Luke 1:1-4

Butler's Comments

SECTION 1

The Precise Record (Luke 1:1-4)

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

Luke 1:1-4 The Author: The author of this historical record of the life of Jesus was Luke (also the author of Acts of the Apostles) the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14) and traveling companion of the apostle Paul. He was a Greek by race and the only Gentile writer in the New Testament. He was probably one of Paul's converts and tradition says his home was in Syria in the city of Antioch. Being a physician, he would be thoroughly trained and highly motivated toward skillful scientific research. Most doctors of that day were respected, well-paid practitioners. Historical records indicate physicians of that era were more skilled than we sometimes think. Amputations, surgery on the skull, surgery for stones (gall and kidney), suturing of blood vessels and tracheotomies were performed. Surgical instruments were so well designed that it has hardly been possible to improve on some of them even at the present day. There were probes, cauterizers, scalpels, needles for suturing, clamps, forceps, elevators for lifting up depressed portions of the skull (much like those used today), catheters, scissors, throat spatulas and other complicated instruments for dilating passages in the body and internal examinations.

Paul picked up Luke at Troas on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:10; note, we) and then left Luke at Philippi (about 51 A.D.). Six years later Luke was in Paul's missionary troupe again sailing back to Troas (about 58 A.D.) (note we used again in Acts 20:1-6). Luke probably accompanied Paul from then on through the third missionary journey, the return to Jerusalem, two years imprisonment at Caesarea (58-60 A.D.), and finally, the trip to Rome and Paul's imprisonment there (60-63 A.D.).

Luke's travels with the apostle Paul, especially the two or three years spent in Palestine, gave him ample opportunity to complete his detailed research and interrogation of eyewitnesses and write his gospel record. Most scholars date the writing of Luke's gospel about 58-60 A.D., coincidental with Paul's incarceration at Caesarea. External evidence abundantly testifies to the early existence and use of Luke's gospel. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), a student of Polycarp (who was in turn, a student of the apostle John), quotes from Luke's gospel; Hegesippus (110-180) quotes from it; Tatian's Diatessaron (120 A.D.) quotes it; The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D.) cites it as Luke's gospel; the Syriac manuscripts (some of the oldest mss. of the N.T.) (100-200 A.D.) contain the gospel according to Luke.

Although Luke was not an apostle (like Matthew and John), he was a co-laborer and long-time companion of the apostle Paul. Paul had the power to lay his hands on his co-laborers andimpart to them special, miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 1:6). We believe Paul must have imparted to Luke the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit to guide him in producing an inerrant record of the life of Jesus (and Acts of the Apostles). In other words, we believe Luke's gospel is inspired by the Holy Spirit as surely as Matthew's or John'S. His gospel has been received as canonical by the church from the end of the first century until now.

Luke's gospel has often been characterized as the gospel with the Gentile world in mind. Beginning in Luke 1:68, Luke emphasizes the redemptive work of Jesus. Thiessen, in his Introduction to The New Testament, points out the following peculiarities of Luke's account:

1.

This is the Gospel of the perfect humanity of Christ. Our Lord is seen as having the development, feelings, sympathies and powers of a man, Luke gives us the fullest account of the birth, childhood, growth, domestic and social life of Jesus.

2.

Luke makes much of Prayer. Christ is represented as praying 15 times in the four Gospels, 11 of which are found in Luke's Gospel, 3 in Matthew'S, and 4 in both Mark and John. Luke has a good deal of teaching on prayer not found in the other Gospels, Luke 11:5-13; Luke 18:1-8; Luke 21:36; cf. Luke 18:11-13.

3.

The Third Gospel also makes much of Praise and Thanksgiving, It begins and ends with worship in the temple (Luke 1:9; Luke 24:52). He alone gives us the words of the great hymns which have since been set to music; The Ave Maria (Luke 1:28); the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-56); the Benedictus (Luke 1:68-79); the Gloria in Excelsis (Luke 2:14); and the Nunc Dimitis (Luke 2:29-32).

4.

Women and children are prominent in this Gospel; Elizabeth and Mary; Anna; the widow of Nain; woman bound by Satan; women who ministered to Jesus; sinner woman; widow appealing to unrighteous judge; Martha and Mary; infants (Luke 18:15); Jairus-' daughter, etc.

5.

The Gospel of Luke is the most literary and beautiful of the gospels, Its introduction is classic and its vocabulary is that of an educated man.

6.

He uses many medical terms and shows special interest in sickness and in the sick. He shows the compassion of Jesus.

7.

Luke records 20 miracles of Christ, of which 6 are peculiar to him, and 23 parables, of which 18 are peculiar to him.

8.

He traces Christ's genealogy back to Adam, showing Christ's kinship with all of mankind in His work of redemption.

SECTION 2

Luke 1:1-4 The Authentication: The tenses of the Greek verbs in Luke's prologue indicate he wrote his introduction after he had completed the body of the account itself. William Barclay says, Luke's introduction is unique. It is the best bit of Greek in the New Testament. The physician-historian uses the classic form of introduction which the great Greek historians all used. He wants to assure those who read his account of the life of Jesus that it is the product of the most careful and accurate research. An example of Luke's diligence for historical accuracy is that he dates it by reference to no fewer than six contemporary political personages: Now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (1); Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea (2); Herod being tetrarch of Galilee (3); and his brother Philip being tetrarch of Ituraea and of the regions of Trachonitis (4); and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene (5); Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests (6); the word of God came to John (the Baptist). (Luke 3:1-2)

The Greek word anataxasthai (Luke 1:1) is translated compile and was really a military term referring to the lining up of soldiers in orderly rank and file. There were thousands of people who had seen and heard the miracles and sermons of Jesus. The Greek word referring to these things is peplerophoremenon and is in the perfect tense, meaning, things having been accomplished with a continuing result. Jesus was God Incarnate. He had died as a final and complete atonement for man's sins. He had conquered death and the grave and promised eternal life to all who believed and obeyed Him. The good news was sweeping through the Roman empire like wildfire. Churches were being formed and were wanting desperately an orderly, detailed account of Christ's life in permanent written form. Evidently, there were many Christians attempting to gather the oral and written fragments of the Jesus-story into one complete, orderly account. None of these suited Luke's purpose, so he set about to write his own account.

It is not that these earlier attempts were inaccurate or spurious for they were from eyewitnesses. The Greek word for eyewitnesses here is autoptai from which we get the English word autopsy. It is a Greek medical term. Physicians perform an autopsy so they may see with their own eyes conditions which may have caused death. The word means literally, seeing for oneself. Luke's sources for his gospel account were eyewitnesses. As a scientist-physician and historian, he would never be satisfied with hearsay material. The student should be impressed with the fact that the gospel accounts (and especially Luke'S) are pure history. They make no attempts to interpret meaningsthey are records of what Jesus said and did, purely and simply, and modern-day news reporters would do well to follow their example. The Gospel writers had confidence that honest, clear-thinking men and women who read their historical accounts of Jesus could form their own conclusions about who Jesus is and what they should do about their conclusions. (See John 20:30-31)

It is inconceivable that a man of Luke's training could be satisfied with only fragmentary and disconnected portions of the life of Jesus. He would be challenged to make a scientific investigation of every bit of true historical information he could gather. A.T. Robertson reminds us that Luke was the first critic of the life of Christ whose criticism has been preserved for posterity. With his training and sources it is unlikely that he would be fooled. He had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the facts. He got his facts first hand from eyewitnesses. Shouldn-'t honest-minded people today give more credence to Luke than modern-day critics, almost 2000 years away from the events, who are trying to impugn their accuracy?

Luke evidently does not mean to say that each one of his sources had been with Jesus during every event of His life. No doubt Luke received his account of the birth narratives from Mary, mother of Jesus. He tells much about Mary's part in the history of Christ that others leave out. During his stay in Palestine for two years it is altogether possible that he talked with a number of the first apostles of Christ. Paul told of 500 brethren, most of whom were alive when he wrote I Corinthians, who were eyewitnesses. Luke probably interviewed a number of these people, He definitely met James and all the elders at Jerusalem with Paul (Acts 21:18). Nowhere does Luke claim to have written everything Jesus said and did, but his account is the most complete and orderly account of all four gospel accounts.

Graphically, Luke describes the work he put into his gospel record. The Greek word parekolouthekoti is translated having followed and means, literally, to follow alongside a thing which one has in mind, or to trace a thing carefully. Galen, famous Greek physician, used this word for the tracing-out of medical symptoms. Luke applies the exact science of his medical training to the careful investigation of events surrounding Jesus-' life. He traced every account for accuracy and order. The word closely in the English text is akribos in Greek and means minutely. Nor was he satisfied until he had traced all things to their source. The Greek word is anothen and means, source or beginning. The translation, for some time past, in RSV is not a good translation. Luke's method of scientific-historical research is in no way inferior to any method used today.

Luke is not only an expert researcher, he is also an expert communicator. He is not satisfied just to trace every bit of material on the life of Jesus which comes his way to its source with minute accuracy, he must also put it in logical order. The Greek word is kathexes. G. Campbell Morgan says the word is that of the artist. Luke gathered his material, established its accuracy and then gave it artistic order so that his friend, Theophilus, would get the whole picture of Jesus. Hobbes notes, Luke's historical genius expresses itself in the words inquiry, accuracy, and order.

Theophilus is a Greek name meaning, one who loves God. Luke addresses him as most excellent or your excellency. He uses the same Greek word kratiste which is used twice in Acts to address important government officials (cf. Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3). Many ancient writers were supported by patrons or men of wealth who wished to benefit by the research done by these experts. Luke also mentions Theophilus in his introduction to Acts. Theophilus was probably an important government official of considerable wealth, a convert to Christianity, who wished to know as many details about Jesus-' life as possible and have them written down in orderly, permanent form so that he could establish himself and others more firmly in the faith. Theophilus had been taught the good news about Christ. In fact, the Greek word translated informed is katechethes and is the word from which we get catechism in English. The Greek word asphaleian is translated truth (certainty in KJV). It means without tottering or falling. Plummer comments that Theophilus shall know that the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical foundation.

Through the work of modern archaeologists and historians like Sir William Ramsay, Luke's Gospel (and Acts) has been thoroughly authenticated as to its historical accuracy. Herschel H. Hobbs summarizes it beautifully:

The fires of criticism have burned about the whole of the Bible. Yet it has stood the test. And central in this test has been the Gospel of Luke. It is really no wonder that this Gospel stands triumphant in the field of battle. It has stood the stern test of scientific analysis where science is qualified to speak. And where it cannot speak with authority this Gospel itself can. For before this scientist-historian allowed any single item to be honored with a place in his account, he first subjected it to the most critical analysis in every detail. This man of science who possessed a keen appreciation for history surrendered his personality and powers to the Holy Spirit. The result is not only the world's most beautiful story, but one which gives to us the full knowledge of the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
And for this dual reason we are indebted to Luke beyond measure, a debt which the faithful can never repay.
from An Exposition of The Gospel of Luke, by H.H. Hobbs, pg. 23, pub. Baker

STUDY STIMULATORS:

1.

Some have led us to believe that physicians of 2000 years ago were little more than ignorant, superstitious witchdoctorswhat about Luke?

2.

Does the academic and social position of Luke and the political status of Theophilus tell you anything about the cutting-edge of the Gospel as it penetrated all strata of first century society? Can you name other people of position and erudition converted by the Gospel?

3.

Since Jesus never promised Luke the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nor does Luke claim it in his own statements, do you have any difficulty accepting Luke's Gospel as an authentic part of the Bible?

4.

Did you know that some modern religious leaders claim most of what is recorded of Jesus in the gospel accounts is mythologicalthat is, made-up stories like fairy-tales? How does that compare with Luke's claim to historical accuracy?

5.

Since Jesus was crucified about 34 A.D. and Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses in Palestine about 58-60 A.D., what famous persons might have been alive then for Luke to interview about Jesus-' life?

6.

Why do you think the Holy Spirit guided the gospel writers to refrain from making interpretations of the meaning of the events they recorded? Does this give any indication about right and wrong in the psychology of the proclamation of the Gospel? In other words, should we try to push people into responding by manipulative methods, or simply proclaim the gospel story with conviction and compassion and leave men as free as possible to make their own choice?

7.

Is it important to you that Luke has emphasized his goal of minute and orderly accuracy?

8.

Are you convinced that Luke's historical account can stand the test of modern scientific and historical investigation?

9.

Do you think an honest-minded unbeliever could be converted by studying Luke's gospel? Or would it take something else?

Applebury's Comments

Luke Writes to Theophilus
Scripture

Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Comments

Forasmuch as many.Many who had heard the words of Jesus and had seen the things He did had made a written record of them. Others had repeated them orally. In so doing, it is possible that variations in the wording, without change in thought, had taken place. Even the inspired writersMatthew, Mark, Luke, and Johndo not always use the same words, but in a very remarkable way they do express the same thoughts. Some of the written accounts were fragmentary. One person told about something he heard Jesus say; another described a miracle he had seen. Perhaps details were lacking in some cases. So we can see why God selected His inspired writers to give an accurate account of the things that Jesus did and taught. Theophilus had been instructed in them, but Luke wanted him to have the complete and accurate account of these things.

matters that have been fulfilled among us.In the Book of Acts which Luke also wrote to Theophilus, Luke gives his own statement about the content of the first letter. He says he had written about all that Jesus began both to do and teach until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen (Acts 1:1-2). He recorded the historical facts after he had carefully researched the whole project.

they delivered them to us.This is not a fictional story. Luke wrote an accurate account of things that were reported to him by those who saw and heard them. Of the four gospel writers, only Matthew and John were apostles who had seen and heard the things they wrote about. Mark could have heard them, but not Luke. That's why he checked every detail of this wonderful story. He wrote it because he was convinced that it was reliable history. More than that, he was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit, for he had been with the apostle Paul and could easily have received this power through the laying on of the apostle's hands. See Acts 8:14-40; 2 Timothy 1:6.

eyewitnesses and ministers.Luke rests his case on a solid foundation. The apostles were numbered among the eyewitnesses. See Acts 1:21-22; Hebrews 2:3-4; 1 John 1:1-4. Paul was a witness of the risen Lord, although there is nothing to show that he witnessed the events of Jesus-' ministry as the other apostles had done. See 1 Corinthians 9:1. In writing about the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-58) he did tell about the more than five hundred brethrenmost of them were still alivewho had seen the risen Lord.

These eyewitnesses were ministersservants who rendered faithful obedience to their Lord. See Paul's use of this word in 1 Corinthians 4:1-2. He also calls the apostles stewards of the mysteries of Godthat is, His revealed secret in the Word. See also 1 Timothy 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 2:1-2.

from the beginning.How far back does this go? If we are to restrict it to the ministry of the apostles, then the beginning may well be the public ministry of Jesus, See Acts 1:21-22. But Luke must have talked with witnesses who had seen and heard the things with which he begins his storythe facts about the birth of John and of Jesus. It is significant that the beloved physician wrote the facts about the birth of Jesus in this reliable record of things that actually happened.

it seemed good to me also.The writer does not give his name. For that matter, neither do the writers of the other three gospels. We are left to external evidence for this information. There is, however, internal evidence that die Gospel According to Luke and The Acts were written by the same person. Both of them are written to Theophilus. See Acts 1:1.

Luke the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14) was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. References in Acts suggest that he joined Paul at Troas on his second missionary journey and went with him to Philippi. See Acts 16:10. Evidently, he was with Paul on the last part of the third journey which took them to Jerusalem (Acts 20:5; Acts 21:15). He was with him when he left Caesarea for Rome (Acts 27:1). Two remarkable statements bring the story of Acts to a climax; they also show that the author of the Book was with Paul when he entered Rome. See them in Acts 28:14; Acts 28:16.

Luke's association with Paul on these journeys sheds some light on the possible time during which he researched these important matters recorded in his gospel. The time they spent in Jerusalem and the long imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea (Acts 24:27) could have given him time to investigate the sources of the reports recounted by those who had actually seen and heard the things about which he was to write.

We do not know where he was when he wrote the gospel. It could have been at Caesarea or it could have been at Rome while Paul was there in prison. The closing words of Acts suggest that the outcome of Paul's trial was not known when Luke wrote the book. The closing words of the Gospel and the opening words of Acts suggest that Luke wrote them without any great lapse of time between the two. This tends to suggest that both were written at Rome. Luke was faithful to Paul to the last. When others for various reasons left him, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome saying, Only Luke is with me (2 Timothy 4:11).

having traced the course of all things accurately.Many had written about some of the things in the life of Jesus. Luke carefully researched all the evidence in connection with the reports of the eyewitnesses of these things. What he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is trustworthy.

from the first.King James says, from the very first, while R. S. V. says, for some time past, The Greek term is translated in various ways. It simply marks the starting point from which the action proceeds. Jesus said to Nicodemus, except one be born anewor from abovehe cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). We think of it as the new birth or being born again.

Luke researched this project to the point at which he began the written account, that is, to the birth of John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus.
Why didn-'t Luke begin at the same point from which Matthew presents his account of the life of the Messiah? For one thing, Matthew evidently wrote to the Jews who were proud of their birth records. They kept them with great care and traced their ancestry back to the original twelve tribes of Israel. They were also fond of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Matthew caught the attention of his readers immediately with the genealogical table that shows Jesus-' legal right to the throne of David. He traces the royal line of Jesus from David and Abraham through Solomon to Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. He proved his claim that Jesus is Messiah by showing how He fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.
It is altogether likely that Luke was familiar with Matthew's account of the Gospel of Christ. But Luke wrote to Theophilus, a Gentile. His background was different; he may not have been familiar with these prophecies. Luke evidently thought it best to put the genealogy of Jesus after the account of the birth and baptism of Jesus. He gave Theophilus evidence that Jesus is the Son of God before tracing His line (the blood line) through Nathan the son of David to Adam, the son of God.

But why didn-'t he go all the way back to the point at which John begins his account of the Word who became flesh and revealed the Father (John 1:1; John 1:18)? John's in beginning reached to eternity as man views the past. It helps to understand what he meant when he wrote, The Word became flesh. This is John's way of presenting the virgin birth of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give the complete details. It was Luke's purpose to write about the things that had been reported by eyewitnesses and which he had carefully examined so that Theophilus could be fully assured that Jesus is Son of God and Son of ManHe really is God and He really is man.

to write unto thee in order.Luke did not give a chronological account of the life of Jesus or a geographical report of His journeys. He did write a logically connected account of the One whom he calls Son of God and Son of Man. The arrangement of his materials differs in some cases from that of Matthew or Mark. This difference may be traced to the fact that Jesus repeated the things He taught on various occasions. For example, the Sermon on the Mount could have been delivered on many occasions. He could have changed the arrangement of the materials or the wording to suit the occasion. This may account for the differences between the report of Matthew in Chapter s five, six, and seven of his Gospel and what Luke says in chapter six of his account of the Life of Jesus. Luke's Gospel is an orderly, logically arranged account of the material he selected to give Theophilus something solid on which to base his belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of Man.

Luke divides his materials into three sections. The first presents the evidence that shows Jesus to be the Son of God and the Son of Man (Luke 1:5 to Luke 4:13). It begins with the birth narratives and continues through the accounts of Jesus-' baptism and temptation. The second and largest section tells about Jesus-' ministry of teaching and healing (Luke 4:14 to Luke 21:38). It presents the Galilean ministry (Luke 4:14 to Luke 9:50), the ministry of Jesus on the way to Jerusalem which included the Perean ministry (Luke 9:51 to Luke 19:28), and the closing events of His ministry which occurred in Jerusalem (Luke 18:29 to Luke 21:38). The third section centers around the crucifixion and resurrection (Luke 22:1 to Luke 24:53). It tells about the arrest and trial (Luke 22:1 to Luke 23:32), the crucifixion and burial (Luke 23:33-56), and His resurrection, appearances, and ascension (Luke 24:1-53).

most excellent Theophilus.Who is Theophilus? His name suggests that he was a Gentile. It means friend of God or one whom God loved. The title most excellent suggests official rank; he was a man of some importance in his day. The fact that Luke says that he had been instructed in these matters about which he was writing suggests that he was a Christian, although some are in doubt about this point. When and where Luke first came in contact with him, we have no way of knowing. It is an interesting fact that about one-fourth of the New TestamentThe Gospel of Luke and The Actswas addressed to this man.