Comentários bíblicos

Preface to Luke

Little is "certainly" known concerning the time and place of writing this Gospel, or concerning the author. The first time we have any mention of the author is in his own history, Acts 16:10-11. He was then the companion of Paul in his travels, and it is evident that he often attended Paul in his journeys, compare Acts 16:11-17; Acts 21:1-6. In each of these places the author of "the Acts " speaks of "his" being in company with Paul. That the same person was the writer of this Gospel is also clear from Acts 1:1.

From this circumstance the ancients regarded this Gospel as in fact the Gospel which Paul had preached. They affirm that Luke recorded what the apostle preached. Thus, Irenaeus says, "Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him." He also says, "Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul." Origen, speaking of the Gospels, says, "The third is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts." The testimony of the fathers is uniform that it was written by Luke, the companion of Paul, and was, therefore, regarded by them as really the gospel which Paul preached.

It is not known Where it was written. Jerome says it was composed in Achaia. There seems to be some probability that it was written to persons that were well acquainted with Jewish manners, as the author does not stop to explain the peculiar customs of the Jews, as some of the other evangelists have done. Respecting the time when it was written nothing very definite is known. All that can with certainty be ascertained is that it was written before the death of Paul (65 a.d.), for it was written before the Acts Act 1:1, and that book only brings down the life of Paul to his imprisonment at Rome, and previous to his going into Spain.

It has been made a matter of inquiry whether Luke was a Gentile or a Jew. On this subject there is no positive testimony. Jerome and others of the fathers say that he was a Syrian, and born at Antioch. The most probable opinion seems to be that he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, though descended from Gentile parents. For this opinion two reasons may be assigned of some weight. First, he was intimately acquainted, as appears by the Gospel and the Acts , with the Jewish rites, customs, opinions, and prejudices; and he wrote in their "dialect," that is, with much of the Hebrew phraseology, in a style similar to the other evangelists, from which it appears that he was accustomed to the Jewish religion, and was, therefore, probably a proselyte. Yet the "preface" to his Gospel, as critics have remarked, is pure classic Greek, unlike the Greek that was used by native Jews; from which it seems not improbable that he was by birth and education a Gentile. second. In Acts 21:27, it is said that the Asiatic Jews excited the multitude against Paul because he had introduced "Gentiles" into the temple, thus defiling it. In Acts 21:28 it is said that the Gentile to whom they had reference was "Trophimus," an Ephesian. Yet "Luke" was also at that time with Paul. If he had been regarded as "a Gentile" it is probable that they would have made complaint respecting "him" as well as "Trophimus;" from which it is supposed that he was a Jewish proselyte.

But again, in the Epistle to the Colossians, Colossians 4:9-11, we find Paul saying that Aristarchus, and Marcus, and Barnabas, and Justus saluted them, "who are," he adds, "of the circumcision," that is, Jews by birth. In Colossians 4:14 he says that "Luke," the beloved physician, and Demas also saluted them; from which it is inferred that they were "not of the circumcision," but were by birth Gentiles.

Most writers suppose that Luke, the writer of this Gospel, was intended in the above place in Colossians. If so, his profession was that of "a physician;" and it has been remarked that his descriptions of diseases are more accurate and circumstantial, and have more of "technical" correctness than those of the other evangelists.

Luke does not profess to have been an eye-witness of what he recorded. See Luke 1:2-3. It is clear, therefore, that he was not one of the seventy disciples, nor one of the two who went to Emmaus, as has been sometimes supposed. Nor was he an apostle. By the fathers he is uniformly called the "companion" of the apostles, and especially of Paul.

If he was not one of the apostles, and if he was not one of those expressly commissioned by our Lord to whom the promise of the infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost was given, the question arises by what authority his Gospel and the Acts have a place in the sacred canon, or what evidence is there that he was divinely inspired?

In regard to this question the following considerations may give satisfaction:

1. They were received by all the churches on the same footing as the first three Gospels. There is not a dissenting voice in regard to their authenticity and authority. The value of this argument is this - that if they had been spurious, or without authority, the fathers were the proper persons to know it.

2. They were published during the lives of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, and were received during their lives as books of sacred authority. If the writings of Luke were not inspired, and had no authority, those apostles could easily have destroyed their credit, and we have reason to think it would have been done.

3. It is the united testimony of the fathers that this Gospel was submitted to Paul, and received his express approbation. It was regarded as the substance of his preaching, and if it received his approbation it comes to "us" on the authority of his name. Indeed, if this be the case, it rests on the same authority as the epistles of Paul himself.

4. It bears the same marks of inspiration as the other books. It is simple, pure, yet sublime; there is nothing unworthy of God; and it is elevated far above the writings of any uninspired man.

5. If he was not inspired - if, as we suppose, he was a Gentile by birth - and if, as is most clear, he was not an eyewitness of what he records, it is inconceivable that he did not contradict the other evangelists. That he did not "borrow" from them is clear. Nor is it possible to conceive that he could write a book varying in the order of its "arrangement" so much, and adding so many new facts, and repeating so many recorded also by the others, without often having contradicted what was written by them. Let any man compare this Gospel with the spurious gospels of the following centuries, and he will be struck with the force of this remark.

6. If it be objected that, not being an apostle, he did not come within the "promise" of inspiration John 14:26; John 16:13-14 made to the apostles, it may be replied that this was also the case with Paul; yet no small part of the New Testament is composed of his writings. The evidence of the inspiration of the writings of Luke and Paul is to be judged, not only by that "promise," but by the early reception of the churches; by the testimony of the fathers as to the judgment of "inspired men" when living, and by the internal character of the works. Luke has all these equally with the other evangelists.

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 Luke 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.

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.

It seemed good - I thought it best; or, I have also determined. It seemed "to be called for" that there should be a full, authentic, and accurate account of these matters.

Having had perfect understanding ... - The literal translation of the original here would be, "having exactly traced everything from the first;" or, "having, by diligent and careful investigation, "followed up" everything to the "source," to obtain an accurate account of the matter." This much better expresses the idea. Luke did not profess to have seen these things, and this expression is designed to show how he acquired his information. It was by "tracing up" every account until he became satisfied of its truth. Here observe,

1. That in religion God does not set aside our natural faculties. He calls us to look at evidence; to examine accounts; to make up our own minds. Nor will any man be convinced of the truth of religion who does "not" make investigation and set himself seriously to the task.

2. We see the nature of Luke's inspiration. It was consistent with his using his natural faculties or his own powers of mind in investigating the truth. God, by His Holy Spirit, presided over his faculties, directed them, and kept him from error.

In order - This word does not indicate that the exact order of time would be observed, for that is not the way in which he writes; but it means distinctly, particularly, in opposition to the confused and broken accounts to which he had referred before.

Most excellent Theophilus - The word Theophilus means "a friend of God," or a pious man; and it has been supposed by some that Luke did not refer to any particular "individual," but to any man that loved God; but there is no reason for this opinion. Significant names were very common, and there is no good reason to doubt that this was some individual known to Luke. The application of the title "most excellent "proves it further. It would not be given to an unknown man. The title "most excellent" has by some been supposed to be given to express his "character," but it is rather to be considered as denoting rank or office. It occurs only in three other places in the New Testament, and is there given to men "in office" - to Felix and Festus, Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25. These titles express no quality of the "men," but belong to the "office;" and we may hence learn that it is not improper for Christians, in giving honor to whom honor is due, to address men in office by their customary titles, even if their moral character be altogether unworthy of it. Who "Theophilus" was is unknown. It is probable that he was some distinguished Roman or Greek who had been converted, who was a friend of Luke, and who had requested an account of these things. It is possible that this preface might have been sent to him as a private letter with the gospel, and Theophilus chose to have them published together.

The certainty - Have full evidence or proof of.

Been instructed - By the preachers of the gospel. The original word is the one from which is derived our word "catechism - been catechized;" but it does not denote here the "manner" in which the instruction was imparted, as it does with us, but simply the fact that he had been taught those things.

In the days of Herod - See the notes at Matthew 2:1.

Of the course of Abia - When the priests became so numerous that they could not at once minister at the altar, David divided them into 24 classes or courses, each one of which officiated for a week, 1 Chronicles 24. The class or course (shift) of Abia was the "eighth" in order, 1 Chronicles 24:10. Compare 2 Chronicles 8:14. The word "course" means the same as "class," or order. The Greek-based word "Abia" is the same as the Hebrew-based word "Abijah."

His wife was of the daughters of Aaron - A descendant of Aaron, the first high priest of the Jews; so that "John the Baptist" was descended, on the father's and the mother's side, from priests. Our Saviour was not on either side. John would have been legally entitled to a place among the priests; our Saviour, being of the tribe of Judah, would not.

Both righteous - Both "just" or holy. This means here more than external conformity to the law. It is an honorable testimonial of their "piety" toward God.

Walking in ... - Keeping the commandments. To walk in the way that God commands is "to obey."

Ordinances - Rites and customs which God had ordained or appointed. These words refer to all the duties of religion which were made known to them.

Blameless - That is, no fault or deficiency could be found in them. They were strict, exact, punctual. Yet this, if it had been mere "external" observance, might have been no proof of piety. Paul, before his conversion, also kept the law "externally" blameless, Philippians 3:6. But in the case of Zechariah and Elizabeth it was real love to God and sincere regard for his law.

Well stricken in years - Old or advanced in life, so as to render the prospect of having children hopeless.