Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 1:3
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,
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 Lukes 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Having had perfect understanding] , 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] , from their origin. Some think 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, , 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, , 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
3. from the very firstthatis, from the very earliest events; referring to those preciousdetails of the birth and early life, not only of our Lord, but of Hisforerunner, which we owe to Luke alone.
in orderor”consecutively”in contrast, probably, with thedisjointed productions to which he had referred. But this must not bepressed too far; for, on comparing it with the other Gospels, we seethat in some particulars the strict chronological order is notobserved in this Gospel.
most excellentor “mostnoble”a title of rank applied by this same writer twice toFelix and once to Festus (Act 22:26;Act 24:3; Act 26:25).It is likely, therefore, that “Theophilus” was chiefmagistrate of some city in Greece or Asia Minor [WEBSTERand WILKINSON].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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,
Ac 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)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
It seemed good to me also ( ). A natural conclusion and justification of Luke’s decision to write his narrative. They had ample reason to draw up their narratives. Luke has more reason to do so because of his fuller knowledge and wider scope.
Having traced the course of all things ( ). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation “having traced” here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (Vocabulary) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of Studies in the Text of the N.T. (The Implications in Luke’s Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had mentally followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. (accurately) means going into minute details, from , the topmost point. And he did it
from the first (). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters 1:5-2:52, the Gospel of the Infancy.
In order (). Chronological order in the main following Mark’s general outline. But in 9:51-18:10 the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration.
Most excellent Theophilus ( ). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that “most excellent” was a title like “Your Excellency” and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. So of Felix (Ac 23:26) and Festus (Ac 26:25). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in Ac 1:1.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Having had perfect understanding [] . 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 [] . Lit., from above; the events being conceived in a descending series.
Accurately [] . From akron, the highest or farthest point. Hence to trace down to the last and minutest detail. In order [] . Used by Luke only.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “It seemed good to me also,” (edokse kamoi) “it also seemed ideal to me.”
2) “Having had perfect understanding,” (parekolouthekoti akribos) “Having investigated thoroughly or accurately,” having traced down, or investigated reports, separating fact and fiction, especially regarding the matters of fact set forth in the first two chapters of Luke relating to John the Baptist and Jesus Christ in their official capacities.
3) “Of all things from the very first,” (anothen pasin) “All things from their source,” classifying persons and events, from the beginning of the ministries of the two great prophets: 1) John the Baptist, and 2) Jesus, about whom, he purposes to write this Gospel narrative, Mat 11:11; Deu 18:15-18.
4) “To write unto thee in order,” (kathekses soi grapsai) “To write to you in order,” not with chronological accuracy but in classifying events and factual reports of what Jesus did and taught, without mixing up one story with another.
5) “Most excellent Theophilus,” (kratiste theophile) “Most excellent (respected) Theophilus,” meaning friend or lover of God, perhaps a most illustrious Christian, though unknown beyond this personal address and that of Act 1:1; 1Co 1:26. It is believed Theophilus may have been paid to help in the writing.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. Having carefully examined all things The old translator has it, having followed out all things; (20) and the Greek verb παρακολουθεῖν is taken metaphorically from those who tread in the footsteps of others, that nothing may escape them. So that Luke intended to express his close and laborious investigation, just as Demosthenes employs the same word, when, in examining an embassy against which he brings an accusation, he boasts of his diligence to have been such, that he perceived every thing that had been done as well as if he had been a spectator.
(20) Omnia assequuto.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.’
So Luke tells us that, unsatisfied with other writings, he went back to basics. As a genuine historian he ‘traced all things accurately from the first’, so that Theophilus and his readers may be able to be sure that what he tells them are facts, and might ‘know the certainty concerning the things in which they were instructed’. ‘From the first’ is probably intended to signify that he began at the beginning with the birth of John and what led up to it. For that is where this new activity of God had begun. In view of his accuracy where it can be tested historically we have every reason to accept that he meant this to be taken literally. He was that kind of writer. Thus it is not reasonable to suggest that he meant that he merely accumulated traditional material. That would not have satisfied Luke.
‘Most excellent Theophilus.’ ‘Most excellent’ was a title used of Roman procurators. Compare the ‘most excellent Felix’ (Act 23:26). But it could also be used as a title of respect, and it may thus be that Theophilus was an influential man who had become, or was on the verge of becoming, a Christian. But however that may be, we must not see this as a personal communication with Theophilus, although a copy might well have been sent to him, and he may well have offered to have it reproduced and sent out. As with Josephus’s work the idea was that it be read widely. Indeed Luke may well have chosen his patron because his name ‘lover of God’ adequately depicted those by whom he wanted his Gospel to be read.
‘To write to you in order.’ This does not necessarily mean in strict chronological order, although clearly the general outline is chronological. Much of the teaching would not have been given only once. Much must have been spoken again and again as Jesus went everywhere preaching the word, and some would have been remembered in differing contexts, and other would have been remembered without a context. We must always remember this when we speak of similar sayings in the Gospels having different contexts, as though that meant that one writer must be wrong. For the truth was that some of the sayings had many contexts. And others were well remembered but had no context. Luke would fit these latter in as it suited the message he was conveying. And we must remember that Luke was not writing for twentieth century man who is obsessed with time. He was writing for 1st century man who was more interested in meaning and significance, and portraying a total picture.
The people of Palestine in the first century AD depended a good deal on memory. And as the Sermon on the Mount brings out vividly, Jesus deliberately catered for that by speaking in a memorable way. What He said was spoken in a way helpful for memorising, and the deliberate continual repetition would fix it in the mind.
And all would know who were the ones who had the most reliable memories. It was to them that Luke would go. Whether there was a Q document of sayings or not, we would be doing Luke an injustice to suggest that he relied on that alone when he came across so many who had actually heard Jesus speak a good number of times. We are thus assured that Luke actually heeded the eyewitnesses.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 1:3. Having had perfect understandingfrom the very first, &c. By tracing them from their first rise. , plainly signifies that accuracy of investigation, on which the perfect understanding of his subject was built. To write in order, may signify to give a particular detail, in opposition to an abridgement, or a concise account; and the evangelist may, with great propriety, be said to have given an orderly account of the history of Christ, as the leading facts are in their due series, though some particulars are transposed. The title of most excellent, , was commonly given to persons in the highest stations of life. Accordingly St. Paul, speaking to the governors Felix and Festus, uses it in his addresses to them; wherefore their opinion seems to be groundless, who, attending to the signification of the Greek wordTheophilus, “beloved of God,” imagine that the evangelist does not mean any particular person, but all true Christians, and lovers of God. Theophilus seems to have been a Greek, and a person of high rank. Probably Luke, while in Greece with St. Paul, had received particular civilities from him, and in testimony of his respect, inscribedhis two books to him, bestowing on him thereby a fame which will last while Christianity subsists. St. Luke might have a thorough knowledge of the facts which he here refers to, by intimate conversation with the apostles, and particularly St. Paul; or, he might have been present himself ata number of the 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 the preface to his history, will be more conclusive than on any other, and will stand thus: “Seeing many have written from the information of eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, 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, thought it incumbent on me to write his history, for the more certain information of mankind.”
See commentary on Luk 1:1
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 1:3 . Apodosis, which did not begin already in Luk 1:2 .
] in itself neither excludes nor includes inspiration. Vss. add to it: et Spiritui sancto . By the use of Luke places himself in the same category with the , in so far as he, too, had not been an eye-witness; “sic tamen ut etiamnum aliquid ad ac firmitudinem Theophilo conferat,” Bengel. . .] after having from the outset followed everything with accuracy . ., 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 : .
] namely, those , not masculine (Syr.).
] not: radicitus , fundamentally (Grotius), which is comprised in ., 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 expresses itself in . .
] 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 .
] See Introd. 3. That in Act 1:1 he is addressed merely , proves nothing against the titular use of . See on the latter, Grotius.
[17] In the case of this 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 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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, .
From the very first ] Or, from above, , as inspired from heaven.
To write unto thee in order ] , distinctly, and yet coherently. A singular praise in a historian, for the which Ambrose much admireth this our evangelist above all the other.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] Luke by this classes himself with these , and shews that he intended no disparagement nor blame to them, and was going to construct his own history from similar sources. The . . . 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 , which is found in 3 lat. mss. and in got [5] ., makes the following clause an absurdity.)
[5] The Gothic version. Made from the Greek by Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century .
. ] having traced down (by research), and so become accurately acquainted with. The word is used in just this sense by Demosth., . ., p. 285: , , ., .
] from the beginning i.e. as in Luk 1:5 ; as distinguished from those who only wrote of the official life of the Lord, or only fragments perhaps of that.
, 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, lian, &c. The classics have .
. . ] 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 .), 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, Hr. ii. 51, p. 429, , : and adopted again recently by Bp. Wordsworth), is far-fetched and improbable.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 1:3 . : modestly introducing the writer’s purpose. He puts himself on a level with the , 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. . .: having followed (in my inquiries) all things from the beginning, i.e. , not of the public life of Jesus ( , 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 Promium des Lukasevangelium in Jahrbcher f. deutsche Theologie , 1871, p. 48. Likewise Calvin: omnibus exacte pervestigatis ), not merely undertaken after the plan had been formed (Hahn). , . . explain how he desired to carry out his plan: he wishes to be exact, and to write in an orderly manner ( here only in N. T., 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, ., ., 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. . 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 may imply high official position (Act 23:26 ; Act 26:25 ). On this see Grotius. Grimm thinks it expresses only love and friendship.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
having had perfect understanding = having followed up accurately.
all. The 1611 edition of the Authorized Version omitted this “all”.
from the very first = from above. Greek. anothen. As in Mat 27:51 (the top, Mar 15:38). Joh 3:3, Joh 3:7 (again), Joh 3:31 (from above); Luk 19:11, Luk 19:23. Jam 1:17; Jam 3:1, Jam 3:17. It may mean from the beginning, as in Act 26:5, but there is no need to introduce that meaning here, as it is already in Luk 1:2. Moreover, havingunderstood them “from above”, he necessarily understood them from the very beginning, as well as perfectly, or accurately. The greater includes the less.
in order = with method. most excellent. A title of social degree, not of moral quality. See Act 23:26; Act 26:25.
Theophilus. A common Roman name = beloved of God.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3. ] Luke by this classes himself with these , and shews that he intended no disparagement nor blame to them, and was going to construct his own history from similar sources. The . . . 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 , which is found in 3 lat. mss. and in got[5]., makes the following clause an absurdity.)
[5] The Gothic version. Made from the Greek by Ulphilas about the middle of the fourth century.
.] having traced down (by research), and so become accurately acquainted with. The word is used in just this sense by Demosth., . ., p. 285: , , ., .
] from the beginning-i.e. as in Luk 1:5;-as distinguished from those who only wrote of the official life of the Lord, or only fragments perhaps of that.
, 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, lian, &c. The classics have .
. .] 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 .), 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, Hr. ii. 51, p. 429, , : and adopted again recently by Bp. Wordsworth), is far-fetched and improbable.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 1:3. , it seemed good to me also) A holy inclination, worthy of an evangelical man.-, 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 [ , 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 , 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.-, 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.-) . All these matters had been followed up by Luke accurately [].-, deinceps, successively, subsequently; [in order]) , afterwards; , successively (deinceps), subsequently. As Luke had followed up [ascertained] all things, it was the next thing [] 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 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.- , 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 , 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 Lukes 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
from
“From the very first”: (Greek – ,” “from above).” So translated in Joh 3:31; Joh 19:11; Jam 1:17; Jam 3:15; Jam 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 – ,” 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.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
seemed: Act 15:19, Act 15:25, Act 15:28, 1Co 7:40, 1Co 16:12
in: Luk 1:1, Psa 40:5, Psa 50:21, Ecc 12:9, Act 11:4
most: Act 1:1, Act 23:26, Act 24:3, Act 26:25,*Gr.
Reciprocal: Job 36:4 – perfect Pro 22:21 – I Amo 2:11 – Nazarites Mar 1:1 – beginning Joh 15:27 – have Joh 20:30 – General 1Co 1:26 – not many mighty 2Ti 3:10 – thou hast fully known 2Jo 1:1 – the elect lady
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
So thorough was the report these witnesses gave Luke that he says it caused him to have perfect (“exact” –Thayer) understanding of the whole story. The book of Luke was addressed to Theophilus who was an outstanding, educated Christian, according to the Bible Dictionaries. Being addressed to one individual does not affect its importance for others, any more than does the fact that Paul wrote four of his epistles to individuals do so.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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,
[Having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first.] This is not indeed ill rendered, having understood these things from the very first; but it may perhaps be better, having attained to an understanding of these things from above; — from heaven itself. So from above signifies from heaven; Joh 3:3; Joh 3:31; Joh 19:11; Jam 1:17; Jam 3:17; etc. For,
I. This version includes the other: for he that hath a perfect understanding of these things from above; or by divine inspiration, did understand them from the beginning.
II. Take notice of the distinction that is in Josephus, He that undertakes to give a true relation of things to others, ought himself to know them first very accurately, having either very diligently observed them himself, or learned by inquiry from others. Now if St. Luke had writ his history as “he had learned from others” (as they wrote whom he instances in Luk 1:1), then he had been amongst those that had learned from others. Nor could he promise more than they might do, of whom he said, that many had taken in hand; etc.
[Most excellent Theophilus.] There is one guesses this most excellent Theophilus to have been an Antiochian, another thinks he may be a Roman; but it is very uncertain either who or whence he was. There was one Theophilus amongst the Jews, at that very time, probably, when St. Luke wrote his Gospel; but I do not think this was he. Josephus mentions him; “King Agrippa, removing Jesus the son of Gamaliel from the high priesthood, gave it to Mathias the son of Theophilus: in whose time the Jewish war began.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Luk 1:3. To me also. He thus places himself in the ranks of the many, but in what follows indicates his superior qualification for the work. He does not claim, but certainly does not disclaim, inspiration. Some old Latin manuscripts add here: et spiritui sancto, and to the Holy Spirit; but how could the Holy Spirit be said to make historical researches?
Having traced down, etc. The inspired writers were moved by the Holy Spirit, not as passive machines, but as rational and responsible persons, who exercised their memory, judgment, and used all means of information, under divine guidance.
From the first. This extends further back than the beginning (Luk 1:2). We may therefore expect full statements about the early events. Luke could find many still alive from whom these facts would be learned, and that he had met James, the Lords brother, is evident from Act 21:17. All these statements are about matters occurring in the same family circle (Mary, Elisabeth, etc.).
In order. Luke lays claim to chronological accuracy in his Gospel, though his narrative in this respect plainly falls behind that of Mark. The comparison is, however, with the fragmentary sketches, referred to in Luk 1:1. He claims at all events systematic arrangement.
Most excellent. An official term, like our word honorable, not referring to moral character. (Comp. Act 23:6; Act 24:3; Act 26:25; in all three cases applied to an immoral heathen governor.)
Theophilus. Evidently a man of mark and a Christian (Luk 1:4), but otherwise unknown. It has been inferred from Act 23:8, that he was not a Jew, and from chapters 27, 28, that he lived in Italy, since those chapters assume an acquaintance with localities near Rome. The name means lover of God, and this had led some to the unsupported fancy, that the name was a feigned one, to designate believers. Ambrose: It you are a lover of God, a Theophilus, it is written to thee; Ford: The name Theophilus imports the temper of mind which God will bless in the Scripture student.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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, , 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, , 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, , 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, , 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 , 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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 , 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 , as Olshausen thinks, who translates, fully believed in conformity with the account of the first witnesses.
As the two substantives, and , witnesses and ministers, have each certain defining expressions which especially belong to them (the first, , from the beginning, and the second, , become, and , of the word), the most simple construction appears to us to be to regard , 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 , 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 , ministers, is thus taken as a second noun of apposition with , parallel to the first, there is no longer any difficulty in referring the complement , of the word, to , 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 takenthe 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 , 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 , 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 (), 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 , to follow step by step, is not used here in the literal sense; this sense would require 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 coron, 53: . Comp. 2Ti 3:10, where we see the transition from the purely literal to the figurative meaning. The , all things, are the events related (Luk 1:1). Luke might have put the participle in the accusative: ; 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 , 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 (, 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: (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 , 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: , 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 is not found in the New Testament except in Luke.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 3
We learn from this verse that the inspiration of the sacred writers was not a divine illumination and impulse, which revealed to them, supernaturally, in all cases, a knowledge of the facts, or which made them the mere passive instruments for recording words which the Holy Spirit dictated; but that it was rather of the nature of a superintendence and control over the exercise of their own memory and judgment, and powers of investigation and expression. Even Luke’s determination to write his history, was his own determination; “it seemed good to me.” And he felt qualified for the work on account of the facilities which he enjoyed for acquiring a correct knowledge of the facts by the exercise of his own mental powers. This being true in respect to inspired men, of course those uninspired religious teachers, of all ages, who expect such an influence from the Holy Spirit as shall render unnecessary their own personal efforts for mental cultivation, and for the acquisition of knowledge, very greatly err.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things {c} from the very first, to write unto thee in order, {d} most excellent Theophilus,
(c) Luke began his gospel a great deal further in the past than the others did.
(d) It is “most mighty”, and therefore Theophilus was a very honourable man, and in a place of great dignity.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Until now Luke had described the work of previous writers. Now he referred to his own Gospel. He, too, had done careful research and proceeded to write an orderly account. Significantly Luke did not describe himself as an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry but as a researcher of it.
"In consecutive order" (NASB, Gr. kathexes, "orderly" NIV) does not necessarily imply chronological order. It probably means that Luke wrote according to a plan that God led him to adopt. All the Gospel writers seem to have departed from a strictly chronological arrangement of events occasionally for thematic purposes.
This is one of the clearest proofs in the Bible that God did not always dictate the words of Scripture to the writers who simply copied them down. That view is the dictation theory of inspiration. He did this with some passages (e.g., Exo 20:1-17; et al.) but not most.
Theophilus’ name means "lover of God." This fact has led to some speculation about whether "Theophilus" was really a substitute for the real name of Luke’s addressee, or perhaps Luke wrote generally to all lovers of God. The use of "most excellent" (Gr. kratiste) suggests that Theophilus was a real person of some distinction (cf. Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 26:25). The name was common in the Greek world. He may have been Luke’s patron or publisher. [Note: See E. J. Goodspeed, "Some Greek Notes: I. Was Theophilus Luke’s Publisher?" Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954):84. See also Bock, Luke, pp. 23, 42-43, for further speculation about Theophilus’ identity.]