural to suppose, with some, that
the word is here used as a feigned name, to signify any Christian. Though this
method has been adopted by other writers, it is not agreeable to the practice of the
inspired. Theophilus is plainly the same real individual to whom the book of the Acts
of the Apostles also is addressed. He is here styled “most excellent.” This was an
honorary title bestowed on persons high in office, and of nobility, somewhat similar
to the title of “excellency” with us. Thus it is given to Act_23:26) and to Festus (Act_
26:25). Theophilus, therefore, was not only a Christian, but a nobleman, and
probably high in office. Thus, though “not many mighty, not many noble, were
called,” yet some such were called from the first; and thus some such are still found
among the faithful. Such instances ale highly important and pleasing. Not but that
the soul of the meanest peasant is, in itself, as precious as the soul of the most
illustrious nobleman—not but that the salvation of every soul transcends in
importance every worldly consideration; but in reference to the probable effect on
others, there is an undeniable difference. Every good man may be of some service to
the cause of Christ; but when rank, office, wealth, and talent are engaged, God may
be considered as Himself putting more powerful means in operation; and when His
own blessing is superinduced, the good effects are correspondingly extensive. (James
Foote, M. A.)
Courtesy
From this form of address, used by an inspired writer, may be fairly deduced the
lawfulness and propriety, generally speaking, of giving to men the ordinary titles of
respect. As to our Lord’s teaching His disciples not to be called rabbi, and to call no
man father, or master, on earth, Scripture must be interpreted consistently with
itself, and that passage, of course, consistently with such as this; and this rule of
interpretation leads to the conclusion that Christ forbade, not the use of common
terms in common life, but the assumption, on the one hand, and the yielding, on the
other, of any human authority in matters of religion which might at all interfere with
His own. They err, therefore, who think there is any propriety or religion in assuming
a singularity in such things, or in sturdily refusing what are usually considered marks
of civility and respect. It is unworthy at once of the Christian and of the man to be
guilty of hollow hypocrisy or fawning servility; but it is both dutiful and adorning to
be courteous, and to give honour to whom honour is due. (James Foote, M. A.)
Dedication of books
It has been usual with authors to dedicate their works to particular persons,
sometimes with the design of securing their patronage, sometimes merely as a mark
of respect and affection, and sometimes with a particular view to the benefit of the
24

individuals themselves. The dictates of inspiration needed not, it is true, the support
of any human authority; yet it would not have been unworthy of Divine wisdom to
have adopted such secondary means. While this dedication is
(1) an obvious expression of high regard to Theophilus, it distinctly states
that
(2) his personal improvement was what Luke greatly desired. Though
immediately addressed to Theophilus, this book, like the rest of Scripture,
comes, with the stamp of Divine authority, for the edification of all who may
peruse it. (James Foote, M. A.)
I. HUMAN TITLES HAVE A PECULIAR SIGNIFICANCE WHEN APPLIED TO
RELIGIOUS MEN. Many called “excellent”; this “friend of God” was “most
excellent.”
II. RELIGIOUS MEN MAY BE ILLUSTRIOUS, YET LITTLE KNOWN.
III. TITLED BELIEVERS FEW IN NUMBER—one Theophilus.
IV. WELL TO HAVE A GOOD NAME—“Theophilus”; better to deserve it—“most
excellent.”
V. Such EXCELLENCE HAS ITS MARKS.
1. Anxious to know things of Christ from beginning.
2. To know their certainty.
VI. SUCH EXCELLENCE HAS ITS ADVANTAGES.
1. Approved of God—such friendship is not one-sided.
2. Approval of the highest order of men—Luke.
3. The honour of having an authentic and inspired history of Christ dedicated to
him.
4. His name thus rescued from utter oblivion (Biblical Museum.)
Theophilus
This name, of Grecian origin, though it is sometimes used by the Jews, leads us to
suppose that the noble person who bore it was a Greek. We must add that, in
dedicating this work to him, St. Luke was probably not thinking only of the use he
would personally make of it. The publication of a book was at that time a much more
costly undertaking than it is now, since every copy had to be made by hand. By
accepting the manuscript which was dedicated to him, the wealthy Theophilus
became what was called the patron or, as we should now say, the sponsor of the book.
He undertook to make it known, to have copies made of it, and to circulate these
amongst those about him, or who belonged to the same nation as himself. The
ancient Judaeo-Christian romance, entitled, “ The Clementines,” of about the year
160, makes Theophilus a man of high position in Antioch, who, after having listened
to the preaching of Peter, gave up his palace to be used as a church. (Professor
Godet.)
25

The certainty of those things
Certainties
Part of the value of this short and simple introduction consists in its quite
undesigned manifestation of the true historic character of Christianity. In the good
sense Luke was a sceptic first, in order that he might be a rational and strong
believer. Anything more truly scientific than his method I cannot imagine. It is the
method of every candid historian who wishes to set down only what is genuine and
authentic. When he speaks here of “the certainty” of some particular things, he
means substantially what the Apostle Paul means when he speaks of “the gospel of
God,” “the gospel of which he was not ashamed,” and of “Jesus Christ and Him
crucified.” Is that first “certainty” enough for us still? Everything, we are told, is
being tried by this practical test, by what it can do, and by the honest feeling men
have to it, and we must not complain if the test is applied even to supernatural
religion. We do not complain. It is quite true that we ought to be able by this time to
furnish much practical corroboration of the truth and worth of Christianity which
did not and could not exist in the apostolic days. I will therefore mention some of the
practical and secondary “certainties” which, when duly considered, will tend greatly
to confirm and enforce those which are primary and principal.
I. IT IS CERTAIN THAT NO STYLE OR TYPE OF HUMAN CHARACTER IS
HIGHER THAN THE CHRISTIAN TYPE; THAT NONE IS SO HIGH. Theoretically it
ought to be so. Practically it is so.
II. IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ENABLES THOSE WHO
REALLY HAVE IT TO BEAR THE STRAIN AND PRESSURE OF LIFE—the sorrow,
the pain, whatever they may be, as they could not be borne without it; and it is quite
certain that we do not know of anything else which has the same upholding and
consolatory power.
III. IT IS CERTAIN THAT CHRISTIANITY ALONE KEEPS AN OPEN DOOR FOR
US OUT OF THIS WORLD INTO ANOTHER AND A BETTER.
IV. IT IS CERTAIN THAT, AT THIS MOMENT, THERE IS ONLY ONE RELIGION
IN THE WORLD THAT CAN, FROM ITS VERY NATURE, BE EXTENDED TO
EVERY PART OF IT; only one religion which, as a matter of fact, is being diffused by
those who believe in it and adhere to it, in a spirit of entire impartiality, “ among all
nations, kindreds, peoples, and tongues.” Christianity is, as it has ever been, the only
really missionary religion in the world. The poor Turk has no missionary in any
Christian country. Educated Hindoos come to our universities, but although they can
speak our language as well as we ourselves, and although they know that there is
entire religious freedom in this country, who among them preaches Hindooism, or
seeks a footing for it among the English people? On the other hand, every Christian
individual and every Christian community stand committed, in simple fidelity to
their Master, and in obedience to the very law of their life, to go into all the world and
preach the gospel to every creature. (Alexander Raleigh, D. D.)
The tone of the New Testament on certainty in religion
The more closely this tone of certainty is studied the more soul-striking the
phenomenon becomes, both in its substance and in its accessories. What led these
four evangelists, and these writers of the letters on doctrine and life, to speak one and
all in this uniform style of intense belief? Was it the blind certainty of ignorant fools?
26

Was it feigned all through? Were they deceived by appearances? They at least
believed what they wrote. They seem utterly regardless of calumny and
misrepresentation, like men who know that they are right. They speak with a
strength of persuasion and assertion which still moves the world. They teach—
1. That man has lost himself by losing She knowledge of his God; and that he can
recover himself, with the knowledge of his own nature and eternal destiny, only
by recovering the knowledge of his Maker.
2. That God is to be loved through being known in His work of nature and
redemption.
3. That certainty is essential for the peace of the soul.
4. That certain knowledge of God’s works and ways is essential to growth in
Christian character.
5. That the quality of the moral excellence required by the gospel under such a
character is impossible of attainment apart from confidence in the possession of
God’s love and life eternal. (Edward White.)
Importance of a firm religious belief
I envy no quality of the mind or intellect in others, be it genius, power, wit, or fancy;
but I should prefer a firm religious belief to every other blessing, for it makes life a
discipline of goodness; creates new hopes, when all earthly hopes vanish; and throws
over the decay, the destruction o! existence, the most gorgeous of all lights; awakens
life even in death, and from corruption and decay calls up beauty and divinity; makes
an instrument of torture and shame the ladder of ascent to Paradise; and, far above
all combinations of earthly hopes, calls up the most delightful visions of palms and
amaranths, the gardens of the blest, the security of everlasting joys, where the
sensualist and the sceptic view only gloom, decay, annihilation, and despair. (Davy.)
The Bible really believed
The son of Selina, the Countess of Huntingdon, whose zeal in the extension of the
gospel is well known, was unhappily an unbeliever, but reverenced his pious and
venerable mother. “ I wish,” said a peer to him, “you would speak to Lady
Huntingdon; she has just erected a preaching-place close to my residence.” His
lordship replied, “Gladly, my lord; but you will do me the favour to inform me what
plea to urge, for my mother really believes the Bible.” (Baxendale’s Illustrations.)
The Christian faith is founded on facts
It is important from time to time to be reminded that the real claims of the Christian
faith, speaking of it in its largest sense, upon our obedience and reverence are
founded on facts which hardly any one of any name or fame disputes, and which, in
fact, have hardly ever been disputed. (Dean Stanley.)
The tone of certainty
Apart from criticism as to its cause, this is the most wonderful phenomenon in all
27

literature. If the New Testament is not “ the judge that ends the strife, when wit and
reason fail,” at least it speaks in that tone of absolute and invariable certainty which
we should expect to accompany a revelation from the living God. And, as a matter of
fact, it is this certainty which armed the martyrs of Christ in the early centuries to
confront the direst sufferings in defence of the faith; as it is also this which makes it
so exceedingly difficult in our times to overthrow Christianity by a set of mere critical
peradventures, which are like brittle glass spears breaking against a shield of
diamonds. (E. White.)
The witnesses of the gospel facts
These first spectators of “the heavenly vision” of “God manifest in the flesh” are
themselves gradually raised into transcendent certainty; and then their testimony,
and teaching, and life, transfuse that certitude into those who receive their word.
That is according to the general law of life. The generations of men are related
intellectually and spiritually. There is a vital unity in humanity—what the French call
a solidarity. What human nature once really saw, subjected to every test, and was
compelled to believe, humanity still sees through the organs and perceptions of its
former members. Inheritance in all departments runs through the world. We believe
all our national histories because “our fathers have told us.” But this is only the first
stage of belief. Honest souls can test the traditional and historical by spiritual insight,
and then they say—to the all-perceiving and all-reporting humanity—“ Now we
believe not because of thy saying, for we have seen Him ourselves, and know that this
is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” (E. White.)
Testimonies of experience
At night, when a railroad train, having stopped at a station, is about to start again, in
order that the conductor may know that everything is as it should be, the brakeman
on the last car calls out through the darkness, “All right here!” and the next man
takes up the word, “All right here!” and the next echoes, “All right here!” and so it
passes along the line, and the train moves on. It does me good to sit here while you
speak of the life you are guiding through the world’s darkness, and pass the word
from one to another, “All right here!” All is right everywhere when the heart is right.
(H. W. Beecher.)
Power of personal testimony
Thomas Bilney was aa ardent young convert, and longed to do something for his
Master. Hugh Latimer was a zealous Roman Catholic priest, who preached against
the Reformation. Bilney went to him, and told him that he wished to confess. In the
privacy of the confessional, he told him the whole burning story of his conviction,
conversion, and new-found happiness. The Spirit helped, and Latimer’s heart was
probed and changed. From that hour Latimer gave his life to the cause he had before
opposed, and sealed his testimony with his blood.
Infidels neglect to examine the Bible
Sir Isaac Newton set out in life clamorous infidel; but, on a nice examination of the
evidences for Christianity, he found reason to change his opinion. When the
celebrated Dr. Edmund Halley was talking infidelity before him, Sir Isaac Newton
addressed him in these or the like words: “Dr. Halley, I am always glad to hear!you
28

when you speak about astronomy, or other parts of the mathematics, because that is
a subject you have studied, and well understand; but you should not talk of
Christianity, for you have not studied it. I have; and am certain that you know
nothing of the matter.” This was a just reproof, and one that would be very suitable to
be given to half the infidels of the present day, for they often speak of what they have
never studied, and what, in fact, they are entirely ignorant of. Dr. Johnson, therefore,
well observed that “no honest man could be a Deist, for no man could be so after a
fair examination of the proofs of Christianity.” On the name of Hume being
mentioned to him, “No, sir,” said he, “Hume owned to a clergyman in the Bishopric
of Durham that he had never read the New Testament with attention.” (Student’s
Handbook to Scripture Doctrines.)
Examination convincing
Conspicuous in John Randolph’s library was a family Bible. Surrounding it were
many books, some for, and others against, its truthfulness as an inspired revelation.
One day Mr. Randolph had a clergyman as his guest, and the family Bible became a
topic of conversation. The eccentric orator said, “I was raised by a pious mother (God
bless her memory!), who taught me the Christian religion in all its requirements. But
alas! I grew up an infidel—if not an infidel complete, yet a decided Deist. But when I
became a man, in this, as well as in political and all other matters, I resolved to
examine for myself, and never to pin my faith to any other man’s sleeve. So I bought
that Bible; I pored over it; I examined it carefully. I sought and procured those books
for and against it; and when my labours were ended, I came to this irresistible
conclusion—the Bible is true. It would have been as easy for a mole to have written
Sir Isaac Newton’s treatise on “Optics,” as for uninspired men to have written the
Bible.”
Christianity courts examination
But I am anxious you should never let slip the fact that Christianity itself puts the
scales and weights into your hands, and starts you on this universal verifying process.
When I was a senior scholar I was dazed and bewildered by a man three times my age
seeking to shake my faith in the Gospel by assuring me that the Bible was averse to
investigation, shrunk from the full light of day, and could only maintain its ground
with those who were prejudiced in its favour. Glad was I to find that Christianity
rejoices in all light, welcomes it from every quarter, accepts with thankfulness the aid
of all the sciences and arts, and urges us to imitate the Bereans, who did not assent to
Paul’s words without searching the Scriptures and using the best test they knew, so
that they might only believe what was absolutely true, and hold nothing fast except
that which was undeniably good. Forget not, then, it is Christianity itself that says,
“Prove all things. Examine thoroughly. Get at the core of things. Be not deceived by
appearances. Go from facts principles, from the letter to the spirit. Be not cheated by
any alloys. Light the fires of examination, put on your crucible, cast in your metallic
ores, and heat the furnace to its hottest, and then take away with you the pure gold of
goodness and truth.” (J. Clifford, D. D.)
The Bible tested
The Bible has been tried in the ages of the past by godless men like Voltaire; it has
been tried by the best classes like Wilberforce; it has been tried by educators like
Alexander; it has been tried by men in every conceivable position, in prosperity and
in adversity, and it has stood the test. You need not be afraid to build your hopes
29

upon it for time and for eternity. (Dr. John Hall.)
Afraid of being convinced
At Cairo, Gobat entertained high hopes of the conversion of a learned Mohammedan
teacher, Sheik Ahmed, which were doomed to disappointment. After many
interviews, in which be appeared deeply impressed and ready to receive Christ as his
Saviour and God, Gobat lost sight of him. Three months later he says, “I met him one
day in the street. I asked him why he had not called for so long a time, to which he
naively replied, ‘The last time I was with you I felt that if I went to you again I should
be convinced of the truths of Christianity, and be consequently obliged to avow
myself a Christian, for which I should have been killed. I therefore resolved to see
you no more until my heart should be hardened against your arguments.’” (Memoirs
of Bishop Gobat.)
Triumph of the Word
In the diamond fields of South Africa a diamond was found, celebrated lately under
the title of fly-stone; placed under a magnifying glass you see enclosed in all its
brilliancy a little fly, with body, wings, and eyes in the most perfect state of
preservation. How it came there no one knows; but no human skill can take it out. So
in Holy Scripture the Spirit of God is found in a place from which no power of man
can remove it. Infidelity and criticism have now done their utmost, and it is a kind of
satisfaction to know that more powerful advocates of infidelity can hardly be found in
the future than there have been in the past. All kinds of weapons have been
employed, but the result has been triumph for the Word. (Dr. McEwan.)
2 just as they were handed down to us by those
who from the first were eyewitnesses and
servants of the word.
BARNES, "As they delivered them - As they narrated them. As they gave an
account of them.
From the beginning - From the commencement of these things - that is, from
the birth of John, or perhaps from the beginning of the ministry of Jesus.
Eye-witnesses - Who had seen those things themselves, and who were therefore
proper witnesses.
Ministers of the word - The term “word” here means the “gospel.” Luke never
uses it, as John does, to denote the second Person of the Trinity. These eye-witnesses
and ministers refer, doubtless, to the seventy disciples, to the apostles, and perhaps
to other preachers who had gone forth to proclaim the same things.
30

Luke 1 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Luke 1 commentary

Similar to Luke 1 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Luke 1 commentary