Albert Barnes Commentary Luke 1

PREFACE TO Luke

Little is certainly known regarding the time and place of writing this Gospel, or regarding the author. The first time we have any mention of the author is in his own history, Acts 16:10–11. He was then the companion of Paul in his travels, and it is evident that he often attended Paul in his journeys (Acts 21:1–6).

In each of these places, the author of the Book of Acts speaks of being in company with Paul. That the same person was the writer of this Gospel is also clear from Acts 1:1.

From this circumstance, the ancients regarded this Gospel as, in fact, the Gospel which Paul had preached. They affirm that Luke recorded what the apostle preached. Thus Irenaeus says, "Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him." He also says, "Luke was not only a companion but also a fellow worker of the apostles, especially of Paul." Origen, speaking of the Gospels, says, "The third is that according to Luke, the gospel endorsed by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts." The testimony of the fathers is uniform that it was written by Luke, the companion of Paul, and was therefore regarded by them as really the gospel which Paul preached.

It is not known where it was written. Jerome says it was composed in Achaia. There seems to be some probability that it was written to people who were well acquainted with Jewish customs, as the author does not stop to explain the peculiar customs of the Jews, as some of the other evangelists have done. Regarding the time when it was written, nothing very definite is known. All that can be ascertained with certainty is that it was written before the death of Paul (A.D. 65), for it was written before the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1). That book only brings down the life of Paul to his imprisonment at Rome and before he went to Spain.

It has been made a matter of inquiry whether Luke was a Gentile or a Jew. On this subject, there is no positive testimony. Jerome and others of the fathers say that he was a Syrian and born at Antioch. The most probable opinion seems to be that he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, though descended from Gentile parents.

For this opinion, two reasons of some weight may be assigned:

1. He was intimately acquainted, as is apparent from the Gospel and the Acts, with Jewish rites, customs, opinions, and prejudices. He wrote in their dialect, that is, with much Hebrew phraseology, in a style similar to the other evangelists. This indicates he was accustomed to the Jewish religion and was, therefore, probably a proselyte. Yet the preface to his Gospel, as critics have remarked, is pure classic Greek, unlike the Greek used by native Jews, from which it seems not improbable that he was by birth and education a Gentile.
2. In Acts 21:27, it is said that the Asiatic Jews incited the multitude against Paul because he had introduced Gentiles into the temple, thus defiling it. In Acts 21:28, it is said that the Gentile to whom they referred was Trophimus, an Ephesian. Yet Luke was also with Paul at that time. If he had been regarded as a Gentile, it is probable that they would have complained about him as well as Trophimus; from this, it is supposed that he was a Jewish proselyte.

But again, in the Epistle to the Colossians, Colossians 4:9–11, we find Paul saying that Aristarchus, Marcus, Barnabas, and Justus greeted them, "who are," he adds, "of the circumcision," that is, Jews by birth. In Colossians 4:14, he says that Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas also greeted them; from which it is inferred that they were not of the circumcision but were by birth Gentiles.

Most writers suppose that Luke, the writer of this Gospel, was intended in the passage mentioned above in Colossians. If so, his profession was that of a physician; and it has been remarked that his descriptions of diseases are more accurate and circumstantial, and have more technical correctness than those of the other evangelists.

Luke does not profess to have been an eyewitness of what he recorded . It is clear, therefore, that he was not one of the seventy disciples, nor one of the two who went to Emmaus, as has sometimes been supposed. Nor was he an apostle. By the fathers, he is uniformly called the companion of the apostles, and especially of Paul.

If he was not one of the apostles, and if he was not one of those expressly commissioned by our Lord to whom the promise of the infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost was given, the question arises: by what authority do his Gospel and the Book of Acts have a place in the sacred canon, or what evidence is there that he was divinely inspired?

In regard to this question, the following considerations may provide satisfaction:

1. They were received by all the churches on the same basis as the first three Gospels. There is not a dissenting voice regarding their authenticity and authority. The value of this argument is this: if they had been spurious or without authority, the fathers were the proper people to know it.
2. They were published during the lives of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, and were received during their lives as books of sacred authority. If the writings of Luke were not inspired and had no authority, those apostles could easily have destroyed their credit, and we have reason to think it would have been done.
3. It is the united testimony of the fathers that this Gospel was submitted to Paul and received his express approval. It was regarded as the substance of his preaching, and if it received his approval, it comes to us on the authority of his name. Indeed, if this is the case, it rests on the same authority as the epistles of Paul himself.
4. It bears the same marks of inspiration as the other books. It is simple, pure, yet sublime; there is nothing unworthy of God; and it is elevated far above the writings of any uninspired man.
5. If he was not inspired—if, as we suppose, he was a Gentile by birth—and if, as is most clear, he was not an eyewitness of what he records—it is inconceivable that he did not contradict the other evangelists. That he did not borrow from them is clear. Nor is it possible to conceive that he could write a book varying so much in the order of its arrangement, adding so many new facts, and repeating so many also recorded by the others, without often having contradicted what was written by them. Let any man compare this Gospel with the spurious gospels of the following centuries, and he will be struck by the force of this remark.
6. If it is objected that, not being an apostle, he did not come within the promise of inspiration (John 14:26; John 16:13–14) made to the apostles, it may be replied that this was also the case with Paul; yet no small part of the New Testament is composed of his writings. The evidence of the inspiration of the writings of Luke and Paul is to be judged not only by that promise, but by the early reception of the churches, by the testimony of the fathers as to the judgment of inspired men when living, and by the internal character of the works. Luke has all these equally with the other evangelists.

Luke

CHAPTER 1

Forasmuch as many. It has been doubted who are referred to here by the word many. It seems clear that it could not be the other evangelists, for the Gospel by John was not yet written, and the word many clearly denotes more than two. Besides, it is said that they undertook to record what the eyewitnesses had delivered to them, so that the writers did not pretend to be eyewitnesses themselves.

It is clear, therefore, that writings other than the gospels we now have are meant, but what they were is a matter of conjecture. What are now known as spurious gospels were written long after Luke wrote his. It is probable that Luke refers to fragments of history, or to narratives of detached sayings, acts, or parables of our Lord, which had been made and circulated among the disciples and others.

His doctrines were original, bold, pure, and authoritative. His miracles had been extraordinary, clear, and awe-inspiring. His life and death had been peculiar; and it is not improbable—indeed, it is highly probable—that such broken accounts and narratives of detached facts would be preserved. That this is what Luke means appears further from Luke 1:3, where he professes to give a regular, full, and systematic account from the very beginning: having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first. The records of the others—the "many"—were broken and incomplete. His were to be regular and full.

Taken in hand. Undertaken, attempted.

To set forth in order. To compose a narrative. It does not refer to the order or arrangement, but means simply to give a narrative. The word rendered here in order is different from that in the third verse, which has reference to order, or to a full and fair arrangement of the principal facts, etc., in the history of our Lord.

A declaration. A narrative—an account of.

Which are most surely believed among us. Among Christians—among all the Christians then living. Here we may remark:

1. That Christians of that day had the best of all opportunities for knowing whether those things were true. Many had seen them, and all others had had the account from those who had witnessed them.
2. That unbelievers now cannot possibly be as good judges in the matter as those who lived at the time, and who were thus competent to determine whether these things were true or false.
3. That all Christians do most surely believe the truth of the gospel. It is their life, their hope, their all. Nor can they doubt that their Savior lived, bled, died, rose, and still lives; that he was their atoning sacrifice; and that he is God over all, blessed forever.

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, etc. 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:

1. That in religion God does not set aside our natural faculties. He calls us to look at evidence, to examine accounts, and to make up our own minds. Nor will any person be convinced of the truth of religion who does not make investigation and set himself seriously to the task.
2. We see the nature of Luke's inspiration. It was consistent with his using his natural faculties or his own powers of mind in investigating the truth. God, by his Holy Spirit, presided over his faculties, directed them, and kept him from error.

In order. This word does not indicate that the exact order of time would be observed, for that is not the way in which he writes; but it means distinctly, particularly, in opposition to the confused and broken accounts to which he had referred before.

Most excellent Theophilus. The word Theophilus means a friend of God, or a pious man. It has been supposed by some that Luke did not refer to any particular individual, but to any person who loved God; however, 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" further proves it. It would not be given to an unknown person.

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 in only three other places in the New Testament, and is there given to men in office—to Felix and Festus (Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25).

These titles express no quality of the men but belong to the office. From this we may learn that it is not improper for Christians, in giving honour to whom honour is due, to address people in office by their customary titles, even if their moral character is 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.

Shall be great. He will be eminent, or distinguished as a preacher.

In the sight of the Lord. In Greek, before the Lord. That is, he will be really or truly great. God will regard him as such.

Shall drink neither wine. The kind of wine commonly used in Judea was a light wine, often not stronger than cider in this country. It was the common drink of all classes of the people (see the notes on John 2:11).

The use of wine was forbidden only to the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3). It was because John sustained this character that he abstained from the use of wine.

Strong drink. It is not easy to ascertain precisely what is meant by this word, but we are certain that it does not mean strong drink in our sense of the term. Distilled spirits were not then known. The art of distilling was discovered by an Arabian chemist in the ninth or tenth century, but distilled liquors are not used by Arabians.

They banished them at once, as if aware of their pernicious influence, nor are they used in Eastern nations at all. Europe and America have been the places where this poison has been most extensively used, and there it has beggared and ruined millions, and is yearly sweeping thousands unprepared into a wretched eternity.

The strong drink among the Jews was probably nothing more than fermented liquors, or a drink obtained from fermented dates, figs, and the juice of the palm, or the lees of wine, mixed with sugar, and having the property of producing intoxication. Many of the Jewish writers say that by the word here translated strong drink was meant nothing more than old wine, which probably had the power of producing intoxication (see the notes on Isaiah 5:11).

Shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, etc. He will be divinely designated or appointed to this office, and qualified for it by all necessary communications of the Holy Spirit. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be illuminated, sanctified, and guided by his influence. In this place it refers to the following:

1. To the divine intention that he should be set apart to this work, as God designed that Paul should be an apostle from his mother's womb (Galatians 1:15).
2. It refers to an actual fitting for the work from birth by the influence of the Holy Spirit, as was the case with Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5), and with the Messiah himself (Psalms 22:9–10).

Children of Israel. Jews. Descendants of Israel or Jacob.

Shall he turn. By repentance. He shall call them from their sins, and persuade them to forsake them, and to seek the Lord their God.

Shall go before him. Before the Messiah. The connection here leads us to suppose that the word “him” refers to the “Lord their God” in the previous verse. If so, then it will follow that the Messiah was the Lord God of Israel—a character abundantly given him in other parts of the New Testament.

In the spirit and power of Elias.

(See the comments on Matthew 11:14.)

To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. In the time of John, the Jews were divided into a number of different sects (see the comments on Matthew 3:7).

They were opposed violently to each other and pursued their opposition with great animosity. It was inevitable that this opposition would find its way into families and divide parents and children from each other.

John came so that he might allay these animosities and produce better feeling. By directing them all to one Master, the Messiah, he would divert their attention from the causes of their difference and bring them to union.

He would restore peace to their families and reconcile those parents and children who had chosen different sects and who had allowed their attachment to sect to interrupt the harmony of their households.

The effect of true religion on a family will always be to produce harmony. It attaches all the family to one great Master, and through attachment to him, all minor causes of difference are forgotten.

And the disobedient to the wisdom of the just. The disobedient here are the unbelieving, and therefore the impious, the wicked. These he would turn to the wisdom of the just, or to such wisdom as the just or pious manifest—that is, to true wisdom.

To make ready a people, and so on. This means to prepare them for his coming by announcing that the Messiah was about to appear and by calling them to repentance.

God has always required people to be pure in a special manner when he was about to appear among them. For example, the Israelites were required to purify themselves for three days when he was about to come down on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:14–15).

And so, when God the Son was about to appear as the Redeemer, he required that people should prepare themselves for his coming. Similarly, in view of the future judgment—the second coming of the Son of Man—he requires that people should repent, believe, and be pure (1 Peter 4:7; 2 Peter 3:11–12).

(Psalms 111:10)