On St. Luke himself..
1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; |
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, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. |
The, Gospel of St. Luke, which we now begin, contains
many precious things which are not recorded in the other three Gospels. Such, for instance, are the histories of
Zacharias and Elizabeth,-the angel's announcement to the Virgin Mary,-and, to
speak generally, the whole contents of the first two chapters. Such, again, are
the narratives of the conversion of Zacchaeus and of the penitent thief,-the
walk to Emmaus, and the famous parables of the Pharisee and Publican, the rich
man and Lazarus, and the Prodigal Son. These are portions of Scripture for
which every well-instructed Christian feels peculiarly thankful. And for these
we are indebted to the Gospel of St. Luke.
The short preface which we have
now read is a peculiar feature of St. Luke's Gospel. But we shall find, on
examination, that it is full of most useful instruction.
In the first place, St. Luke gives us a short,
but valuable, sketch of the nature of a Gospel. He calls it, “a declaration
of those things which are most surely believed among us." It is a
narrative of facts about Jesus Christ.
Christianity is a religion built upon facts.
Let us never lose sight of this. It came before mankind at first in this shape.
The first preachers did not go up and down the world, proclaiming an elaborate,
artificial system of abstruse doctrines and deep principles. They made it their
first business to tell men great plain facts. They went about telling a
sin-laden world, that the Son of God had come down to earth, and lived for us,
and died for us, and risen again. The Gospel, at its first publication, was far
more simple than many make it now. It was neither more nor less than the
history of Christ.
Let
us aim at greater simplicity in our own personal religion. Let Christ and His
Person be the sun of our system, and let the main desire of our souls be to
live the -life of faith in Him, and daily know Him better. This was St. Paul's
Christianity. "To me to live is Christ." (Philipp. i. 21.)
In the second place, St. Luke draws a
beautiful picture of the true position of the apostles in the early church. He calls them, " eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word."
There is an instructive humility in this
expression. There is an utter absence of that man-exalting tone which has so
often crept into the Church. St. Luke gives the apostles no flattering titles.
He affords not the slightest excuse to those who speak of them with idolatrous
veneration, because of their office and near-ness to our Lord.
He describes them as
"eye-witnesses." They told
men what they had seen with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears. (I
John i. 1.)-He describes them as “ministers of the word." They were
servants of the word of the Gospel. They were men who counted it their
highest privilege to carry about, as messengers, the tidings of God's love to a
sinful world, and to tell the story of the cross.
Well would it have been for the Church and the
world, if Christian ministers had never laid claim to higher dignity and honour
than the apostles claimed for themselves.
It is a mournful fact, that ordained men have constantly exalted
themselves and their office to a most unscriptural position. It is a no less
mournful fact, that people have constantly helped forward the evil, by a lazy
acquiescence in the demands of priest-craft, and by contenting themselves with
a mere vicarious religion. There have been faults on both sides. Let us
remember this, and be on our guard.
In the third place, St. Luke describes his
own qualifications for the work of writing a Gospel. He says that he “had perfect understanding of all things
from the very first.”
It would be mere waste of time to inquire from what
source St. Luke obtained the information which he has given -us in his Gospel.
We have no good reason for supposing that he saw our Lord work miracles, or
heard Him teach. To say that he
obtained his information from the Virgin Mary, or any of the apostles, is mere
conjecture and speculation. Enough for us to know that St. Luke wrote by
inspiration of God. Unquestionably he did not neglect the ordinary means of
getting knowledge. But the Holy Ghost guided him, no less than all other
writers of the Bible, in his choice of matter. The Holy Ghost supplied him with
thoughts, arrangement, sentences, and even words. And the result is, that what
St. Luke wrote is not to be read as the "word of man," but the
"word of God." (I Thess. ii. 13.)
Let us carefully hold fast the great doctrine of
the plenary inspiration of every word of the Bible. Let us never allow that any
writer of the Old or New Testament could make even the slightest verbal mistake
or error, when writing as he was "moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter
i. 21.) Let it be a settled principle with us in reading the Bible, that when
we cannot understand a passage, or reconcile it with some other passage, the
fault is not in the Book, but in ourselves. The adoption of this principle will
place our feet upon a rock. To give it up is to stand upon a quicksand, and to
fill our minds with endless uncertainties and doubts.
Finally, St. Luke informs us of one main
object he had in view in writing his Gospel. It was that Theophilus “might
know the certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed."
There is no encouragement here for those who
place confidence in unwritten traditions, and the voice of the church. St. Luke
knew well the weakness of man's memory, and the readiness with which a history
alters its shape both by additions and alterations, when it depends only on word of mouth and report.
What therefore does he do? He takes care to write."
There is no encouragement here for those who are
opposed to the spread of religious knowledge, and talk of ignorance as the
“mother of devotion." St. Luke
does not wish his friend to remain in doubt on any matter of his faith. He
tells him that he wants him to "know the certainty of those things wherein
he had been instructed."
Let us close the passage with thankfulness
for the Bible. Let us bless God daily that we are not left dependent on man's
traditions, and need not be led astray by ministers' mistakes. We have a
written volume, which is "able to make us wise unto salvation, through
faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. iii. 15.)
Let us begin St. Luke's Gospel with an
earnest desire to know more ourselves of the truth as it is in Jesus, and with
a hearty determination to do what in us lies to spread the knowledge of that
truth throughout the world.
NOTES. Luke
1:1-4
[Gospel
according to St-Luke.] Our information concerning .Luke is scanty. It is
conjectured by some that he was one of the seventy disciples sent forth by our
Lord, in addition to the twelve apostles. (Luke x. I -) There seems no reason
to doubt that he was the companion of St. Paul in his travels, and that he was
a “physician." (Col. iv. 14.) Some
have thought that his profession as a physician may be traced in his manner of
describing our Lord's miraculous cures of diseases,--and his
companionship of St, Paul in his manner of speaking on such subjects as God's
glory, and Christ’s love to sinners. It is generally agreed that
his Gospel was written with a special reference to Gentile converts, rather
then Jews. Jerome, Chrysostom, Ambrose,
and others, suppose that St. Paul refers to Luke and his Gospel, in the words, “the
brother whose praise is in the Gospel." (2 Cor. viii. 18.)-This however is
very questionable.
I.-[,Many have taken in hand.] Who these
,many" were, we do not know. That they wrote with any but good intentions
we have no right
to say. St. Luke's meaning appears to be simply this, that they wrote without
any divine call or inspiration. He certainly does not refer to Matthew and
Mark. Ambrose remarks, “Matthew did not take in hand, nor Mark, nor
John, nor Luke. They, the divine Spirit supplying them with abundance of all
words and matter, accomplished what they began without any effort."
[A declaration of those
things.] A
glance at the Greek in this sentence, will show us that the word “of,"
must be taken as a preposition, and means “about," or "
concerning."
[most surely believed.] The word so translated is
rendered, when applied to Abraham, (Rom. ix-. 21.) "fully persuaded” 'and
when applied to the preaching of the Gospel, "fully known," (2 Tim.
iv. 17.) Theophylact, in Suicer, defines it as meaning here, " things fully
proved by many arguments."
2.-[The Word.] Some think that this means the
Lord Jesus Christ,
the "Word,' who "was made flesh." John i. 14. It seems however more probable
that we are to take it as the written word, or word of the Gospel. It is not
clear that the Lord Jesus is ever called " the Word" 'by any Now
Testament writer, except John.
3.-[From the very first.] The Greek word so translated,
means literally, " from above." It is so rendered in John iii. 31 -
xix. II : James i. 17 : iii. 15 -. iii. 17. Gomarus and Lightfoot think that it should be taken in this sense, and
that it is an assertion of Luke's inspiration. The expression would then
signify, "having accurately traced up all things under Divine inspiration,
or teaching, from above." The majority of commentators agree with our
translators. The Bible writers do not generally assert their own inspiration.
The word in Acts xxvi. 5. is rendered, “from the beginning.”
[In order.] We must carefully observe
that this expression does not imply that Luke followed the chronological order
of the chief events in our Lord,,; history, more than the other
Evangelists. It rather signifies that
he grouped together, and classified in an orderly way, the principal facts which
he was inspired to record. Watson remarks, " Luke has less regard to
chronological order than Matthew or Mark, and rather classifies the events,
than narrates thorn in a series,-a method of composing history not uncommon
with the writers of antiquity." A.
Clarke gives an example of this in the life of Augustus, by Seutonius. Campbell
says that the word translated ‘in order,' “does not necessarily relate to time.
The proper import of it is distinctly, particularly, as opposed to confusedly,
generally."'
[Theophilus.] We know nothing certain about this person. The
prevailing opinion is, that he was some Christian Gentile, in a high position,
to whom St. Luke, for wise reasons, unknown to us, was directed to address
himself in writing his Gospel. The expression 'most excellent," seems to indicate
that he was no common person. It is the same expression which St. Paul
used in addressing Felix and Festus. Acts xxiv. 3: xxvi. 6.
4.-["Certainty."] This is the same
word which is translated "safety" in Acts v. 23, and I Thess. v. 3.
Luke 1:5-12: On "many have taken in hand"
Return to the J. C. Ryle Book Shelf.