Luke 1:4

Luk 1:4. Ἵνα, that) Expressing the scope of the whole work, [which in John is stated at the close of his Gospel, ch. Luk 21:24.—Harm., p. 34.]—ἐπιγνῷς, thou mightest clearly perceive) The compound verb is emphatic.[2]—κατηχήθης, thou hast been instructed) by the mouth of others. This κατήχησις[3] also comprises sacred history. Luke hereby claims to himself greater authority than that of those from whom Theophilus had previously received instruction.—[τὴν ἀσφάλειαν, the certainty) This unerring certainty has place, where nothing of a spurious character is added, nothing that is necessary is omitted (left to be wished for, desideratur), and all the particulars are attested and proved by adequate documents and proofs.—V. g.]

[2] The ἐπὶ augments the force of the simple verb. Wahl explains it, plane et accuratè cognoscere.—ED. and TRANSL.

[3] Whence Engl. word, catechism, catechetical.—ED. and TRANSL.

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

Luk_1:4. Ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς] ut accurate cognosceres; see on Mat_11:27; 1Co_13:12.

περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων] The attraction is not, with the Vulgate and the majority of commentators, to be resolved into: τῶν λόγων, περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης, as the contents of the instruction is put with κατηχεῖσθαι in the accusative (Act_18:25; Gal_6:6), and only the more remote object to which the instruction relates is expressed by περί (Act_21:21; Act_21:24), but into: περὶ τῶν λόγων, οὓς κατηχήθης: that thou mightest know in respect of the doctrines, in which thou wast instructed, the unshaken certainty. Comp. Köstlin, p. 132, and Ewald. The λόγοι are not the πράγματα, res (comp. Luk_1:2), as is usually supposed; but it is just the specifically Christian doctrines, the individual parts of the λόγος, Luk_1:2 (τῶν λόγων τῆς πίστεως, Euthymius Zigabenus), that stand in the most essential connection with the history of Jesus and from it receive their ἀσφάλεια; in fact, they are in great part themselves essentially history.

κατηχήθης is to be understood of actual instruction (in Act_21:21 also), not of hearsay, of which, moreover, the passages in Kypke are not to be explained. Who had instructed Theophiluswho, moreover, was assuredly already a Christian (not merely interested on behalf of Christianity, as Bleek supposes)we know not, but certainly it was not Luke himself (in opposition to Theophylact).

τὴν ἀσφάλειαν] the unchangeable certainty, the character not to be shaken. Comp. τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι λόγου, Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 15. The position at the end is emphatic. According to Luke, therefore, by this historical work, which he purposes to write, the doctrines which Theophilus had received are to be set forth for him in their immoveable positive truth; according to Baur, on the other hand, the ἀσφάλεια which the writer had in view was to be this, that his entire representation of primitive Christianity sought to become conducive to the conciliatory interest (of the second century), and always kept this object in view. This is purely imported. Luke wrote from the dispassionate consciousness that Christianity, as it subsisted for him as the Pauline contents of faith, had its firm basis of truth in the evangelical history of salvation.

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 1:4 . Indicates the practical aim: to give certainty in regard to matters of Christian belief. περὶ ὧν κ . λόγων : an attraction, to be thus resolved: περὶ τῶν λόγων οὓς κατηχήθης . λόγων is best taken = matters ( πραγμάτων , Luk 1:1 ), histories (Weizsäcker), not doctrines. Doubtless this is a Hebraistic sense, but that is no objection, for after all Lk. is a Hellenist and no pure Greek, and even in this preface, whose pure Greek has been so often praised, he is a Hellenist to a large extent. (So Hahn, Einleitung , p. 6.) The subject of instruction for young Christians in those early years was the teaching, the acts, and the experience of Jesus: their “catechism” historic not doctrinal. κατηχήθης : is this word used here in a technical sense = formally and systematically instructed, or in the general sense of “have been informed more or less correctly”? (So Kypke.) The former is more probable. The verb (from κατὰ , ἠχέω ) is mainly Hellenistic in usage, rare in profane authors, not found in O. T. The N. T. usage, confined to Lk. and Paul, points to regular instruction ( vide Rom 2:18 ).

This preface gives a lively picture of the intense, universal interest felt by the early Church in the story of the Lord Jesus: Apostles constantly telling what they had seen and heard; many of their hearers taking notes of what they said for the benefit of tnemselves and others: through these gospelets acquaintance with the evangelic history circulating among believers, creating a thirst for more and yet more; imposing on such a man as Luke the task of preparing a Gospel as full, correct , and well arranged as possible through the use of all available means previous writings or oral testimony of surviving eye-witnesses.

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

Have fuller knowledge of those things, which before thou knewest but meanly.

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

that thou mightest know--"know thoroughly."

hast been instructed--orally instructed--literally, "catechized" or "catechetically taught," at first as a catechumen or candidate for Christian baptism.

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 4. Wherein thou hast been instructed.] κατηχηθης - In which thou hast been catechized. It appears that Theophilus had already received the first elements of the Christian doctrine, but had not as yet been completely grounded in them. That he might know the certainty of the things in which he had been thus catechized, by having all the facts and their proofs brought before him in order, the evangelist sent him this faithful and Divinely inspired narrative. Those who content themselves with that knowledge of the doctrines of Christ which they receive from catechisms and schoolmasters, however important these elementary instructions may be, are never likely to arrive at such a knowledge of the truth as will make them wise unto salvation, or fortify them against the attacks of infidelity and irreligion. Every man should labour to acquire the most correct knowledge, and indubitable certainty, of those doctrines on which he stakes his eternal salvation. Some suppose that St. Luke refers here to the imperfect instruction which Theophilus had received from the defective Gospels to which he refers in Lu 1:1.

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

(4) Wherein thou hast been instructed.—The verb used is that from which are formed the words “catechise,” “catechumen.” &c., and implies oral teaching—in its later sense, teaching preparatory to baptism. The passage is important as showing that such instruction mainly turned on the facts of our Lord’s life, death, and resurrection, and on the records of His teaching.

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

4. mightest know] Rather, mayest fully know.

of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed] Rather, of those accounts in which thou wast orally instructed. Gal_6:6. From the word κατηχεῖν ‘to teach orally’ comes our ‘catechise,’ &c. Oral instruction (katechesis) flourished especially at Alexandria, which was famous for its catechetical school. This may possibly have favoured the notion that Theophilus was an Alexandrian.

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.

That thou mightest know the certainty,.... The end the evangelist had in writing this Gospel, and sending it to Theophilus, was, that he might be more strongly assured of and more firmly established in the truths of the Gospel. The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions render it, "that thou mightest know the truth"; that is, the certain truth of things: the truth he did in some measure know before, but Luke's view was, that he might have a more certain knowledge of it; both truth, and the certainty of it may be intended: so the Hebrew word, signifies both truth and firmness; and the word here used signifies such a certain evidence of things, as may be safely depended on; even

of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed; or catechised, signifying, that he had been hitherto taught, as a catechumen, the rudiments, and first principles of the Christian religion, by word of mouth; and he had taken them in upon the evidence they came with, and the authority of those that instructed him in them; and now he sent him in writing this account, to increase his knowledge, strengthen his faith, and to give him such a sure proof of things, as might preserve him safe in the belief of them, from all doubting and defection. Having finished his preface, he proceeds to the narrative itself, which begins as follows.

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

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Ver. 4. Wherein thou hast been instructed] Which thou hast received by hearsay, or by word of mouth; and wherein thou hast been catechised, receiving the mysteries of the faith by the ministry of the voice, κατηχηθης. And surely when we see men caring and casting how to find out this certainty here spoken of, and not be led by conjectural, suppositions, but be fully persuaded as St Luke was, and would have his Theophilus to be, then there will be some hopes that the Lord’s party will increase.

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.

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.

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

4. Mightest know the certainty—This was the great ultimate object; that the Christian laity, of whom Theophilus was a representative, might be fully assured of the perfect confirmation of the Christian history. This confirmation would arise from the profoundly reliable character of Luke, and from his perfect understanding of all things, even

from the very first. Hast been instructed—The Greek word here used, κατηχηθης, is that from which the words catechise and catechumen are derived. This probably refers not to the catechesis of Theophilus’s childhood; for Theophilus was probably an adult when the apostolic ministry commenced. It more probably refers to the private oral instruction preparatory to baptism which the minister of the word bestowed on the young convert, over and above the preaching of the word. This catechetical instruction would embrace such documentary or traditional history of Jesus as his particular Church possessed. Luke now proposes to give this catechetical matter a more authentic substance and form.

It is agreed among scholars that this brief preface of Luke’s is written in the purest Greek style of any passage in the New Testament.

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

4. ἐπιγνῷς. ‘Mayest fully know.’ See the use of the word in Mat 11:27; 1Co 13:12; 2Co 1:13; 2Co 6:9.

περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων. ‘Of those accounts in which thou wast orally instructed.’ Gal 6:6. From the word κατηχεῖν ‘to teach orally’ comes our ‘catechise,’ &c. Oral instruction (κατήχησις) flourished especially at Alexandria, which was famous for its catechetical school. This may possibly have favoured the notion that Theophilus was an Alexandrian. The word occurs also in a general sense in Act 18:25; Act 21:21; Act 21:24; Rom 2:18; 1Co 14:19; but here St Luke seems to mean that it was desirable for Theophilus to have an accurate, permanent, consecutive, written narrative of truths which, as a catechumen, he had learnt, orally and fragmentarily.

τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. The position of this weighty substantive at the end of the sentence adds greatly to its emphasis.

4. In the narrative itself we notice: α. A clearness of detail which marks veritable history (see the minute circumstances in Luk 1:5; Luk 1:39; Luk 1:63, Luk 2:36-37, &c.). β. A prevalence of numerical elements (sevens and threes), which shews that St Luke is here basing his record on an Aramaic document. Thus the whole Gospel of the Childhood falls into three large and seven smaller divisions. I. 1. The announcement of the birth of the Forerunner, Luk 1:5-25. 2. The announcement of the birth of Jesus, Luk 1:26-38. 3. The visit of Mary to Elizabeth, Luk 1:39-56. II. 1. The birth of John, Luk 1:57-80. 2. The birth of Jesus, Luk 2:1 to Luk 20:3. The Presentation in the Temple and Circumcision, Luk 2:21-40. III. The first visit of Jesus to the Temple—which completes the cycle by a seventh narrative, Luk 2:41-52. We shall see further that even the subordinate sections often fall into subsections of three. See Godet I. 84. Thus the first section is divided into α, the test of faith, Luk 1:5-7; β the promise, Luk 1:8-22; γ the fulfilment, Luk 1:23-25.

Ἡρώδου βασιλέως. Towards the close of the reign of Herod the Great. The true sceptre had departed from Judah. Herod was a mere Idumaean usurper imposed on the nation by the Romans. “Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus auxit.” Tac. Hist. Luk 1:9.

τῆς Ἰουδαίας. Besides Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee, his kingdom included the most important regions of Peraea (Jos. Antt. XV. 5, §§ 6, 7; B. J. I. 20, §§ 3, 4).

Ζαχαρίας. The common Jewish name Zachariah (2Ki 14:29; Ezr 8:3; Ezr 8:11; Zec 1:1; 1Ma 5:18, &c.) means ‘remembered by Jehovah.’ The Jews highly valued the distinction of priestly birth (Jos. Vit. I.). The notion that Zacharias was a High Priest and that his vision occurred on the great Day of Atonement is refuted by the single word ἔλαχε, “his lot was,” Luk 1:9.

ἐξ ἐφημερίας. The word ἐφημερία means first ‘a daily ministry’ (Heb. mishmereth) and then a class of the priesthood which exercised its functions for a week. It is used by the LXX[26] (as well as διαίρεσις) to render the Hebrew machaloketh. Josephus (Vit. I.) uses the less accurate term ἐφημερίς, and also πατρία (Antt. VII. 14. 7). Aaron had four sons, but the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, were struck dead for using strange fire in the sanctuary (Leviticus 10). From the two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, had sprung in the days of David twenty-four families, sixteen from the descendants of Eleazar, and eight from those of Ithamar. To these David distributes by lot the order of their service from week to week, each for eight days inclusively from Sabbath to Sabbath (1Ch 24:1-19; 2Ch 31:2). After the Babylonish exile only four of the twenty-four courses returned—a striking indication of the truth of the Jewish saying that those who returned from the exile were but like the chaff in comparison of the wheat. The four families of which the representatives returned were those of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim (Ezr 2:36-39). But the Jews concealed the heavy loss by subdividing these four families into twenty-four courses, to which they gave the original names, and this is alluded to in Neh 13:30 (“I … appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business”). This arrangement continued till the fall of Jerusalem A.D. 70, at which time, on the ninth of the month Ab (Aug. 5), we are told that the course in waiting was that of Jehoiarib (Jos. Bell. Jud. VI. 5; Taanith, IV. 6; Derenbourg, Palest. p. 291). Reckoning back from this we find that the course of Abijah went out of office on Oct. 9, B.C. 6, A. U. C. 748 (but see Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 191). The reckoning of the date, either backwards from the Fall of Jerusalem, or forwards from the Reformation of Judas Maccabaeus (1Ma 4:38), necessarily involves elements of uncertainty. See Wieseler, Synopsis, 141–145. The reader should bear in mind that our received era for the Birth of Christ (A. U. C. 753) was only fixed by the Abbot Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, and is probably four years wrong.

[26] LXX. Septuagint.

Ἀβιά. 1Ch 24:10, “the eighth [lot came forth] to Abijah.” This was not one of the four families which had returned, but the name was soon revived (Neh 12:4). Josephus tells us that he himself enjoyed the high distinction of belonging by birth to the first of the twenty-four courses (Vit. I.).

καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ. ‘His wife was.’ See the critical note. This phrase like ἐγένετο (ויהי), and ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις is Hebraic. The construction throughout is rather paratactical (sentences joined by καὶ) than syntactical (subordinate clauses).

Ἐλισάβετ. The same name as Elisheba (‘one whose oath is by God,’ comp. Jehoshebah, 2Ki 11:2), the wife of Aaron, Exo 6:23; mentioned by name according to Ibn Ezra as ‘the mother of the priesthood.’ John’s descent was priestly on both sides, as that of Jesus was royal.

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.

4.] ἐπιγνῷς—here in its stricter sense, of acquiring additional, more accurate knowledge—see reff. κατηχ.] Theophilus had then been orally instructed in the narratives which form the subject of this Gospel: and Luke’s intention in writing it is, that he might have a more accurate knowledge of these histories.

κατηχήθης—literally, catechized, ‘catechetically taught.’ Bleek, h. l., reminds us that this is not St. Luke’s own usage of the verb: cf. Act 21:21, Act 21:24, where it simply signifies hearing by report. But we may answer that in Act 18:25, where the same construction occurs, this is the most likely sense.

λόγων is not to be rendered ‘things:’ neither it, nor ῥῆμα, nor דָּבָר, ever has this meaning, as is commonly but erroneously supposed. In all the commonly-cited examples of this, ‘things expressed in words’ are meant: here, the histories,—accounts. (See Prolegg. to the Gospels, i. 3.)

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

4. ἴνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. “In order that thou mightest fully know the certainty concerning the words wherein thou wast instructed.” The λόγοι are not the πράγματα or historic facts, but the details of the λόγος or Gospel (ver. 2), which “ministers of the word” had communicated to Theophilus. The compound ἐπιγνῷς indicates additional and more thorough knowledge. It is very freq. in Lk. and Paul: see esp. Rom 1:28, Rom 1:32 ; 1Co 13:12 ; Lft. on Col 1:9; Trench, Syn. lxxv. In N.T. κατηχεῖν, “to sound down into the ears, teach orally,” is found only in Lk. and Paul. The position of τὴν ἀσφάλειαν gives it solemn emphasis. Theophilus shall know that the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical foundation. Hastings, D.C.G. ii. p. 726.

The idiomatic attraction, περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων, is best resolved into περὶ τῶν λόγων οὓς κατηχήθης, not περὶ τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης. Only of persons does περί τινος stand after κατηχεῖν (Act 21:21, Act 21:24): of things we have the acc. (Act 18:25 ; Gal 6:6). These attractions are very freq. in Lk. See Blass, Gr. p. 170.

On the superficial resemblance between this preface and Jos. Con. Apion. i. 9, 10, see Godet, i. pp. 92, 93, 3ème ed. 1888. The resemblance hardly amounts to remarkable coincidence, and such similarities are common in literature. It is more interesting to compare this preface with that of the medical writer Dioscorides. The opening words of Dioscorides’ treatise, περὶ ὄλης ἰατρικῆς, run thus: Πολλῶν οὐ μόνον ἀρχαίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ νέων συνταξαμένων περὶ τῆς τῶν φαρμάκων σκευασίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δοκιμασίας, φίλτατε Ἀρεῖε, πειράσομαί σοι παραστῆσαι μὴ κενὴν μηδὲ ἄλογον ὁρμὴν ἐσχηκέναι πρὸς τήνδε τὴν πραγματείαν. The date of Dioscorides Pedacius is uncertain; but, as Pliny does not mention him, he is commonly assigned to the first or second century a.d. He is said to have been a native of Anazarbus in Cilicia, about fifty miles from Tarsus; and in that case he would almost certainly obtain his medical knowledge in the great school at Tarsus. That he and S. Luke may have been there at the same time with S. Paul, seems to be a not impossible conjecture. The treatise περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς, commonly attributed to Hippocrates (c. 460-350 b.c.), begins; Ὁκόσοι ἐπεχείρησαν περὶ ἰητρικῆς λέγειν ἢ γράφειν, κ.τ.λ.

1:5-2:52. THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY

These chapters have often been attacked as unhistorical. That Marcion omitted them from his mutilated edition of this Gospel is of no moment. He did not do so upon critical grounds, but because their contents did not harmonize with his doctrine. It is more to the point to urge that these early narratives lack apostolic authority; that they cover ground which popular imagination, in the absence of history, would be sure to fill; that they abound in angelic appearances and other marvels; that their form is often highly poetical; and that it is sometimes difficult to reconcile them with the narrative of Mt. or with known facts of history. To this it may be replied that reserve would keep Christ’s Mother from making known these details at first. Even Apostles may have been ignorant of them, or unwilling to make them known until the comparatively late period at which Lk. wrote. The dignity, beauty, and spirituality of these narratives is strong evidence of their authenticity, especially when contrasted with the silly, grotesque, and even immoral details in the apocryphal gospels. They abound in historic features, and are eminently true to life. Their independence of Mt. is evident, and both accounts bear the stamp of truthfulness, which is not destroyed by possible discrepancies in a few minor points. That Lk. is ever at variance with other historians, has still to be proved; and the merit of greater accuracy may still be with him, even if such variance exists.

This Gospel of the Infancy is made up of seven narratives, in two parallel groups of three, followed by a supplement, which connects these two groups with the main body of the Gospel.

I. 1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25); 2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38); 3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of the Forerunner (39-56).

II. 4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80) ; 5. The Birth of the Saviour (2:1-20); 6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour (2:21-40).

III. 7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (2:41-52).

On the two accounts of our Lord’s infancy see Resch, Das Kindheitsevangelium, pp. 10 ff 1897; Gore, Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 12 ff.: Murray, 1895.

1:5-25. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner.

“When John the Baptist appeared, not the oldest man in Palestine could remember to have spoken even in his earliest childhood with any man who had seen a prophet. … In these circumstances it was an occurrence of the first magnitude, more important far than war or revolution, when a new prophet actually appeared” (Ecce Homo, ch. 1.). The miracles recorded are in keeping with this. God was making a new departure in dealing with His people. We need not, therefore, be startled if a highly exceptional situation is accompanied by highly exceptional facts. After more than three centuries of silence, Jehovah again speaks by prophecies and signs to Israel. But there is no violent rupture with the past in making this new departure. The announcement of the rise of a new Prophet is made in the temple at Jerusalem, to a priest of the old covenant, who is to be the Prophet’s father. It is strong evidence of the historic truth of the narrative that no miracles are prophesied of the new Prophet, and that after his appearance his disciples attribute none to him.

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

Mightest know [επιγνως] . See on Mt 7:16. With the idea of full knowledge; or, as regards Theophilus, of more accurate knowledge than is possible from the many who have undertaken the narration.

Certainty [ασφαλειαν] . From aj, not, and sfallomai, to fall. Hence steadfastness, stability, security against error.

Wast instructed [κατηχηθης] . From kathcew, to resound; to teach by word of mouth; and so, in Christian writers, to instruct orally in the elements of religion. It would imply that Theophilus had, thus far, been orally instructed. See on delivered, verse 2. The word catechumen is derived from it.

Things [λογων] . Properly words (so Wyc.), which Rev. gives in margin. If the word can mean thing at all, it is only in the sense of the thing spoken of; the subject or matter of discourse, in which sense it occurs often in classical Greek. Some render it accounts, histories; others, doctrines of the faith. Godet translates instruction, and claims that not only the facts of the gospel, but the exposition of the facts with a view to show their evangelical meaning and to their appropriation by faith, are included in the word. There is force in this idea; and if we hold to the meaning histories, or even words, this sense will be implied in the context. Luke has drawn up his account in order that Theophilus may have fuller knowledge concerning the accounts which he has heard by word of mouth. That his knowledge may go on from the facts. to embrace their doctrinal and evangelical import; that he may see the facts of Jesus ' life and ministry as the true basis of the Gospel of salvation.

THE NARRATIVE

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

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: Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 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 (Act 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, Act 18:25, Gal 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 (Act 21:21; Act 21:24); or it may denote instruction properly so called, as Rom 2:18, Act 18:25, Gal 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 1Co 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 Act 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.

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.