Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Luke 1

Luke begins by indicating that there was considerable interest in data about Jesus and his ministry prior to the present work. Luke does not say he himself actually reproduced material from any of the existing accounts, though that could be assumed from this and subsequent evidence. Nor does Luke speak adversely about his predecessors as if their attempts had failed. “To draw up an account” means to write a report or narrative, relating events in an orderly way.

The contents of this work are the things that have been “fulfilled among us.” The word used here speaks of the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the life and ministry of Jesus.

In this verse Luke stresses the validity of the tradition of Jesus’ words and deeds (an emphasis that occurs elsewhere in the NT; see 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3). Although the “eyewitnesses [GK 898] and servants [GK 5677]” may have included some of the “many” (v.1), they are mostly to be distinguished from them because they were prior to them. Witnesses are important to Luke to establish the validity of his information. The words “from the first” (probably meaning from the early days of Jesus’ ministry) are tied grammatically to the word “eyewitnesses” (primarily the apostles, whose authority Luke upholds throughout Luke-Acts). These were not passive observers but “servants of the word.” “Word” (GK 3364) here means the message of the Gospel, especially as embodied in the words and deeds of Jesus. In Ac 1:1, Luke combines the words “do” and “teach” when he describes Jesus’ ministry. In summary, v.2 makes a serious claim regarding careful historical research that has weighty implications for our estimate of the entire gospel.

Luke now describes his own work of investigation and writing. The word “everything” may partially explain how his work differed from that of the “many” (v.1) and also from that of Mark—namely, in its greater comprehensiveness. He plans to start from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and to record his research accurately and in an orderly manner. We cannot determine from this preface alone whether Luke is referring to a chronological or to a thematic order.

The identity of Theophilus is unknown. The name (“friend of God”) might be either a symbol or a substitute for the true name of Luke’s addressee. Theophilus was, however, a proper name, and “most excellent” naturally suggests an actual person of some distinction. He may have been Luke’s literary patron or publisher, after the custom of the times.

Though it is not clear whether Theophilus was a believer, he had doubtless received some instructions in the faith. He had learned of both the words and the deeds of Jesus. “Taught” (GK 2994) may refer to formal church teaching (Galatians 6:6), but not necessarily. For some reason Theophilus needed assurance as to the truth of the things taught him. Possibly he was troubled by denials of the Resurrection and other historical foundations of the faith that incipient Gnostic speculation was challenging.

As has already been said, the style of this section is different from the classical style of vv.1–4. Likewise, the method of dating differs from that used later in 3:1, where Luke is interested in establishing a more precise point of historical reference. In this verse his only concern is to locate the events in the reign of Herod (king of Judea 37–4 B. C.). Luke emphasizes the Jewish roots of Christianity by mentioning that, not only was Zechariah a priest, but his wife Elizabeth had also been born into the priestly line. They are a truly pious couple wholly devoted to God. Their childlessness clearly did not imply any sin.