{"id":24880,"date":"2022-09-24T10:48:33","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T15:48:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-12\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T10:48:33","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T15:48:33","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-luke-12\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 1:2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

2<\/strong>. even as they delivered them unto us, which<\/em> ] The English version is here ambiguous; and the way in which it is often read shews how completely it is misunderstood. It does not mean ‘that the writers of these narratives delivered them to St Luke and others who were eyewitnesses, &c.,’ but that ‘since many undertook to rearrange the facts which have been delivered (1Co 11:23<\/span>; 1Co 15:3<\/span>; 2Th 2:15<\/span>) as a sacred treasure or tradition (1Ti 6:20<\/span>; 2Ti 1:14<\/span>) to us Christians by those who became eyewitnesses’ (which St Luke does not claim to be) ‘and ministers of the word, I too determined, &c.’ The words imply that the narratives to which St Luke alludes were secondhand<\/em> that they were rearrangements of an oral tradition<\/em> received from apostles and original disciples. Clearly therefore there can be no allusion to the Gospel of St Matthew, who wrote his own<\/em> narrative and would have had no need to use one which had been ‘delivered’ and ‘handed down’ to him.<\/p>\n

eyewitnesses, and ministers<\/em> ] Those who delivered to the Church the facts of the Saviour’s life had ‘personal knowledge and practical experience,’ which these narrators had not. (See Act 1:21-22<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

As they delivered them – <\/B>As they narrated them. As they gave an account of them.<\/P>

From the beginning – <\/B>From the commencement of these things – that is, from the birth of John, or perhaps from the beginning of the ministry of Jesus.<\/P>

Eye-witnesses – <\/B>Who had seen those things themselves, and who were therefore proper witnesses.<\/P>

Ministers of the word – <\/B>The term word here means the gospel. Luke never uses it, as John does, to denote the second Person of the Trinity. These eye-witnesses and ministers refer, doubtless, to the seventy disciples, to the apostles, and perhaps to other preachers who had gone forth to proclaim the same things.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 2<\/span>. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the<\/B><\/I> <\/B>beginning were eye-witnesses<\/B><\/I>] Probably this alludes to the Gospels of Matthew<\/I> and Mark<\/I>, which it is likely were written before St. Luke wrote his, and on the models<\/I> of which he professes to write his own; and , from the beginning<\/I>, must mean, from the time that Christ first began to proclaim the glad tidings of the kingdom; and , eye-witnesses<\/I>, must necessarily signify, those who had been with him from the beginning, and consequently had the best opportunities of knowing the truth of every fact.<\/P>

<\/P>

Ministers of the word<\/B><\/I>] . Some suppose that our blessed Lord<\/I> is meant by this phrase; as , the Word<\/I> or Logos<\/I>, is his essential character in Joh 1:1<\/span>, c. but it does not appear that any of the inspired penmen ever use the word in this sense except John himself; for here it certainly means the doctrine of Christ<\/I>; and in this sense is frequently used both by the evangelists and apostles.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2. from the beginning<\/B>that is,of His public ministry, as is plain from what follows.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Even as they delivered them unto us<\/strong>,…. By whom the evangelist means, as appears from the after description of them, the twelve apostles, and seventy disciples; who handed down to others the accounts of the birth, life, and death of Christ; and according to which the above Christians proposed to write:<\/p>\n

which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word<\/strong>; either of the Gospel, or rather of Christ himself, the eternal Word of God; for from the beginning of Christ’s preaching the Gospel, or as soon as he entered upon his public ministry, he called his apostles, as Simon, Andrew, James, John, c. and afterwards seventy disciples who were eyewitnesses of him, of the truth of his incarnation, and of his ministry and miracles; saw, and conversed with him after his resurrection from the dead and beheld his ascension to heaven; and were ministers that were called, qualified, and sent out by him and waited on him, and served him. This shows, as is by some rightly observed, that Luke was not one of the seventy disciples, as some i have thought, and as the title of this Gospel, to the Arabic version of it, expresses; for then he would have been an eyewitness himself: nor did he take his account from the Apostle Paul; for he was not a minister of the word from the beginning, but was as one born out of due time.<\/p>\n

i Epiphan. contra Haeres. l. 2. Haeres. 51. Theophylact. in Argument in Luc.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Even as <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). This particle was condemned by the Atticists though occurring occasionally from Aristotle on. It is in the papyri. Luke asserts that the previous narratives had their sound basis.<\/P>

Delivered unto us <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist active indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>. Luke received this tradition along with those who are mentioned above (the many). That is he was not one of the “eyewitnesses.” He was a secondary, not a primary, witness of the events. Tradition has come to have a meaning of unreliability with us, but that is not the idea here. Luke means to say that the handing down was dependable, not mere wives’ fables. Those who drew up the narratives had as sources of knowledge those who handed down the data. Here we have both written and oral sources. Luke had access to both kinds.<\/P>

Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). “Who” is better than “which” for the article here. The word for<\/P>

eyewitnesses <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>) is an old Greek word and appears in the papyri also. It means seeing with one’s own eyes. It occurs here only in the N.T. We have the very word in the medical term autopsy<\/I>. Greek medical writers often had the word. It is a different word from <\/SPAN><\/span> (eyewitness) in 2Pe 1:16<\/span>, a word used of those who beheld heavenly mysteries. The word for “ministers” (<\/SPAN><\/span>), under rowers or servants we have had already in Matt 5:25<\/span>; Matt 26:58<\/span>; Mark 14:54<\/span>; Mark 14:65<\/span>, which see. We shall see it again in Lu 4:20<\/span> of the attendant in the synagogue. In the sense of a preacher of the gospel as here, it occurs also in Ac 26:16<\/span>. Here “the word” means the gospel message, as in Acts 6:4<\/span>; Acts 8:4<\/span>, etc.<\/P>

From the beginning <\/B> apparently refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus as was true of the apostles (Ac 1:22<\/span>) and of the early apostolic preaching (Ac 10:37-43<\/span>). The Gospel of Mark follows this plan. The Gospel of Luke goes behind this in chapters 1 and 2 as does Matthew in chapters 1 and 2. But Luke is not here referring to himself. The matters about the childhood of Jesus Christ would not form part of the traditional preaching for obvious reasons. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Even as. Referring to the composition of the narrative. Delivered [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Not necessarily excluding written traditions, but referring mainly to oral tradition. Note the distinction between the many who attempted to draw up a narrative and the eye witnesses and ministers who handed down the facts. <\/P>

From the beginning [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The official beginning, the commencement of Jesus ‘ ministry. Compare Act 1:1<\/span>, 21<\/span>, 22<\/span>; Joh 14:27<\/span>. Eye witnesses and ministers. Personal knowledge and practical experience were necessary elements of an apostle. Eye witnesses [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Only here in New Testament. Peter uses another word, ejpoptai (2Pe 1:16<\/span>). Frequent in medical writers, of a personal examination of disease or of the parts of the body. Compare the modern medical term autopsy. Ministers [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Mt 5:25<\/span>. In medical language denoting the attendants or assistants of the principal physician.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “Even as they delivered them unto us,” <\/strong>(kathos paredosan hemin) “Just as they were delivered to us,” by competent witnesses.<\/p>\n

2) “Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,” <\/strong> (hoi ap’ arches autoptai) “Who were eyewitnesses from the beginning,” as the twelve apostles, and other members of the Church company of the Lord had been, Joh 15:27<\/span>, 2Pe 1:16<\/span>; 1Jn 1:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “And ministers of the word;” <\/strong>(kai huperetai genomenoi tou logou) “And attendants of the word,” who were having become attendants, as ministers of the Word to others, Heb 2:3<\/span>; Rom 15:16<\/span>; Eph 3:7-8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(2) Even as they delivered them unto us.<\/strong>There is something noticeable in the candour with which the writer disclaims the character of an eyewitness. The word delivered is the same as that used by St. Paul when he speaks of the history of the Lords Supper (1Co. 11:23-25<\/span>) and of the Resurrection (1Co. 15:3-7<\/span>), and, with its cognate noun tradition (2Th. 2:15<\/span>), would seem to have been almost a technical term for the oral teaching which at least included an outline of our Lords life and teaching.<\/p>\n

Ministers of the word.<\/strong>The word used is that which describes the work of an attendant, something between a slave and a minister, in the later ecclesiastical use of the term as equivalent to deacon or preacher. It is used of St. Mark in Act. 13:5<\/span>. On the opportunities St. Luke enjoyed for converse with such as these, see Introduction.<\/em> The word is used in its more general Pauline sense (as e.g.,<\/em> 1Co. 1:18<\/span>; 1Co. 2:4<\/span>), as equivalent to the gospel, not in the higher personal meaning which it acquired afterwards in St. John (1Jn. 2:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2<\/strong>. <\/strong> Delivered them unto us<\/em> This delivery being previous to writing must have been oral. The us <\/em> to whom they were delivered must be the Church and people contemporaneous with the apostles, and to whom they preached. The phrase “handed down,” therefore, is not a proper translation of the Greek term; for that would imply that the receiver belonged to a later generation. Luke, though after the apostles in rank, was probably their coeval in time. <\/p>\n

From the beginning<\/em> The beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. <\/p>\n

Eyewitnesses<\/em> To be “witnesses chosen before of God” of the doings and sayings of Jesus was the very essence and object of the apostolic office. Act 10:41<\/span>; Act 1:8<\/span>; Act 1:22<\/span>; Act 26:16<\/span>. In accordance with this is the bold declaration of Peter at a later day: “We have not followed cunningly devised fables but were eye-witnesses.” <\/em> On equally strong grounds does John, near the close of the first century, later, in fact, than the publication of this gospel, place his own testimony: “That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we have SEEN with our EYES, which we have looked upon, <\/em> and our hands <\/em> have handled <\/em> declare we unto you.” 1Jn 1:1<\/span>. Such declarations afford no room, no interval of time, no chance for the intervention of fabricators for forming traditions, legends, or myths. Our gospels are the plain records of the statements of actual spectators. <\/p>\n

Ministers of the word<\/em> The terms eyewitnesses <\/em> and ministers <\/em> are epithets for the same persons. The apostles were to be eye-witnesses of the facts, in order to be official rehearsers of the history.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 1:2<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Ministers of the word;<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Some have supposed, that by the word, <\/em>St. Luke meant Christ himself. See Joh 1:1<\/span>. Others however underhand by the word, <\/em>the transactions of our Lord’s public life or the gospel; called the word, <\/em>as being the great subject of the preaching of the apostles, who were eye and ear witnesses of these things. It seems as plain as possible, from this verse, that they could not be false or heretical gospels to which St. Luke alludes. <\/p>\n

See commentary on Luk 1:1<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 1:2<\/span> . ] neither quatenus<\/em> , nor belonging to . (in opposition, as respects both, to Kuinoel, as respects the latter also to Olshausen), but introducing the How<\/em> , the modal definition<\/em> of . .<\/p>\n

] have delivered<\/em> . It is equally erroneous to refer this merely to written<\/em> (Knigsm. de fontibus<\/em> , etc., in Pott’s Sylloge<\/em> , III. p. 231; Hug), or merely to oral<\/em> communication, although in the historical circumstances the latter was by far the preponderating. [16] Holtzmann appropriately remarks: “The subjects of <\/em><\/strong> and the <\/em><\/strong> are not distinguished from one another as respects the categories of the oral and written, but as respects those of primary and secondary authority.” For the <\/em><\/strong> , as for Luke himself, who associates himself with them by <\/em><\/strong> , the <\/em><\/strong> of the <\/em><\/strong> was the proper source, in accordance with which therefore he must have critically sifted the attempts of those <\/em><\/strong> , so far as he knew them (Luk 1:3<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] namely, of those <\/em><\/strong> . But it is not the time of the birth of Jesus<\/em> that is meant (so most commentators, including Kuinoel and Olshausen), but that of the entrance of Jesus on His ministry<\/em> (Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette); comp. Joh 15:27<\/span> ; Act 1:21<\/span> f., which explanation is not “audacious” (Olshausen), but necessary, because the are the same<\/em> persons, and therefore under the there are not to be understood, in addition to the first disciples, Mary also and other members of the family. <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> therefore is not to be taken absolutely, but relatively.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] ministri evangelii<\/em> (the doctrine , comp. Act 8:7<\/span> ; Act 14:25<\/span> ; Act 16:6<\/span> ; Act 17:11<\/span> ). These were the Twelve and other <\/em><\/strong> of Christ (as according to Luke also the Seventy), who were in the service<\/em> of the gospel for the purpose of announcing it. Comp. Luk 3:7<\/span> ; Act 6:4<\/span> ; Col 1:23<\/span> ; Act 26:16<\/span> ; 1Co 4:1<\/span> . Others (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, al.<\/em> , including Kuinoel) take in the sense of the matter<\/em> concerned, of the contents of the history<\/em> spoken of (see on Act 8:21<\/span> ); but it would be just as inappropriate to as it would be quite superfluous, since <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> must by no means be attached to <\/em><\/strong> also. Finally, it is a mistake to refer it to Christ<\/em> in accordance with Joh 1:1<\/span> . So Origen, Athanasius, Euthymius Zigabenus, Valla, Calovius, and others, including Stein ( Kommentar<\/em> , Halle 1830). It is only John<\/em> that names Christ .<\/p>\n

Theophylact, moreover, aptly observes: <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> (namely, from <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> ) <\/em><\/strong> , <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> .<\/em><\/strong> By <\/em><\/strong> the writer places himself in the second<\/em> generation; the first<\/em> were the immediate disciples of Christ, . This <\/em><\/strong> , however, is not chosen for the sake of placing the Twelve on an equality with Paul<\/em> (Act 26:16<\/span> ). As though the word were so characteristic for Paul<\/em> in particular! Comp. Joh 18:36 ; 1Co 4:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n

[16] Of the written<\/em> materials of this of the we know with certainty only the of Matthew according to Papias.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 2. Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses<\/strong> ] Therefore it may seem his Gospel was not dictated to him by Paul (who was no eyewitness), as some ancients have affirmed. But if we can believe Tacitus or Suetonius in things that happened long before they were born, because we are confident of their diligence in inquiring, how much more should we believe St Luke upon such doubted assurance? &c. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2. <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] The Apostles, &c., delivered these matters orally<\/em> to the Churches in their teaching (see below on <\/strong> .<\/strong> ) and others drew up accounts from that catechetical instruction. It appears from this, that Luke was not aware of any<\/em> <\/strong> drawn up by an eye-witness or<\/em> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> Their<\/em> account of these matters was a , from which<\/em> the were drawn up. He cannot therefore have seen<\/em> (or, having seen, not recognized as such, which is highly improbable) the Gospel of Matthew<\/em> . Compare 1Jn 1:1-3<\/span> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> not, ‘ from the very beginning<\/em> ,’ i.e. the birth of the Lord, &c., but from the official beginning:<\/em> see Act 1:21<\/span> f. It differs from <\/strong> below.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] <\/strong> .<\/strong> most probably stands alone: but it may well be taken with . . (see below.)<\/p>\n

<\/strong> .,<\/strong> see reff., ministering servants<\/strong> but in connexion with . The fanciful idea of “remiges in navi, sc. ecclesia,” cited by Wordsw. from Valckn., is out of the question. had long lost trace of its original derivation, in its more common meaning; and it would be abhorrent from good taste to suppose St. Luke to have used it with so pedantic an allusion.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> not, ‘ the<\/em> ’ (i.e. Christ: so Orig [3] , Athanasius, Cyril, Euthym [4] ), which would be altogether alien from Luke’s usage (see on Heb 4:12<\/span> . Bleek, in his posthumous “Erklrung der drei ersten Evv.,” Leipz. 1862, also objects to the personal sense as too precise and definite for the rhetorical generalities of St. Luke in this passage) nor ‘ the matter<\/em> ,’ so that . . . would signify those who by their labours contributed to bring the matter about, ‘qui ipsi interfuerunt rebus, tanquam pars aliqua’ for this is alien from Luke’s usage of . see Act 26:16<\/span> ; but, the word<\/strong> , ‘the word preached:<\/em> ’ so that . . = . . Act 6:4<\/span> .<\/p>\n

[3] Origen, b. 185, d. 254<\/p>\n

[4] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 1:2<\/span> . implies that the basis of these many written<\/em> narratives was the of the Apostles, which, by contrast, and by the usual meaning of the word, would be mainly though not necessarily exclusively oral<\/em> (might include, e.g.<\/em> , the Logia<\/em> of Mt.). describes the Apostles, the ultimate source of information, as men “who had become, or been made, eye-witnesses and ministers of the word”. Both . and . may be connected with , understood to mean the burden of apostolic preaching = the facts of Christ’s earthly history. Eye-witnesses of the facts from the beginning ( – ), therefore competent to state them with authority; servants of the word including the facts (= “all that Jesus began both to do and to teach”), whose very business it was to relate words and facts, and who therefore did it with some measure of fulness. Note that the after implies that Lk. belonged to the second generation (Meyer, Schanz). Hahn infers from the in Luk 1:1<\/span> that Lk. was himself an eye-witness of Christ’s public ministry, at least in its later stage.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

from. Greek apo. App-104. <\/p>\n

from the beginning. Greek. ap’ arches; i.e. from the birth or ministry of the Lord. Compare Joh 15:27. Act 1:1, Act 1:21, Act 1:22. <\/p>\n

were = became. <\/p>\n

eyewitnesses. Greek autoptai. Occurs only here. Not the same word as in 2Pe 1:16. A medical word (Col 4:14). Compare our autopsy. <\/p>\n

ministers = attendants. A technical word, often translated “officer”. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2. .] The Apostles, &c., delivered these matters orally to the Churches in their teaching (see below on .) and others drew up accounts from that catechetical instruction. It appears from this, that Luke was not aware of any drawn up by an eye-witness or . . . Their account of these matters was a , from which the were drawn up. He cannot therefore have seen (or, having seen, not recognized as such, which is highly improbable) the Gospel of Matthew. Compare 1Jn 1:1-3.<\/p>\n

-not, from the very beginning, i.e. the birth of the Lord, &c., but from the official beginning: see Act 1:21 f. It differs from below.<\/p>\n

. . . .] . most probably stands alone: but it may well be taken with . . (see below.)<\/p>\n

.,-see reff.,-ministering servants-but in connexion with . The fanciful idea of remiges in navi, sc. ecclesia, cited by Wordsw. from Valckn., is out of the question. had long lost trace of its original derivation, in its more common meaning; and it would be abhorrent from good taste to suppose St. Luke to have used it with so pedantic an allusion.<\/p>\n

. -not, the (i.e. Christ: so Orig[3], Athanasius, Cyril, Euthym[4]), which would be altogether alien from Lukes usage (see on Heb 4:12. Bleek, in his posthumous Erklrung der drei ersten Evv., Leipz. 1862, also objects to the personal sense as too precise and definite for the rhetorical generalities of St. Luke in this passage)-nor the matter, so that . . . would signify those who by their labours contributed to bring the matter about, qui ipsi interfuerunt rebus, tanquam pars aliqua-for this is alien from Lukes usage of .-see Act 26:16; but, the word,-the word preached:-so that . . = . . Act 6:4.<\/p>\n

[3] Origen, b. 185, d. 254<\/p>\n

[4] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 1:2. , they have delivered to us) to me, and to the other companions of the apostles.- , from the beginning) It was not from Paul alone, who was converted after the beginning, that Luke received his information.- ) They themselves saw [ being the components of ], and, what is more, ministered. So also Paul was a minister and witness: Act 26:16; so also the mother of our Lord herself, Mary: Act 1:14. There were many such witnesses, advanced in years, and so of the highest authority [for instance, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, Mary Magdalene, and several more.-V. g.]: 1Co 15:6; Rom 16:7. It was such as these themselves, and the companions of such, who wrote the books of the New Testament. No room was left for doubting.- , of the word) Act 10:36. This one word embraces many words, Luk 1:4 [ : subjects of instruction].<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

which: Luk 24:48, Mar 1:1, Joh 15:27, Act 1:3, Act 1:8, Act 1:21, Act 1:22, Act 4:20, Act 10:39-41, Heb 2:3, 1Pe 5:1, 1Jo 1:1-3 <\/p>\n

and: Act 26:16, Rom 15:16, Eph 3:7, Eph 3:8, Eph 4:11, Eph 4:12, Col 1:23-25 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Isa 22:4 – Look 1Co 3:5 – ministers 1Jo 2:24 – which<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2<\/p>\n

Luke was not an eyewitness of the things on which he writes, but they were told him by those who were. In copying down the things told him he would be qualified by inspiration, even as the Spirit guaranteed the accuracy of the memory of the apostles which was promised by Jesus before he left them (Joh 14:26).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; <\/p>\n

[Which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, etc.] if from the beginning have reference to the time wherein Christ published the gospel upon earth, as no one need to doubt, then there is little distinction to be made between eyewitnesses and ministers; for who from that time had been made a minister of the word; that had not been an eyewitness and seen Christ himself? so that we may easily conjecture who are these eyewitnesses and ministers here, viz., the apostles, the seventy disciples, and others that filled up the number of the hundred and twenty, mentioned Act 1:15.<\/p>\n

It is said of Mnason, that he was an old disciple; Act 21:16. It may be supposed of him, that he had been a disciple from the beginning; that is, from the very time wherein Christ himself published his glad tidings. Those words a good while ago; Act 15:7; ought to be understood also in this sense.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Luk 1:2. They delivered them, or, handed them down. The oral instruction of the Apostles is here referred to. From this (see Luk 1:4) the writ-ten accounts of the many were drawn up. Oral tradition came first, but this preface plainly implies its insufficiency.<\/p>\n

From the beginning, i.e., from the baptism of John (see Mar 1:1; Act 1:21; Joh 15:27).<\/p>\n

Eye-witnesses. The Apostles, perhaps the Seventy also. This implies that Luke was not a disciple during the lifetime of our Lord.<\/p>\n

Became ministers. The same persons who had been eye-witnesses.<\/p>\n

The word, i.e., the word of the gospel, the preached word. Certainly not the Word, the Logos, for John only uses this term. Hence of the word is scarcely to be joined with eye-witnesses.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Vers. 2-4. Since, as is known, many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the events which have been accomplished amongst us, (2) in conformity with that which they have handed down to us who were eye-witnesses of them from the beginning, and who became ministers of the word, (3) I have thought good also myself, after carefully informing myself of all these facts from their commencement, to write a consecutive account of them for thee, most excellent Theophilus, (4) in order that thou mightest know the immoveable certainty of the instructions which thou hast received.<\/p>\n

This period, truly Greek in its style, has been composed with particular care. We do not find a style like it in all the New Testament, except at the end of the Acts and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the thought of this prologue, it cannot be better summed up than in these lines of Tholuck: Although not an immediate witness of the facts that took place, I have none the less undertaken, following the example of many others, to publish an account of them according to the information I have gathered. <\/p>\n

The conjunction is found nowhere else in the New Testament; it has a certain solemnity. To the idea of since (), adds that of notoriety: since, as is well known; draws attention to the relation between the great number of these writings and the importance of the events related: It is so (), and it could not be otherwise ().<\/p>\n

The relation between the since thus defined and the principal verb, I have thought good, is easy to seize: If my numerous predecessors have not been blamed, why should I be blamed, who am only walking in their steps?<\/p>\n

The term , have undertaken, involves no blame of the skill of these predecessors, as several Fathers have thought; the I have thought good also myself is sufficient to exclude this supposition. This expression is suggested by the greatness of the task, and contains a slight allusion to the insufficiency of the attempts hitherto made to accomplish it. <\/p>\n

The nature of these older writings is indicated by the term , to set in order a narrative. It is a question, as Thiersch says, of an attempt at arrangement. Did this arrangement consist in the harmonizing of a number of separate writings into a single whole, so as to make a consecutive history of them? In this case, we should have to admit that the writers of whom Luke speaks had already found in the Church a number of short writings on particular events, which they had simply united: their work would thus constitute a second step in the development of the writing of the Gospel history. But the expression, in conformity with that which they have handed down to us, hardly leaves room for intermediate accounts between the apostolic tradition and the writings of which Luke speaks. The notion of arrangement, then, refers rather to the facts themselves which these authors had co-ordinated in such a way as to make a consecutive narrative of them. The term diegesis designates not, as Schleiermacher maintained, recitals of isolated facts, but a complete narrative. <\/p>\n

What idea should we form of these writings, and are they to be ranked among the sources on which Luke has drawn?<\/p>\n

Certain extra-canonical Gospels, which criticism has sometimes regarded as prior to Luke’s, may be thought of,that of the Hebrews, for example, in which Lessing was disposed to find the common source of our three synoptics; or that of Marcion, which Ritschl and Baur regarded as the principal document reproduced by Luke. But does not tradition exhibit itself in these writings in a form already perceptibly altered, and very far removed from the primitive purity and freshness which characterize our canonical Gospels? They are then later than Luke. <\/p>\n

Or does Luke allude to our Gospels of Matthew and Mark? This is maintained by those who think that Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark (Hug), or only after Matthew (Griesbach, etc.). But however little Luke shared in the traditional opinion which attributed the first Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, he could not speak of that writing as he speaks here; for he clearly opposes to the writers of the tradition (the , Luk 1:1), the apostles who were the authors of it. It may be affirmed, from the connection of Luk 1:2 with Luk 1:1, that Luke was not acquainted with a single written Gospel emanating from an apostle. As to the collection of the Logia (discourses of the Lord), which some attribute to Matthew, it certainly would not be excluded by Luke’s expressions; for the term diegesis denotes a recital, a historical narrative. Hug, in his desire to save his hypothesis, according to which Luke made use of Matthew, explained Luk 1:1-2 in this sense: Many have undertaken to compose written Gospels similar to those which the apostles bequeathed to us… But this sense would require () instead of , and has not been accepted by any one.<\/p>\n

As to the Gospel of Mark, Luke’s expressions might certainly suit this writing. For, according to tradition, Mark made use in his narrative of the accounts of an eye-witness, St. Peter. But still it may be questioned whether Luke would have employed the term undertake in speaking of a work which was received in the Church as one of the essential documents of the life of Jesus. For the rest, exegesis alone can determine whether Luke really had Mark before him either in its present or in a more ancient form.<\/p>\n

It appears probable, therefore, to me, that the works to which Luke alludes are writings really unknown and lost. Their incompleteness condemned them to extinction, in proportion as writings of superior value, such as our synoptics, spread through the Church. <\/p>\n

As to whether Luke availed himself of these writings, and in any way embodied them in his own work, he does not inform us. But is it not probable, since he was acquainted with them, that he would make some use of them? Every aid would appear precious to him in a work the importance of which he so deeply felt. <\/p>\n

The subject of these narratives is set forth in expressions that have a touch of solemnity: the events which have been accomplished amongst us. is a word analogous in composition and meaning to (to bring to an end, to maturity, Luk 8:14). It signifies, when it refers to a fact, to bring it to complete accomplishment (2Ti 4:5, to accomplish the ministry; Luk 1:17, to accomplish [to finish rendering] the testimony); and when it refers to a person, it means to cause him to attain inward fulness [of conviction], that is to say, a conviction which leaves no room for doubt (Rom 4:21; Rom 14:5; Heb 10:22, etc.). With a substantive such as , the second sense is inadmissible. Nevertheless, it has been defended by some of the Fathers, by some modern interpreters, as Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, and by Meyer, who concludes from 2Ti 4:17 that may also be applied to things in the sense of being believed. But when Paul says, In order that the testimony might be accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear it, the last words plainly show that accomplished signifies not fully believed, but fully rendered. This term, which has more weight than the simple , is designedly chosen here to indicate that these events were not simple accidents, but accomplished a preconceived plan; the divine thought carried into execution was, as it were, a measure which filled up itself.<\/p>\n

Doubtless, what has led many interpreters to prefer the sense of fully believed, is the complement amongst us. This is said that the facts of the gospel were accomplished not only in the presence of believers, but before the Jewish people and the whole world. This is true; but was not Jesus from the beginning surrounded by a circle of disciples, chosen to be witnesses of His life? It is with this meaning that John says, Luk 20:30, Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples; and Luk 1:14, He dwelt among us ( ), and we saw His glory,a sentence in which the last words limit the us to the circle of believers. The meaning is the same here. In Luk 1:2 the sense of the word us is more limited still. Here us denotes the Church with the apostles; in Luk 1:2, the Church apart from the apostles. Bleek extends the meaning of the word us, in Luk 1:1, to the whole contemporary generation both within and without the Church. But Luke, writing for believers, could scarcely use us in such a general sense as this.<\/p>\n

In this expression, the events accomplished amongst us, did the author include also the contents of the book of the Acts, and did he intend the preface to apply to the two books, so that the Acts would be just the second volume of the Gospel? The words amongst us would be more easily explained in this case, and the mention made of the apostles as ministers of the word (Luk 1:2) might lead us to this supposition. It is not probable, however, that Luke would have applied to the facts related in the Acts the expressions , tradition (Luk 1:2), and , instruction (Luk 1:4). The subject of apostolical tradition and catechetical instruction could only be the history and teaching of Jesus. It is impossible, therefore, to infer from this preface, that when Luke wrote his Gospel he had in view the composition of the book of the Acts. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 2 <\/p>\n

The word which, refers back to they, and not to us; the meaning being, as they who were eye-witnesses &c., delivered them to us. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1:2 {b} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;<\/p>\n

(b) Luke was not any eye witness, and therefore it was not he to whom the Lord appeared when Cleopas saw him: and he was taught not only by Paul, but by others of the apostles also.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The writer wanted to assure Theophilus (Luk 1:3) that the information that he and other writers had included in their accounts was valid. It had come from eyewitness testimony of people who accompanied Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry and who were servants of the word, namely, the gospel message. These people were the apostles and other eyewitnesses, such as Jesus’ mother (cf. Act 10:39-42). Luke used the Greek word logos<\/span>, "word," often in his Gospel, especially in the sections that are unique to it. [Note: See Lloyd Gaston, Horae Synopticae Electonicae; Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 64, 76; and John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, pp. 20, 43.] <\/span> Paul also claimed to communicate faithfully what others had "handed down" to him (1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3). [Note: See Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, pp. 59-75.] <\/span> This verse is a claim to careful research using reliable sources of information.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 2. even as they delivered them unto us, which ] The English version is here ambiguous; and the way in which it is often read shews how completely it is misunderstood. It does not mean ‘that the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 1:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}