Luke 1:4

Ver. 4. And now, what is the aim of the work thus conceived? To strengthen the faith of Theophilus and his readers in the reality of this extraordinary history.

On Theophilus, see the Introduction, see sec. 3.

The epithet κράτιστος is applied several times, in the writings of Luke, to high Roman officials, such as Felix and Festus: Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25. It is frequently met with in medals of the time. Luke wishes to show his friend and patron, that he is not unmindful of the exalted rank he occupies. But in his opinion, one mention suffices. He does not deem it necessary to repeat this somewhat ceremonious form at the beginning of the book of the Acts.

The work executed on the plan indicated is to give Theophilus the means of ascertaining and verifying (ἐπιγινώσκειν) the irrefragable certainty (ἀσφάλειαν) of the instruction which he had already received. The construction of this last phrase has been understood in three ways. The most complicated is to understand a second περί· τὴν ἀσφάλειαν περὶ τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης; the second and more simple, adopted by Bleek, is to make περί depend not on ἀσφάλειαν, but on κατηχήθης : τὴν ἀσφάλειαν τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης. But the example κατηχήθησαν περί σου (Acts 21:21), which Bleek quotes, is not analogous; for there the object of περί is personal: “they are informed of thee. ” The simplest construction is this: τὴν ἀσφάλειαν περὶ τῶν λόγων οὓς κατηχήθης, certitude touching the instruction which...Comp. for this form κατηχεῖσθαί τι, Acts 18:25; Galatians 6:6.

The term κατηχεῖν, to cause a sound to penetrate into the ears, and thereby also a fact, an idea, into the mind, may simply mean that intelligence of the great events of which Luke speaks had reached Theophilus by public report (Acts 21:21; Acts 21:24); or it may denote instruction properly so called, as Romans 2:18; Acts 18:25; Galatians 6:6; neither the expressions nor the context appear to me to offer sufficient reasons to decide which. Perhaps the truth lies between these two extreme opinions. Theophilus might have talked with Christian evangelists without receiving such catechetical instruction, in the strict sense of the term, as was often given when a church was founded (Thiersch, Versuch, p. 122 et seq.); and then have applied to Luke with a view to obtain through his labours something more complete.

The word ἀσφάλειαν is relegated to the end, to express with greater force the idea of the irrefragable certainty of the facts of the Gospel.

It is a very nice question whether the term λόγοι, which we have translated instruction, here refers solely to the historical contents of the Gospel, or also to the religious meaning of the facts, as that comes out of the subsequent narrative. In the former case, Luke would simply mean that the certainty of each particular fact was established by its relation to the whole, which could not well be invented. An extraordinary fact, which, presented separately, appears impossible, becomes natural and rational when it takes its place in a well-certified sequence of facts to which it belongs. In strictness, this meaning might be sufficient. But when we try to identify ourselves completely with the author's mind, do we not see, in this instruction of which he speaks, something more than a simple narrative of facts? Does not the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 show that, in apostolic instruction, religious comment was inseparable from the historical text? Was it not with a view to faith that facts were related in the preaching of the gospel? and does not faith, in order to appropriate them, require an exposition of their meaning and importance? The instruction already received by Theophilus refers, then, without doubt to the Gospel history, but not as isolated from its religious interpretation; and since we have to do here with a reader belonging to a circle of Christians of heathen origin, the signification given to this history could be none other than that twofold principle of the universality and free grace of salvation which constituted the substance of what Paul calls his gospel. Luke's object, then, was to relate the Christian fact in such a way as to show that, from its very starting-point, the work and preaching of Jesus Himself had had no other meaning. This was the only way of making evangelical instruction, as formulated by St. Paul, rest on an immoveable basis. As a consequence, this apostle ceased to appear an innovator, and became the faithful expositor of the teaching of Jesus. To write a Gospel with this view, was to introduce beneath the vast ecclesiastical edifice raised by Paul, the only foundation which could in the end prevent it from falling. For whatever there is in the church that does not emanate from Jesus, holds a usurped and consequently a transitory place. This would be true even of the spiritualism of St. Paul, if it did not proceed from Jesus Christ. Certainly it does not therefore follow, that the acts and words of Jesus which Luke relates, and in which the universalist tendency of the Gospel is manifested, were invented or modified by him in the interest of this tendency. Is it not important for him, on the contrary, to prove to his readers that this tendency was not infused into the Gospel by Paul, but is a legitimate deduction from the work and teaching of Jesus Christ? The essential truth of this claim will be placed beyond all suspicion when we come to prove, on the one hand, that the author has in no way tried to mutilate the narrative by suppressing those facts which might yield a different tendency from that which he desired to justify; on the other, that the tendency which he favours is inseparable from the course of the facts themselves.

If we have correctly apprehended the meaning of the last words of the prologue, we must expect to find in the third Gospel the counterpart of the first. As that is A Treatise on the right of Jesus to the Messianic sovereignty of Israel, this is A Treatise on the right of the heathen to share in the Messianic kingdom founded by Jesus. In regard to the earliest writings on the subject of the Gospel history, we may draw from this preface four important results: 1. The common source from which the earliest written narratives of the history of the ministry of Jesus proceeded was the oral testimony of the apostles, the διδαχή τῶν ἀποστόλων, which is spoken of in Acts 2:42 as the daily food dispensed by them to the rising Church. 2. The work of committing this apostolic tradition to writing began early, not later than the period of transition from the first to the second Christian generation; and it was attempted by numerous authors at the same time. Nothing in the text of Luke authorizes us to think, with Gieseler, that this was done only amongst the Greeks. From the earliest times, the art of writing prevailed amongst the Jews; children even were not ignorant of it (Jdg 8:14). 3. In composing his Gospel, Luke possessed the apostolic tradition, not merely in the oral form in which it circulated in the churches, but also reduced to writing in a considerable number of these early works; and these constituted two distinct sources. 4. But he did not content himself with these two means of information; he made use, in addition, of personal investigations designed to complete, correct, and arrange the materials which he derived from these two sources.

Having obtained these definite results, it only remains to see whether they contain the elements required for the solution of the problem of the origin of our synoptics, and of the composition of our Gospel in particular. We shall examine them for this purpose at the conclusion of the work.