Luke 1:3

Luk 1:3-4. It seemed good to me also — That is, I have judged it to be my duty; Luke, doubtless, was moved by the Holy Ghost to write his history, as he was also to write in the manner he has done; but in both he was moved as a reasonable creature, and not as a machine: having had perfect understanding of all things — Greek, παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως, having accurately traced all things from their first rise: “Luke might have this thorough knowledge by intimate conversation with the apostles, and particularly with Paul, whose companion he was for a long time; or perhaps he was present himself at a number of transactions which he has recorded. The assurance with which he speaks of his own knowledge of these things, leads us to think that he was an eye-witness of some of them. On this supposition, his reasoning in this preface will be more conclusive than on any other, and will stand thus: Seeing many have written from the information of the eye-witnesses and ministers, I, who from the very first have had perfect knowledge of all things, both by conversing with the eye-witnesses, and by being present myself at many of the transactions of Jesus, have thought it incumbent on me to write his history, for the more certain information of mankind.” To write unto thee in order — Greek, καθεξης σοι γραψαι, to write an orderly account to thee. So Dr. Doddridge; who observes, “It is chiefly on the authority of this clause that Le Clerc, and many other modern harmonizers (of the gospels) have thought, as Beza also did, that all the other gospels are to be reduced to the order of Luke wherever they differ from it: a conclusion which I apprehend to be an occasion of many errors, and particularly injurious to the character of Matthew. The foundation of it is very precarious; since it is evident this evangelist might, with great propriety, be said to have given an orderly account of the history of Christ, as the leading facts [such as his conception, birth, childhood, baptism, preaching, miracles, passion, resurrection, ascension] are placed in their due series, though some particulars are transposed.” Most excellent Theophilus — As the word Theophilus signifies lover of God, some have thought it is not a proper name here, but a general title, applicable to every true Christian. But, as Dr. Campbell justly observes, if the evangelist meant to address his discourse to all pious Christians, and had no one individually in view, he would certainly have put his intention beyond all doubt, by using the plural number, and saying, κρατιστοι θεοφιλοι, most excellent lovers of God. Besides, to have addressed all true Christians under the appearance of bespeaking the attention of an individual, does not seem agreeable to the simplicity of style used in the gospel; and must have appeared to the writer himself as what could not fail to be misunderstood by most readers, proper names of such a form as Theophilus, and even this very name, being common in Greek and Latin authors. The word is, therefore, undoubtedly the proper name of a person: and the title, κρατιστε, most excellent, is given him, not to describe his character, although doubtless he was a truly pious and excellent Christian, but on account of his office or rank in civil society, the same title being commonly given to persons in high stations of life; and particularly to the Roman governors. Accordingly Paul uses it in addressing Felix and Festus. This Theophilus, as the ancients inform us, was a person of eminent quality at Alexandria. In Act 1:1, Luke does not give him this title. He was then probably a private man. The evangelist, by inscribing his two books to him, bestowed on him a fame which will last while Christianity subsists. That thou mightest know — More fully and circumstantially; the certainty — The exact and certain truth; of those things in which thou hast been instructed — Namely, formerly, by those who had been made the instruments of initiating him into the Christian faith. The word κατηχηθης, here used, doth with great accuracy express the instructions given to those who were training up for admission to the Christian Church, whose name of catechumens was, as it is well known, derived from hence, and applied without any particular regard to the age of the persons concerned. Compare Act 18:25. We are not to suppose that Luke had the edification of Theophilus merely in view, in writing his history; he also doubtless meant it for the instruction of persons of all nations and ages into whose hands it should fall.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:3 As a good historian, Luke carefully investigated everything in the history of Jesus from the beginning in order to present a reliable historical account. • an accurate account: Some versions translate this phrase “in consecutive order,” but it refers to an orderly or carefully written account, not to chronological sequence. • The name Theophilus means “loved by God” or “one who loves God”; it is probably a personal name, not a descriptive name. Different theories identify him as (1) an influential unbeliever, (2) a new convert needing instruction, (3) the judge overseeing Paul’s trial (the book of Acts ends with Paul imprisoned in Rome, awaiting trial), or (4) the patron who sponsored Luke’s writing project. The last possibility is the most likely, as it was common to dedicate a literary work to a financial patron and the Greek word translated most honorable indicates someone of high social status.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 1:3. Ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ, it seemed good to me also) A holy inclination, worthy of an evangelical man.—παρηκολουθηκότι, having traced up [followed up: Engl. Vers. having had perfect understanding]) A choice and happy word: it is said of him who has been all but present himself at all the events, and who has learned them from those who were actually present; for instance, Paul uses it of Timothy, 2Ti 3:10 [παρηκολούθηκάς μου διδασκαλίᾳ, thou hast fully known my doctrine], as being one whom Paul brought about with him presently after the persecutions, which he endured at Antioch, etc. The antithetic term is ἀπολέλειμμαι, the thing has escaped me, I do not comprehend it. Thus the cause is implied, why Luke regarded it as a fixed thing that he both could and ought to write. He is the person who in Act 13:1, or at least in Act 16:10, was already discharging an evangelical function.—ἄνωθεν, from above [tracing upwards]) i.e. “from the beginning,” Luk 1:2; Luk 1:5. [He intimates by this term, that he meant to supply those particulars which Mark has omitted.—Harm., p. 37.] Scripture hands down to us the first commencements [origines] of things, even those of the Gospel and of the Church.—πᾶσιν) τοῖς πράγμασιν. All these matters had been followed up by Luke accurately [ἀκριβῶς].—καθεξῆς, deinceps, successively, subsequently; [in order]) ἐξῆς, afterwards; καθεξῆς, successively (‘deinceps’), subsequently. As Luke had followed up [ascertained] all things, it was the next thing [καθεξῆς] to follow, that he should describe them. And indeed this Preface savours of fresh [recent] joy, such as would be felt at the coming to the knowledge of [joyful] facts. Moreover he describes in order (for καθεξῆς has this force also), first, the Acts of Christ, His Conception, Nativity, boyhood, Baptism, gracious deeds done by Him, preaching, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension: then next the Acts of the apostles. Yet this very fact [viz. his narrating these events in order] does not prevent his at times joining together some events which were separated from one another in point of their respective times: ch. Luk 1:80, Luk 3:20, etc.—κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, most excellent Theophilus) This Theophilus belonged to Alexandria, as the ancients testify (see Ord. Temp., p. 225), Ed. ii., p. 196, and Harm. Ev. Ed. ii., p. 80; and that was a city in which especially flourished κατήχησις, Luk 1:4. He was a most noble man, as the title given him by Luke shows: comp. Act 28:26; Act 24:3; Act 26:25. The same title is not given to the same Theophilus in Act 1:1, either because he was then in private life, or because his excellence and Luke’s intimacy with him had increased. Moreover this title of respect serves as an argument, that the Gospel history is a true one, and allowed itself from the very beginning to be offered for acceptance to the most distinguished personages. The holy examples of illustrious men, described in these books, were calculated to stimulate Theophilus to imitate them.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_1:3. Apodosis, which did not begin already in Luk_1:2.

ἔδοξε κἀμοί] in itself neither excludes nor includes inspiration. Vss. add to it: et Spiritui sancto. By the use of κἀμοί Luke places himself in the same category with the πολλοί, in so far as he, too, had not been an eye-witness; sic tamen ut etiamnum aliquid ad ἀσφάλειαν ac firmitudinem Theophilo conferat, Bengel..παρηκολουθ.] after having from the outset followed everything with accuracy. Παρακολ., of the mental tracing, investigating, whereby one arrives at a knowledge of the matter. See the examples in Valckenaer, Schol. p. 12; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 344 f. Comp., moreover, Thucyd. i. 22. 2 : ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελθών.

πᾶσιν] namely, those πράγμασι, not masculine (Syr.).

ἄνωθεν] not: radicitus, fundamentally (Grotius), which is comprised in ἀκριβ., but: from the first, see on Joh_3:3. From the beginning of the history it is seen that in his investigation he started from the birth of the Baptist, in doing which, doubtless, he could not but still lack the authentic tradition of Luk_1:2. Nevertheless the consciousness of an advantage over those πολλοί expresses itself in παρηκ. ἄνωθεν.

καθεξῆς] in orderly sequence, not out of the order of time, in which they occurred one after the other.[17] Only Luke has the word in the N. T. (Luk_8:1; Act_3:24; Act_11:4; Act_18:23); it occurs also in Aelian, Plutarch, et al., but the older classical writers have ἐφεξῆς.

κράτιστε Θεόφιλε] See Introd. § 3. That in Act_1:1 he is addressed merely Ὦ ΘΕΌΦΙΛΕ, proves nothing against the titular use of ΚΡΆΤΙΣΤΕ. See on the latter, Grotius.

[17] In the case of this καθεξῆς the Harmonists of course make the reservation, that it will be conditioned at one time more by a chronological interest, at another time more by that of the subject-matter, Lichtenstein, p. 73. Thus they keep their hand free to lay hold now of the one, now of the other, just as it is held to suit. The assertion, often repeated, in favour of the violences of harmonizers, that in Luke the arrangement by subject-matter even predominates (Ebrard, Lichtenstein), is absolutely incompatible with that καθεξῆς.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 1:3 . ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ : modestly introducing the writer’s purpose. He puts himself on a level with the πολλοὶ , and makes no pretensions to superiority, except in so far as coming after them, and more comprehensive inquiries give him naturally an advantage which makes his work not superfluous. παρηκολουθηκότι ἄν . π .: having followed (in my inquiries) all things from the beginning, i.e. , not of the public life of Jesus ( ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς , Luk 1:2 ), but of His life in this world. The sequel shows that the starting point was the birth of John. This process of research was probably gone into antecedent to the formation of his plan, and one of the reasons for its adoption (Meyer, also Grimm, Das Proömium des Lukasevangelium in Jahrbücher f. deutsche Theologie , 1871, p. 48. Likewise Calvin: omnibus exacte pervestigatis ), not merely undertaken after the plan had been formed (Hahn). ἀκριβῶς , καθεξῆς σ . γρ . explain how he desired to carry out his plan: he wishes to be exact, and to write in an orderly manner ( καθεξῆς here only in N. T., ἐφεξῆς in earlier Greek). Chronological order aimed at (whether successfully or not) according to many (Meyer, Godet, Weiss, Hahn). Schanz maintains that the chronological aim applies only to the great turning points of the history, and not to all details; a very reasonable view. These two adverbs, ἀκρ ., καθ ., may imply a gentle criticism of the work of predecessors. Observe the historical spirit implied in all Lk. tells about his literary plan and methods: inquiry, accuracy, order, aimed at at least; vouchers desired for all statements. Lk. is no religious romancer, who will invent at will, and say anything that suits his purpose. It is quite compatible with this historic spirit that Lk. should be influenced in his narrations by religious feelings of decorum and reverence, and by regard to the edification of his first readers. That his treatment of materials bearing on the characters of Jesus and the Apostles reveals many traces of such influence will become apparent in the course of the exposition. κράτιστε Θεόφιλε . The work is to be written for an individual who may perhaps have played the part of patronus libri , and paid the expenses of its production. The epithet κράτιστε may imply high official position (Act 23:26 ; Act 26:25 ). On this see Grotius. Grimm thinks it expresses only love and friendship.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luke began his Gospel a great deal farther off, than the others did.

It is most mighty, and therefore Theophilus was a very honorable man, and in place of great dignity.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

from the very first--that is, from the very earliest events; referring to those precious details of the birth and early life, not only of our Lord, but of His forerunner, which we owe to Luke alone.

in order--or "consecutively"--in contrast, probably, with the disjointed productions to which he had referred. But this must not be pressed too far; for, on comparing it with the other Gospels, we see that in some particulars the strict chronological order is not observed in this Gospel.

most excellent--or "most noble"--a title of rank applied by this same writer twice to Felix and once to Festus (Act 22:26; Act 24:3; Act 26:25). It is likely, therefore, that "Theophilus" was chief magistrate of some city in Greece or Asia Minor [WEBSTER and WILKINSON].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. Having had perfect understanding] παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν, Having accurately traced up-entered into the very spirit of the work, and examined every thing to the bottom; in consequence of which investigation, I am completely convinced of the truth of the whole. Though God gives his Holy Spirit to all them who ask him, yet this gift was never designed to set aside the use of those faculties with which he has already endued the soul, and which are as truly his gifts as the Holy Spirit itself is. The nature of inspiration, in the case of St. Luke, we at once discover: he set himself, by impartial inquiry and diligent investigation, to find the whole truth, and to relate nothing but the truth; and the Spirit of God presided over and directed his inquiries, so that he discovered the whole truth, and was preserved from every particle of error.

From the very first] ανωθεν, from their origin. Some think ανωθεν should, in this place, be translated from above; and that it refers to the inspiration by which St. Luke wrote. I prefer our translation, or, from the origin, which several good critics contend for, and which meaning it has in some of the best Greek writers. See Kypke.

Theophilus] As the literal import of this word is friend of God, Θεου φιλος, some have supposed that under this name Luke comprised all the followers of Christ, to whom, as friends of God, he dedicated this faithful history of the life, doctrine, death, and resurrection of our Lord. But this interpretation appears to have little solidity in it; for, if all the followers of Christ are addressed, why is the singular number used? and what good end could there be accomplished by using a feigned name? Besides, κρατιστε, most excellent, could never be applied in this way, for it evidently designates a particular person, and one probably distinguished by his situation in life; though this does not necessarily follow from the title, which was often given in the way of friendship. Theophilus appears to have been some very reputable Greek or Roman, who was one of St. Luke's disciples. The first four verses seem a private epistle, sent by the evangelist with this history, which, having been carefully preserved by Theophilus, was afterwards found and published with this Gospel.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(3) Having had perfect understanding of all things.—Better, having traced (or investigated) all things from their source. The verb used is one which implies following the course of events step by step. The adverb which follows exactly answers to what we call the origines of any great movement. It goes further back than the actual beginning of the movement itself.

In order.—The word implies a distinct aim at chronological arrangement, but it does not necessarily follow, where the order in St. Luke varies from that of the other Gospels, that it is therefore the true order. In such matters the writer, who was avowedly a compiler, might well be at some disadvantage as compared with others.

Most excellent Theophilus.—The adjective is the same as that used of Felix by Tertullus (Act_24:3), and implies at least high social position, if not official rank. The name, which means “Friend of God,” might well be taken by a Christian convert at his baptism. Nothing more can be known of the person so addressed beyond the fact that he was probably a Gentile convert who had already been partially instructed in the facts of the Gospel history.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. having had perfect understanding] Rather, having accurately traced out or followed up. See the same word in 1Ti_4:6; 2Ti_3:10. St Luke modestly puts himself exactly on the same footing as these narrators in not having the primary apostolic qualification, but claims continuous and complete knowledge and careful research.

from the very first] St Luke’s Gospel differed from these narratives in beginning from the birth of John the Baptist, and the Annunciation, whereas they began at the manhood and Public Ministry of Christ, as do St Mark and St John. See Act_1:22; Luk_16:16, “the Law and the Prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached.”

in order] A favourite word of St Luke only, Luk_8:1; Act_11:4; Act_3:24; Act_18:23. St Luke’s order is mainly objective, i. e. chronological; St Matthew’s, on the other hand, is much guided by subjective considerations, i. e. by moral sequence and unity of topics.

most excellent] This is the title of official personages of high position, e. g. Felix, Act_23:26, and Festus, Act_26:25. Whether it is here used in this technical, or in a more general sense, like the Latin ‘optime,’ it is impossible to say.

Theophilus] A very common name. It means ‘Dear to God,’ but it is unlikely that it is here an ideal name. Absolutely nothing is known of him. Some from the title “most excellent” have conjectured that Sergius Paulus (Act_13:7-12) is meant, to whom they think that the Acts might have naturally been dedicated. But the name seems to shew that a Greek is intended, and St Luke is writing mainly for Greeks (see Introduction, p. 16). A Theophilus, who held some high distinction at Antioch, is mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions; and as St Luke was, not improbably, a proselyte of Antioch, this may be the person for whom he wrote. Others make him a Bishop of Caesarea Philippi.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It seemed good to me also,.... Being moved to it by the Holy Ghost; for he did not undertake this work of himself, merely by the motion of his own will, but was influenced, and directed to it by the Spirit of God, as well as by him assisted in it:

having had perfect understanding of all things; relating to the subject of this Gospel, concerning the conception, birth, ministry, baptism, and death of John the Baptist; concerning the conception, birth, private and public life of Christ, together with his sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension. The Syriac and Persic versions refer the word "all" to persons, to the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; rendering the clause thus, "who have been studiously near to them all": and both senses may be taken in, and the meaning be, that Luke had diligently sought after, and had attained unto a perfect knowledge of all the affairs of Christ; having studiously got into the company of, and intimately conversed with all, or as many as he could, who had seen Christ in the flesh; and were, from the very first of his ministry, attendants on him, that he might have the most certain and exquisite account of things, that could be come at:

from the very first; and to the last; from the conception of John, the forerunner of the Messiah, which is higher than any other evangelist goes, to the ascension of Christ; though some choose to render the word here used, "from above", as it may be, and sometimes is; and may signify, that the evangelist had his perfect knowledge of things by a revelation from above, by divine inspiration; and this moved him to write, and which he mentions, that Theophilus, to whom he writes, and every other reader, may depend, with certainty, on what is said in it. This clause is omitted in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions, but is in all copies, and by all means to be retained: this being the case, these reasons prevailed upon him, as he says,

to write unto thee, in order, most excellent Theophilus; which regards not so much the order of time, which he does not always strictly observe, as the particulars of things, related in order, and with great exactness: who this Theophilus was, to whom he writes his Gospel, cannot be said; by his title, which is such as was given to governors of provinces, as to Felix and Festus, Act 23:26, he seems to be, or to have been, a civil magistrate in some high office; for though not many rich, and mighty, yet some have been, and are, called by grace. Theophylact (k) says, he was of the order of the senators, and perhaps a nobleman, or prince: however, this name was not a general name, for every "lover of God", as the word signifies, as Salvian (l) thought; but the name of a particular man, who believed in Christ, and was an acquaintance of Luke's; though Epiphanius (m) makes a doubt of it which it should be,

(k) Ut supra. (Epiphan. contra Haeres. l. 2. Haeres. 51. Theophylact. in Argument in Luc.) (l) Salonio Epiat. p. 237. (m) Ut supra. ((m))

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Ver. 3. Having had perfect understanding] Or, following them close at heels, and (as we say) hot-foot, παρηκολουθηκοτι.

From the very first] Or, from above, ανωθεν, as inspired from heaven.

To write unto thee in order] καθεξης, distinctly, and yet coherently. A singular praise in a historian, for the which Ambrose much admireth this our evangelist above all the other.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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,

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. 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, Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Having diligently obtained. Here we see, that although the Holy Ghost regulated the pen of the holy writers, that they might not err; they still employed human means to search and find out the truth of things they mentioned. Even so do general councils, and the president thereof, the holy pontiff, discuss and examine all causes by human means, although they have the promise from Jesus Christ of the aid, assistance, and direction of his holy Spirit; (St. John xvi. 13,) as is manifest from the very first council of the apostles, held at Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 7. and 28.) --- Most excellent Theophilus. This word, Theophilus, by its etymology, signifies a lover of God: but here we may rather understand some particular person, by the title given him of most excellent, or best: which, at that time, was given to persons in dignity; as to to Felix, Acts xxiii. 26. and to Festus, Acts xxvi. 25. (Witham) --- Greek: Kratiste, may signify most powerful from Greek: Kratos, strength, or Greek: Kratein, to conquer; or, as most generally given, from Greek: Kreitton. --- Greek: Theophilos, may be interpreted either a lover of God, or one beloved of God. Whoever, therefore, loves God, and desires to be beloved by Him, should consider this gospel as penned for himself, and should preserve it as a pledge deposited in his hands. (Ven. Bede)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

3. It seemed good to me also—This seeming good to himself does not exclude a concurrence with the influence of inspiration, nor a use of the aid of Paul. So in the letters of the counsel at Jerusalem, it is said, “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” Act_15:28.

Having had perfect understanding—Having completely traced out by investigation to the utmost. Luke here writes in the true conscientious historical spirit. Though he had not studied in the schools of modern criticism, he had all the means of immediate investigation, of which the rules of modern criticism seek to supply the want. Conscientiousness and common sense, with facts and witnesses so near at hand, were incomparably superior to any critical apparatus of the modern professor. Besides, he had more than any secular historian can claim. He had a providential commission, a divine inspiring guidance, and the endowment of the discerning of spirits. He so wrote by order of the great Head of the Church, and his record was accepted by the Church in its gifted and blessed first age.

From the very first—This refers to the early point to which Luke’s investigations carried the beginning of his history back, namely, to the angel’s announcement to Zacharias in Luk_1:5.

In order—Not a mere unarranged miscellany, or series of swings or doings, but a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end. This does not pledge Luke to an absolutely accurate observance in details of chronological order; for of that his documents may not have always furnished him the means. Yet no evangelist is so careful to connect his events chronologically with contemporaneous secular history as Luke; no error, we firmly believe, has ever been truly detected in his professed chronological statements; and if the investigations of Wieseler be reliable, Luke has well sustained any professions of a chronological order which he can be supposed to have here made.

Most excellent Theophilus—As the name Theophilus signifies a lover of God, some have supposed that it stands as a symbol to represent any Christian reader. But the literal writings of the New Testaments know no such use of symbolic names. The epithet most excellent indicates not affection simply for a friend, but respect for elevated character or rank. Theophilus, therefore, must be considered as a Christian of influential character; a convert, perhaps, of Luke. Of his residence we have but one indication. The Acts of the Apostles is also addressed by Luke to Theophilus, (Act_1:1;) and it has been noted that Luke, when his narrative brings him into Italy and near Rome, mentions such minute places as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns (Act_28:15) precisely as if they were known to Theophilus. The inference is that he was a resident of Rome. Although, however, the name of Theophilus is not symbolic, yet Theophilus himself stands as a representative man for every Christian reader. Neither the Gospel nor the Acts are to be viewed as a mere private letter to him. In a similar way, Cicero addressed his treatises on Old Age and on Friendship to Atticus; Horace addressed his Art of Poetry to the Pisoes; and Plutarch addressed his Treatise on Divine Delay to Cynius.

This address, although it was usually attended with some personal references, yet, like a modern dedication of a book, was simply a token of respect for an honoured friend; and the composition itself was none the less a work for the public and posterity.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first; more accurately rendered, having followed up (or, investigated) step by step all things from their source. St. Luke, without depreciating the accounts of the life and work of Jesus then current in the Church, here sets out his reasons for undertaking a fresh compilation. His Gospel would differ from the early Gospels:

(1) By going back much further than they did. It is doubtful if these primitive Gospels began earlier than with the ministry of John and the baptism of Jesus. St. Mark"s Gospel which, perhaps, represents one of the earliest forms of the apostles" preaching and teaching, does not go further back than those events. St. Luke gave Theophilus, among other early details, a history of the incarnation and the infancy of the Blessed One.

(2) By presenting the whole story in a consecutive form. Hitherto, apparently, "apostolic tradition probably had a more or less fragmentary character; the apostles not relating every time the whole of the facts, but only those which best answered to the circumstances in which they were preaching. This is expressly said of St. Peter, on the testimony of Papias, or of the old presbyter on whom he relied: Proav epoieito taav ("He chose each time the facts appropriate to the needs of his hearers"). Important omissions would easily result from this mode of telling the great story" (Godet). Most excellent Theophilus. The term rendered "most excellent" (kratiste) denotes that the friend of Luke for whom nominally his Gospel was written was a man of high rank in the Roman world of that day. Nothing is known of his history. He was most likely, from Luke"s connection with Antioch, a noble of that great and wealthy city, and may fairly be taken as a representative of that cultured thoughtful class for whom in a measure St. Luke especially wrote. The title kratiste , by which the Theophilus is here addressed, we find several times applied to high Roman officials, such as Felix and Festus. (Act_23:26 Act_24:3 Act_26:25)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To write in order - St. Luke describes in order of time; first, The Acts of Christ; his conception, birth, childhood, baptism, miracles, preaching, passion, resurrection, ascension: then, The Acts of the Apostles. But in many smaller circumstances he does not observe the order of time. Most excellent Theophilus - This was the appellation usually given to Roman governors. Theophilus (as the ancients inform us) was a person of eminent quality at Alexandria. In Acts i, 1, St. Luke does not give him that title. He was then probably a private man. After the preface St. Luke gives us the history of Christ, from his coming into the world to his ascension into heaven.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

from

"From the very first": (Greek - ἄνωθεν," "from above)." So translated in Joh 3:31; Joh 19:11; Jas 1:17; Jas 3:15; Jas 3:17. In no other place is ANOTHEN translated "from the very first." The use by Luke of anothen is an affirmation that his knowledge of these things, derived from those who had been eye-witnesses from the beginning Luk 1:2 was confirmed by revelation. In like manner Paul had doubtless heard from the eleven the story of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but he also had it by revelation from the Lord (cf) 1Co 11:23 and his writing, like Luke’s anothen knowledge, thus became first-hand, not traditional, merely.

understanding (Greek - ἄνωθεν," lit). followed alongside of; or, closely traced.

in order The words "in order" are emphatic, indicating Luke’s purpose to reduce to order the Gospel story.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Most excellent Theophilus. The name means “A lover of God.” He is named in Acts 1:1, but of him nothing more is known.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

3. παρηκολουθηκότι. ‘Having accurately traced out or followed up.’ See the same word in 1Ti 4:6; 2Ti 3:10. St Luke modestly puts himself exactly on the same footing as other narrators in not having the primary apostolic qualification, but he claims continuous and complete knowledge and careful research. This phrase closely resembles that used by Thucydides (I. 22), ὄσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελθών. It need hardly be added that the “et spiritui sancto” added after mihi in some MSS. of the Itala is an unauthorized gloss from Act 15:28.

ἄνωθεν. The word occurs in the same sense in Act 26:5; Gal 4:9. St John uses it in the sense “from above,” Joh 3:3; Joh 19:11. The original Apostles had mainly to testify to what they had seen. Joh 15:27; Act 1:21-22. Vulg[23] assecuto omnia a principio.

[23] Vulg. Vulgate.

St Luke’s Gospel differed from these narratives in beginning from the birth of John the Baptist and the Annunciation, whereas they began at the Manhood and Public Ministry of Christ, as do St Mark and St John. See Act 1:22; Luk 16:16, “the Law and the Prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached.”

ἀκριβῶς. Not ‘diligently,’ as in A. V[24], but as in R. V[25], ‘accurately.’ Comp. Mat 2:7.

[24] A. V. Authorised Version.

[25] R. V. Revised Version.

καθεξῆς. A favourite word of St Luke only; Luk 8:1; Act 11:4; Act 3:24; Act 18:23. The older and more classical form is ἐφεξῆς. St Luke’s order is mainly objective, i.e. chronological; St Matthew’s, on the other hand, is much guided by subjective considerations, i.e. by moral sequence and unity of topics. St Luke’s method is therefore wholly unlike that oral teaching of St Peter which probably formed the basis of St Mark’s Gospel. For Papias tells us that St Peter πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας “adapted his teachings to the immediate needs of his auditors.” In Act 10:37-48 St Peter begins from the baptism of John.

κράτιστε. This is the title of official personages of high position, e.g. Felix, Act 23:26, and Festus, Act 26:25. Whether it is here used in this technical, or in a more general sense, like the Latin ‘optime,’ it is impossible to say. The title is omitted in Act 1:1.

Θεόφιλε. A very common name. It means ‘Dear to God,’ but it is unlikely that it is here an imaginary name. Absolutely nothing is known of him. Some from the title “most excellent” have conjectured that Sergius Paulus (Act 13:7-12) is meant, to whom they think that the Acts might have naturally been dedicated. But the name seems to shew that a Greek is intended, and St Luke is writing mainly for Greeks (see Introduction, p. 16). A Theophilus, who held some high distinction at Antioch, is mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions; and as St Luke was, not improbably, a proselyte of Antioch, this may be the person for whom he wrote. ‘Physicians’ in ancient days were often merely slaves who had received a medical education. Theophilus may have been St Luke’s original master, and after conversion to Christianity may have defrayed the expenses of his Gospel as a “patronus libri;” but this of course is mere conjecture. Others identify him with a bishop of Caesarea Philippi.

3. That the holy and awestruck reticence of the Virgin accounts for the absence of their earlier publicity.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. ἔδοξεν κἀμοί] Luke by this classes himself with these πολλοί, and shews that he intended no disparagement nor blame to them, and was going to construct his own history from similar sources. The παρηκ. ἄν. πᾶσιν ἀκρ. which follows, implies however a conscious superiority of his own qualification for the work. There is here no expressed claim to inspiration, but at the same time no disclaimer of it. (The addition et spiritui sancto, after κἀμοί, which is found in 3 lat. mss. and in ., makes the following clause an absurdity.)

παρηκ.] having traced down (by research), and so become accurately acquainted with. The word is used in just this sense by Demosth., περὶ τ. στ., p. 285: ἐκεῖνος ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη οὐ μόνον εὔνουν καὶ πλούσιον ἄνδρα ἐκάλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρηκολουθηκότα τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, καὶ συλλελογισμένον ὀρθῶς τίνος ἕνεκα ταῦτʼ ἔπραττεν ὁ Φίλ., καὶ τί βουλόμενος.

ἄνωθεν] from the beginning—i.e. as in ver. 5;—as distinguished from those who only wrote of the official life of the Lord, or only fragments perhaps of that.

καθεξῆς, consecutively: see reff. By this word we must not understand Luke to lay claim to any especial chronological accuracy in writing;—which indeed is not found in his Gospel. He traced the events in order as they happened: but he may have arranged them as other considerations led him. The word is of later usage, e.g. by Plutarch, Ælian, &c. The classics have ἐφεξῆς.

κράτ. θεόφ.] It is wholly unknown who this person was. The name was a very common one. The conjectures about him are endless, and entirely without value. It appears that he was a person of dignity (see reff. on κράτιστ.), and a convert to Christianity.

The idea of the name being not a proper, but a feigned one, designating ‘those who loved God’ (found as early as Epiphanius, Hær. ii. 51, p. 429, εἴτουν τινὶ Θεοφίλῳ τότε γράφων τοῦτο ἔλεγεν, ἢ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ θεὸν ἀγαπῶντι: and adopted again recently by Bp. Wordsworth), is far-fetched and improbable.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. ἔδοξε κἀμοί. This is the main sentence, the apodosis of ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν. It neither implies nor excludes inspiration: the ἔδοξε may or may not have been inspired. The wish to include inspiration caused the addition in some Latin MSS. of et spiritui sancto (Act 15:28), which makes what follows to be incongruous. With ἔδοξε comp. the Muratorian Fragment: Lucas iste medicus … nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit—Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne—et idem, prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Joannis incepit dicere. The κἀμοί shows that Lk. does not blame the πολλοί: he desires to imitate and supplement them. It is their attempts that encourage him to write. What they have done he may do, and perhaps he may be able to improve upon their work. This is his first reason for writing a narrative. See Blass, NT. Gram. p. 274.

παρηκολουθηκότι. This is his second reason for writing, making the argument á fortiori. He has had special advantages and qualifications; and therefore what was allowed to others may be still more allowed to him. These qualifications are fourfold, and are told off with precision. In the literal sense of “following a person closely so as to be always beside him,” παρακολουθεῖν does not occur in N.T. Here it does not mean that Lk. was contemporaneous with the events, but that he had brought himself abreast of them by careful investigation. Comp. the famous passage in Dem. De Cor. cap. liii. p. 285 (344), παρηκολουθηκότα τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς: also De Fal. Leg. p. 423.

ἄνωθεν. This is the first of the four qualifications: he has gone back to the very beginning, viz. the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. “From the first” is the meaning of ἄνωθεν here, not “thoroughly,” radicitus, as in Act 26:5, which would make ἄνωθεν almost the same as πᾶσιν. Vulg. has a principio, and d has desusum (comp. the French dessus). It is the πᾶσιν which implies thoroughness; and this is the second point. He has begun at the beginning, and he has investigated everything. The Syriac makes πᾶσιν masc., but there is little doubt that it is neut., and refers to πραγμάτων in ver. 1.

ἀκριβῶς. This is the third point. He has done all this “accurately.” There is no idle boast in any one of the three points. No other Gospel gives us this early history about the Baptist and the Christ. No other is throughout so full, for of 170 sections contained in the synoptic narrative 48 are peculiar to Lk. And, in spite of the severest scrutiny, his accuracy can very rarely be impugned. We cannot be sure whether he means to imply that ἀκριβῶς was not true of the πολλοί, but we may be sure that none of them could claim all three of these points. In any case we have an inspired historian telling us in his inspired writings that he is giving us the results of careful investigation. From this it seems to follow that an inspired historian may fail in accuracy if his investigation is defective.

καθεξῆς. This is the fourth point, resulting from the other three. He does not propose to give a mere collection of anecdotes and detached sayings, but an orderly narrative systematically arranged. Chronological order is not necessarily implied in καθεξῆς, but merely arrangement of some kind. Nevertheless, he probably has chronological order chiefly in view. In N.T. the word is peculiar to Lk. (8:1; Act 3:24, Act 11:4, Act 18:23), as is also the more classical ἑξῆς (7:11, 9:37, etc.); but ἐφεξῆς does not occur.

κράτιστε Θεόφιλε. The epithet κράτιστος, often given to persons of rank (Act 23:26, Act 24:3, Act 26:25), is strongly in favour of the view that Theophilus was a real person. The name Theophilus was common both among Jews (= Jedidiah) and among Gentiles. But it was a name likely to be used to represent any pious reader. See Lft. on “Acts,” D. B.2 pp. 25, 26. The word κράτιστος occurs in N.T. only here and in the Acts, where it is evidently a purely official epithet, for the persons to whom it is applied are of bad character. See Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 19 for the name.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having had perfect understanding [παρηκολουθηκοτι] . Incorrect. The verb means to follow closely, and hence to trace accurately. See 2Ti 3:10, where Rev. reads thou didst follow for thou hast fully known. Rev. renders here having traced the course. The word occurs frequently in medical writings, and sometimes, as here, with ajkribwv, accurately. Tynd., having searched out diligently.

From the very first [ανωθεν] . Lit., from above; the events being conceived in a descending series.

Accurately [ακριβως] . From akron, the highest or farthest point. Hence to trace down to the last and minutest detail. In order [καθεξης] . Used by Luke only.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 3. Tradition emanating from the apostles was the common source, according to Luk 1:2, of all the first written narratives. The general accuracy of these accounts follows from καθώς, in conformity with that which. This conjunction can only refer to the principal thought of Luk 1:1, to compose a narrative, and not to the secondary idea πεπληροφορημἑνων, as Olshausen thinks, who translates, “fully believed in conformity with the account of the first witnesses.”

As the two substantives, αὐτόπται and ὑπηρέται, witnesses and ministers, have each certain defining expressions which especially belong to them (the first, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, and the second, γενόμενοι, become, and τοῦ λόγου, of the word), the most simple construction appears to us to be to regard οἱ, the, as a pronoun, and make it the subject of the proposition: they (the men about to be pointed out). This subject is defined by the two following substantives, which are in apposition, and indicate the qualification in virtue of which these men became the authors of the tradition. 1. Witnesses from the beginning. The word ἀρχή, beginning, in this context, can only refer to the commencement of the ministry of Jesus, particularly to His baptism, as the starting-point of those things which have been accomplished amongst us. Comp. Act 1:21-22, for the sense; and for the expression, Joh 15:27; Joh 16:4. Olshausen would extend the application of this title of witnesses from the beginning to the witnesses of the birth and infancy of Jesus. But the expression became ministers of the word does not allow of this application. 2. Ministers of the word; become ministers, as the text literally reads. This expression is in contrast with the preceding. These men began afterwards to be ministers of the word; they only became such after Pentecost. It was then that their part as witnesses was transformed into that of preachers. The sense then is: “Those who were witnesses from the commencement, and who afterwards became ministers of the word.”

If ὑπηρέται, ministers, is thus taken as a second noun of apposition with οἱ, parallel to the first, there is no longer any difficulty in referring the complement τοῦ λόγου, of the word, to ὑπηρέται, ministers, alone, and taking this word in its ordinary sense of preaching the gospel. This also disposes of the reason which induced certain Fathers (Origen, Athanasius) to give the term word the meaning of the eternal Word (Joh 1:1), which is very forced in this connection. Only in this way could they make this complement depend simultaneously on the two substantives, witnesses and ministers The same motive led Beza, Grotius, and Bleek to understand the term word here in the sense in which it is frequently taken—the thing related: “eye-witnesses and ministers of the Gospel history.” But in passages where the term word bears this meaning, it is fixed by some defining expression: thus, at Luk 1:4 by the relative proposition, and in Act 8:21; Act 15:6 (which Bleek quotes), by a demonstrative pronoun.

With the third verse we reach the principal proposition. Luke places himself by the κᾀμοὶ, myself also, in the same rank as his predecessors. He does not possess, any more than they, a knowledge of the Gospel history as a witness; he belongs to the second generation of the ἡμεῖς, us (Luk 1:2), which is dependent on the narratives of the apostles.

Some Italic MSS. add here to mihi, et spiritui sancto (it has pleased me and the Holy Spirit),—a gloss taken from Act 15:28, which clearly shows in what direction the tradition was gradually altered.

While placing himself in the same rank as his predecessors, Luke nevertheless claims a certain superiority in comparison with them. Otherwise, why add to their writings, which are already numerous (πολλοί), a fresh attempt? This superiority is the result of his not having confined himself to collecting the apostolic traditions current in the Church. Before proceeding to write, he obtained exact information, by means of which he was enabled to select, supplement, and arrange the materials furnished by those oral narratives which his predecessors had contented themselves with reproducing just as they were. The verb παρακολουθεῖν, to follow step by step, is not used here in the literal sense; this sense would require πᾶσιν to be taken as masculine: all the apostles, and thus would lead to an egregiously false idea; the author could not have accompanied all the apostles! The verb, therefore, must be taken in the figurative sense which it frequently has in the classics: to study anything point by point; thus Demosth. de coronâ, 53: παρακολουθηκὼς τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. Comp. 2Ti 3:10, where we see the transition from the purely literal to the figurative meaning. The πάντα, all things, are the events related (Luk 1:1). Luke might have put the participle in the accusative: παρακολουθηκότα; but then he would only have indicated the succession of the two actions,—the acquisition of information, and the composition which followed it. This is not his thought. The dative makes the information obtained a quality inherent in his person, which constitutes his qualification for the accomplishment of this great work.

Luke’s information bore particularly on three points: 1. He sought first of all to go back to the origin of the facts, to the very starting-point of this res christiana which he desired to describe. This is expressed in the word ἄνωθεν, literally from above, from the very beginning. The author compares himself to a traveller who tries to discover the source of a river, in order that he may descend it again, and follow its entire course. The apostolic tradition, as current in the Church, did not do this; it began with the ministry of John the Baptist, and the baptism of Jesus. It is in this form that we find it set forth in the Gospel of Mark, and summarized in Peter’s preaching at the house of Cornelius, and in Paul’s at Antioch in Pisidia (Act 10:37 et seq., Luk 13:23 et seq.). The author here alludes to the accounts contained in the first two chapters of his Gospel.—2. After having gone back to the commencement of the Gospel history, he endeavoured to reproduce as completely as possible its entire course (πᾶσιν, all things, all the particular facts which it includes). Apostolic tradition probably had a more or less fragmentary character; the apostles not relating every time the whole of the facts, but only those which best answered to the circumstances in which they were preaching. This is expressly said of St. Peter on the testimony of Papias, or of the old presbyter on whom he relied: πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας (he chose each time the facts appropriate to the needs of his hearers). Important omissions would easily result from this mode of evangelization. By this word πᾶσιν, all things, Luke probably alludes to that part of his Gospel (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14), by which the tradition, as we have it set forth in our first two synoptics, is enriched with a great number of facts and new discourses, and with the account of a long course of evangelization probably omitted, until Luke gave it, in the public narration.—3. He sought to confer on the Gospel history that exactness and precision which tradition naturally fails to have, after being handed about for some time from mouth to mouth. We know how quickly, in similar narratives, characteristic traits are effaced, and the facts transposed. Diligent and scrupulous care is required afterwards to replace the stones of the edifice in their right position, and give them their exact form and sharpness of edge. Now the third Gospel is distinguished, as we shall see, by the constant effort to trace the continued progressive development of the work of Jesus, to show the connection of the facts, to place each discourse in its historical setting, and to exhibit its exact purport.

By means of this information bearing upon the three points indicated, the author hopes he shall be qualified to draw a consecutive picture, reproducing the actual course of events: καθεξῆς γράψαι, to write in order. It is impossible in this connection to understand the phrase in order in the sense of a systematic classification, as Ebrard prefers; here the term must stand for a chronological order.

The term καθεξῆς is not found in the New Testament except in Luke.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.