Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 1:1 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Luk_1:1-4
Many.—It is perfectly arbitrary to refer this to the apocryphal Gospels, which were the product of later times. Luke had in view rather the very earliest literary attempts, made by persons more or less authorized, at the commencement of the apostolic age; and it may be reasonably concluded from this preface, that, during the composition of his Gospel, he had before him many written documents and records ( äéçãÞóåéò ), which, when they seemed worthy of acceptation, he incorporated in its pages. The relative coincidence between this and the two former Gospels is certainly most simply accounted for, by supposing them to have been freely drawn from common sources. The very comparison of this literary preface (Luk_1:1-4), written in pure Greek, with the immediately succeeding history of events before Christ’s birth (Luk_1:5-80), abounding in Hebraisms, would lead to the supposition, that the latter was derived from some more ancient record. Concluding expressions, which seem originally to have stood at the end of shorter narratives, are also found in various places; e.g., Luk_1:80; Luk_2:20; Luk_2:52; Luk_4:13, etc. It was Schleiermacher who first directed attention to these facts; but he pushed his conclusion from them too far, when he considered Luke as almost exclusively a compiler and arranger, and allowed too little for the influence of his individuality in the selection and treatment of his materials.
Luk_1:2. As they delivered them to us.—This delivering ( ðáñÜäïóéò ) is here certainly the oral tradition, which formed the basis of the written Gospels, and contained the matter of the ἀíÜôáîéò , which had already been attempted, with various degrees of success. It began with the baptism of John, and the public ministry of Jesus (Act_1:21 and Joh_15:27), and did not originally include the narratives either of His birth or childhood; though Matthew and Luke could have found no difficulty in obtaining accounts of these from authentic sources. The eye-witnesses and ministers here mentioned, are the same persons, viz., the original Apostles; and the word here spoken of is by no means the personal Logos—for no interpreter can be justified in thus confusing the respective senses in which Luke and John employ the same term—but the word of the Gospel, delivered by them to Luke and his fellow-laborers.
Luk_1:3. It seemed good to me also.—The addition of some old translators, mihi et Spiritui sancto, the product of a theory of mechanical inspiration, is not needed, to make us conscious that we have, in the Gospel of Luke, a striking revelation of the true Spirit of Christ.
Having accurately traced down all things from the very first.—This very first ( ἄíùèåí )reaches farther back, as may be seen by the first two chapters, than the from the beginning ( ἀñ÷ῆò ) of Luk_1:2. Paul uses the same word in Act_26:5 to designate the beginning of his life among the Jews, before his conversion. Luke, who, according to Act_21:17, saw James at Jerusalem, might have become acquainted, through him, with Mary or the so-called brothers of the Lord, and have learned much from them. The conjecture of a Dutch divine (Dresselhuis), that Luke, in writing the history of the Nativity, made use of an original written narrative, by James the brother of our Lord, which was afterward lost, and replaced by the apocryphal Gospel of James (Protevangelium Jacobi), deserves mention.
Most noble (or honorable) Theophilus.—For the various conjectures that have been made concerning the pedigree, dwelling-place, and rank of this Christian, see Winer, art. Theophilus. We feel most inclined to favor the supposition which fixes his residence in Italy, and perhaps in Rome. For why is Luke so increasingly precise (Acts 27, 28) in topographical hints, as his narrative is hastening to its close, unless this locality were better known to his friend and first reader, than any other? from Act_23:8, we may conclude that Theophilus was not of Jewish extraction. Whether he had already made a profession of Christianity, in which he had at first been instructed, must remain uncertain. ÊñÜôéóôïò was probably a civil official title.
In order.—It does not appear from the word itself, whether by êáèåîῆò is to be understood the order of time, or of things. It may denote both; see Act_3:24; Act_11:4. Since, however, the êáèåîῆò ãñÜöåéí is spoken of as a result of the ἄíùèåí ðáñáêïëïõèåῖí , and Luke often shows that he is aiming at chronological exactness, we are inclined to prefer the former meaning. This does not, however, necessarily imply that he always had this exactness equally in view, nor that he was always equally successful in attaining it.
Luk_1:4. Wherein thou hast been catechized.—One of the earliest historical traces of ancient Christian catechizing, of which, according to Luk_1:1-2, the history of our Lord formed the basis. Thereon, however, were built specific Christian ëüãïé , whose doctrinal èåìÝëéïí , or foundation, is pointed out, Heb_6:1-2. These ëüãïé could not remain unshaken, unless the most important facts of the gospel history were distinctly understood, and their truth recognized as beyond all doubt. The various, and, perhaps, often contradictory, accounts of these facts, which came to the ears of Theophilus, furnished Luke with a motive for strict historical research, that his friend might know the ἀóöÜëåéá of the Christian ἀëÞèåéá .
[This historiographic preface, Luk_1:1-4, is a model of brevity, simplicity, and modesty, as well as of purity and dignity of style. Alford remarks: “The peculiar style of this preface—which is purer Greek than the contents of the Gospel, and also more labored and formal—may be accounted for, partly because it is the composition of the Evangelist himself, and not translated from the Hebrew sources like the rest, and partly because prefaces, especially when also dedicatory, are usually in a rounded and artificial style.” The difference of the periodic Greek style of the preface and the simple Hebraizing language of the following narrative is very striking, and shows the conscientious use of the Hebrew traditions or writings on the history of the infancy. Yet these sources were not slavishly translated, but fully appropriated by Luke and interwoven with the peculiarities of his own style which are found even in the first two chapters. Comp. Credner: Einleitung, i. p. 132 ff.; Wilke: Rhetorik, p. 451; Ewald: Bibl. Jahrbücher, ii. p. 183; Meyer in loc., and Doctrinal Note 5 below.—P. S.]
2. Even during the lifetime of the Apostles, the need of an accurate, well-arranged life of Jesus, which should be the work of some competent and duly authorized agent, was felt. And if oral tradition was thus early in danger of becoming corrupted (comp. Joh_21:22-23), how little certainty concerning the Christian revelation should we now possess without the written testimony! Oral tradition is undoubtedly more ancient than the written gospel; nor was the Church exclusively founded upon the latter. But who could instruct us with any certainty, with respect to the contents of the apostolic ðáñÜäïóéò , without access to the ëñáöÞ ? Luke, indeed, wrote his Gospel only for Theophilus and his immediate circle; but the question is not concerning the intentions of Luke, but concerning the design of his glorified Lord, under whose special guidance this Gospel was at first composed, and has since been preserved, for the edification of all succeeding ages.
3. Luke speaks of his study of the human sources of information; he says nothing of his divine inspiration. Are we then to conclude that he was unconscious of the latter, or that it was rendered superfluous by the former? By no means; but rather, in this case, the maxim: subordinate non pugnant holds good. The Holy Spirit, through whose operation he first became a believer in Christ, and afterward a fellow-laborer with Paul, did surely not forsake him, but descended upon him in far more abundant measure, when he took up the pen to bear testimony for his Lord in this more permanent form for all ages to come. Paul has not said in vain: “God is not the author of confusion, but of order;” and the possession of supernatural power, by no means supersedes the use of natural assistance.
4. The grand distinction between Christianity and all systems of philosophy, and all other religions, so called, consists in this, that it is not a mere system of notions, but a series of facts. Its first promulgators could all adopt, as their own, the words of John: “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you” (1Jn_1:1-3). It is this that makes it everlasting; for deeds once done can never be altered: it is this that makes it universal; for duly accredited facts fall within the reach of those also who could not follow a chain of abstract reasoning: it is this that makes it so mighty; for simple facts are stronger than the most elaborate arguments. That a thorough investigation of these facts is a duty, may be taught us by Luke; but their reality being once ascertained, it results, from his words to Theophilus, that the ἀóöÜëåéá of the faith can no longer be called in question. Would that they who, in reading the Gospel narratives, have continually in their mouths the words, myth, tradition, legend, might enter into the spirit of Luke’s prologue, and, after due research, might feel and experience that here, if anywhere, they are treading on the firm ground of the most unquestionable reality!
[5. 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; showing that the Evangelists were not passive instruments, but free, conscious, intelligent, and co-operative agents of the Holy Spirit in producing these books; (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. S.]
[6. Ambrose: Scriptum est Evangelium ad Theophilum, hoc est, ad eum quem Deus diligit. Si Deum diligis, ad te scriptum est. If you are a lover of God, a Theophilus, it is written to thee. James Ford: The name Theophilus imports the temper of mind which God will bless in the Scripture student; “charity edifieth” (1Co_8:1); and who are the most excellent of the earth, but they whose minds are most imbued with this divine love, with this knowledge of the Lord?—P. S.]
Starke:—In a good cause, imitation is a good work.—Nothing should be undertaken inconsiderately, especially in important matters (Pro_19:2).—Full assurance and conviction are necessary for writing or speaking with comfort.—The fear of God makes men truly great and excellent.
Heubner:—The providence of God in raising up sincere, earnest, and credible men, for the task of writing the history of Jesus Christ.—The end of Christian authors should be the promotion of Christianity. The real value of an author proportionate to his attainment of this end.
Footnotes:
Luk_1:1.—Forasmuch, antique but not antiquated form for inasmuch, in consideration of, since, well corresponds to ἐðåéäÞðåñ (only here in the N. T.), which is more full-sounding and grave than ἐðåéäÞ , like quoniam quidem and the German sintemal in Luther’s and de Wette’s versions, which van Oosterzee exchanged for nachdem.
Luk_1:1.—Or undertaken, attempted, ἐðå÷åßñçóáí , which, not of itself (Origen, Ambrose, Theophylact), but in connection with Luk_1:3 (Meyer), implies the insufficiency of the older äéçãÞóåéò .
Luk_1:1.— ἈíáôÜîáóèáé äéÞãçóéí , to draw up, to arrange, to compose a narration (Rheims Version, Alford), or narrative, history (Genevan B.). The improper version: declaration, is from Cranmer’s Bible.
Luk_1:1.— ÄéÞãçóéí ðåñὶ ôῶí ðåðëçñïöïñçìÝíùí åí ἡìῖí ðñáãìÜôùí . Dr. van Oosterzee (following de Wette, in the third ed. of his Commentary on Luke): eine Erzählung von den unter uns (Christen) vollständig gewordenen Geschichten; Vulgate: quæ in nobis completa sunt; Meyer: welche vollendet sind unter uns. So also Luther, Hammond, Bretschneider, Ebrard, etc. But the Peschito, Theophylact, Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ewald, Alford explain with all the older English Versions, except those of Wiclif and Rheims: quæ satis atque abunde nobis probata sunt, quæ sunt compertissima, certainly, or fully believed, or certified. The verb ðëçñïöïñÝù means: (1) to bring out fully, to complete, to fulfil (like ðëçñüù , which is the word used in this sense very often in the N. T.); (2) in the passive: to be fully assured or persuaded; so Rom_4:21; Rom_14:5 (comp. also the noun ðëçñïöïñßá , full assurance; Col_2:2; 1Th_1:5; Heb_6:11; Heb_10:22). But in this second sense the verb is used of persons only, and not of things, ðñÜãìáôá , as would be the case here according to the Authorized E. V. It is improper to speak of things fully persuaded. Another objection to the Authorized Version is, that the full assurance, or ðëçñïöïñßá , of the gospel history could not be taken for granted at the outset, but was to be effected in the mind of Theophilus by the narrative of Luke, comp. Luk_1:4. Meyer brings the expression into pragmatic connection with the following ἀ ð ’ ἀñ÷ῆò , Luk_1:2. The accomplished facts of the gospel history are regarded as standing in close contact with the events of the apostolic age, so that they were completed among those who, like Luke and Timothy, were no more immediate witnesses of the life of Christ.
Luk_1:2.—Even, which dates from Tyndale, is not required by the Greek êáèþò , and is omitted by Wiclif, the Rheims Version, and the N. T. of the Am. B. U.
Luk_1:3.— Ðáñáêïëïõèåῖí , to follow up, to trace down (by research), and so to know fully, is used in precisely the same sense by Demosthenes, Pro corona, p. Luke 285: ðáñçêïëïõèçêüôá ôïῖò ðñÜãìáóéí ἐî ἀñ÷ῆò , ê . ô . ë . Comp. Alford in loc., Tyndale, and Cranmer: as I had searched out diligently all things from the beginning; Genevan B.: learned perfectly all things from the beginning. I prefer to retain from the first (or from the very first in the C. V.), ἄíùèåí , to distinguish it from ἀ ð ’ ἀñ÷ῆò , Luk_1:2. See Exegetical and Critical Notes.
Luk_1:3.—Or consecutively, êáèåîῆò . Genevan B.: from point to point.
Luk_1:3.— ÊñÜôéóôïò is here and often an official title, like our honorable. Hence honorable, or most noble (Genevan B.), is preferable to excellent, which is apt to be applied to moral character. The E. V. renders the word twice most excellent, here and Act_23:6, and twice most noble, Act_24:3; Act_26:25.
Luk_1:4.—Van Oosterzee, Luther, de Wette, Meyer, etc., render ëüãïé here doctrines; the Latin Vulgate, Wiclif, Rheims Version, van Ess: words; Beza, Kuinoel, and all the older Protestant English versions: res, things; Alford: histories, accounts. The living words and doctrines of Christ are meant, which rest upon the great facts of the gospel history and derive from them their ἀóöÜëåéá . For Christianity is not simply a system of doctrines, but first of all a system of divine human facts of salvation, God manifest in the flesh, living, dying, rising, and ever living for us.
Luk_1:4.—Lit.: catechized, catechetically taught, êáôç÷Þèçò . The specific word should have been retained here and elsewhere instead of the more indefinite instruct or teach. Catechizing is a primitive and most important institution of the Church, and a preparatory school for full membership. Archbishop Usher says: “The neglect of catechizing is the frustrating of the whole work of the ministry.”—P. S.]
[“Nature and the supernatural together constitute the one system of God.” This sentence, which Dr. Horace Bushnell has chosen as the title of his book on Nature and the Supernatural, may be applied also to the doctrine of inspiration. The Bible is the result of divine inspiration and of human labor, and is theanthropic, like the person of Christ. See the Preface to the Am. ed. of Lange, vol. i. p. 5. Matthew Henry remarks on Luke’s Preface: “It is certain that Luke was moved by the Holy Ghost not only to the writing, but in the writing of it [his Gospel]; but in both he was moved as a reasonable creature, and not as a mere machine.”—P. S.]
[The author has in mind, no doubt, the famous maxim of Augustine, Anselm, and Schleiermacher: Fides precedit intellectum, faith precedes knowledge, and supplies it by the equally correct principle, that true Christian knowledge confirms and increases faith. There is a reciprocal friendly relation between ðßóôéò and ãíῶóéò . Anselm recognized the latter truth also. For while he said, on the one hand: Neque enim quæro intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam, he laid down the principle, on the other hand: Negligentiæ mihi videtur si quæ credimus, non studemus intelligere. Such study, far from leading away from faith, confirms and strengthens it.—P. S.]