John Calvin Commentary Luke 1
John Calvin Commentary
Luke 1
John Calvin Commentary
Luke 1
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us," — Luke 1:1 (ASV)
Luke is the only Evangelist who makes a preface to his Gospel, for the purpose of explaining briefly the motive which led him to write. By addressing a single individual, he may appear to have acted foolishly, instead of sounding the trumpet aloud, as was his duty, and inviting all men to believe. It appears, therefore, to be unsuitable that the doctrine which does not specifically belong to one person or to another, but is common to all, should be privately sent to his friend Theophilus.
Therefore, some have been led to think that Theophilus is an appellative noun, and is applied to all godly persons on account of their love of God; but the epithet joined to it is inconsistent with that opinion. Nor is there any reason to fear the absurdity that led them to adopt such a measure. For it is no less true that Paul’s doctrine belongs to all, though some of his Epistles were addressed to certain cities, and others to certain men.
Indeed, we must acknowledge, if we take into account the state of those times, that Luke adopted a conscientious and prudent course. There were tyrants on every side who, by terror and alarm, were prepared to hinder the progress of sound doctrine. This gave Satan and his ministers an opportunity for spreading the clouds of error, by which the pure light would be obscured.
Now, as most people cared little about maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and few considered attentively the schemes of Satan or the amount of danger that lurked under such disguises, everyone who excelled others by uncommon faith, or by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was all the more strongly bound to do his utmost, through care and diligence, for preserving the doctrine of godliness pure and uncontaminated from all corruption.
Such people were chosen by God to be the sacred keepers of the law, through whom the heavenly doctrine committed to them should be faithfully handed down to posterity. With this in mind, therefore, Luke dedicates his Gospel to Theophilus, so that he might undertake its faithful preservation; and the same duty Paul commands and recommends to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:14; 2 Timothy 3:14).
Forasmuch as many. He assigns a reason for writing which, one would think, should rather have dissuaded him from writing. To compose a history that had already occupied many authors was unnecessary work, at least if they had faithfully fulfilled their duty. But no accusation of deception, carelessness, or any other fault is in the slightest degree suggested. It seems, therefore, as if he were expressing a determination to do what had already been done.
I answer, although he deals gently with those who had written before him, he does not entirely approve of their works. He does not expressly say that they had written on matters with which they were incompletely familiar, but by claiming certainty regarding the facts, he modestly denies their claim to full and unwavering confidence.
It may be objected that, if they made false statements, they should have been severely criticized. I answer again, they may not have been greatly at fault; they may have erred more from lack of consideration than from malice, and consequently, there would be no need for a harsher attack. And certainly, there is reason to believe that these were little more than historical sketches which, though relatively harmless at the time, would afterwards, if they had not been quickly counteracted, have done serious harm to the faith.
But it is noteworthy that, in applying this remedy through Luke to unnecessary writings, God had a wonderful purpose in view: to obtain, by universal agreement, the rejection of others, and thus secure sole credit for those Gospels which brightly reflect His adorable majesty. There is less excuse for those foolish people by whom disgusting stories, under the name of Nicodemus or some other person, are nowadays foisted upon the world.
Are most surely believed among us. The participle πεπληροφορημένα, which Luke uses, denotes things fully ascertained and which do not admit of doubt. The old translator has repeatedly made mistakes with this word, and through that ignorance has given us a corrupted meaning of some very beautiful passages. One of these occurs in the writings of Paul, where he commands every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind (Romans 14:5), so that conscience may not hesitate and waver, tossed to and fro (Ephesians 4:14) by doubtful opinions. From this, too, is derived the word πληροφορία, which he erroneously translates as fullness, while it denotes that strong conviction springing from faith, in which godly minds safely rest. There is still, as I have said, an implied contrast, because by claiming for himself the authority of a faithful witness, he undermines the credibility of others who give contrary statements.
Among us17 has the same meaning as with us.18 He appears to make faith rest on a weak foundation—its relation to men—while it ought to rest on the Word of God only; and certainly the full assurance (πληροφορία) of faith is ascribed to the sealing of the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 10:22).
I answer, if the Word of God does not hold the first rank, faith will not be satisfied with any human testimonies; but where the inward confirmation of the Spirit has already taken place, it allows them some weight in the historical knowledge of facts. By historical knowledge, I mean that knowledge we obtain about events, either by our own observation or by the statements of others. For, regarding the visible works of God, it is equally proper to listen to eye-witnesses as to rely on experience.
Besides, those whom Luke follows were not private authors but were also ministers of the Word. By this commendation, he elevates them above the rank of human authority, for he implies that the persons from whom he received his information had been divinely authorized to preach the Gospel. From this also comes that security which he shortly afterwards mentions, and which, if it does not rest upon God, may soon be disturbed. There is great weight in his calling those from whom he received his Gospel ministers of the Word; for on that basis, believers conclude that the witnesses are, as the Lawyers express it, beyond all exception and cannot lawfully be set aside.
Erasmus, who borrowed from Virgil19 a phrase used in his version, did not sufficiently consider the esteem and weight due to a divine calling. Luke does not speak in a profane style but commands us, in the person of his friend Theophilus, to keep in view the command of Christ and to hear with reverence the Son of God speaking through His apostles. It is a significant matter that he affirms them to have been eye-witnesses, but by calling them ministers, he takes them out of the common order of men, so that our faith may have its support in heaven and not on earth.
In short, Luke’s meaning is this: “that, since you now have those things committed faithfully to writing which you had formerly learned by oral statements, you may place a stronger reliance on the received doctrine.” It is therefore evident that God has used every method to prevent our faith from being suspended on the doubtful and shifting opinions of men.
There is less room for excusing the ingratitude of the world, which, as if it openly preferred the uncertainty arising from vague and unfounded reports, turns away from so great a divine favor with loathing. But let us pay attention to the remarkable distinction which our Lord has laid down, so that foolish credulity may not creep in under the name of faith. Meanwhile, let us allow the world to be lured, as it deserves, by the deceitful baits of foolish curiosity, and even to surrender itself willingly to the delusions of Satan.
17 Inter nos..
18 Apud nos..
19 Quorum pars magna fui. — . — Virg. AEn.
"it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;" — Luke 1:3 (ASV)
Having carefully examined all things: the old translator renders it as having followed out all things;20 and the Greek verb παρακολουθεῖν is taken metaphorically from those who tread in the footsteps of others, so that nothing escapes them.
So 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 that his diligence was such that he perceived everything that had been done as well as if he had been a spectator.
20 Omnia assequuto..
"There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth." — Luke 1:5 (ASV)
Luke very properly begins his Gospel with John the Baptist, just as a person who was going to speak about the daylight would commence with the dawn. For, like the dawn, he went before the Sun of Righteousness, which was shortly to arise. Others also mention him, but they bring him forward as already discharging his office. Luke secures our respect for him, while he was still unborn, by announcing the miracles of divine power which took place at the earliest period of his existence, and by showing that he had a commission from heaven to be a prophet, before it was possible for men to know what his character would be. His object was that John might afterwards be heard with more profound veneration, when he would come forth invested with a public office to exhibit the glory of Christ.
In the days of Herod. This was the son of Antipater, whom his father elevated to the throne, and labored with such diligence and toil to advance, that he was afterwards surnamed Herod the Great. Some think that he is here mentioned by Luke because he was their first foreign king, and that this was a suitable time for their deliverance, because the scepter had passed into a different nation. But those who speak in this manner do not correctly understand Jacob’s prophecy (Genesis 49:10), in which the advent of the Messiah is promised not merely after the royal authority had been taken from the Jews, but after it had been removed from the tribe of Judah.
The holy patriarch did not even imply that the tribe of Judah would be stripped of its supremacy, but that the government of the people would steadily remain in it until Christ, in whose person its permanence would finally be secured. When the Maccabees flourished, the tribe of Judah was reduced nearly to a private rank; and shortly afterwards, John, the latest leader of that lineage, was slain. But even at that time, its power was not completely annihilated. For there still remained the Sanhedrin, or Council selected out of the family and descendants of David, which possessed great authority and lasted until the time of Herod. Herod, by a shocking slaughter of the judges, revenged the punishment formerly inflicted on himself when he was condemned for murder and forced to undergo voluntary exile to escape capital punishment.
It was not, therefore, because he was of foreign extraction that the reign of Herod broke the scepter of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10), but because whatever relics of superior rank still lingered in that tribe were entirely carried off by his robbery. That its royal dignity had crumbled down long before, and that by slow degrees its supremacy had nearly given way, does not imply such a discontinuance as to be at variance with Jacob’s prophecy. For God had promised two things seemingly opposite: that the throne of David would be eternal (Psalms 89:29, 36), and that, after it had been destroyed, he would raise up its ruins (Amos 9:11); that the sway of his kingly power would be eternal, and yet that there should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1). Both must be fulfilled.
That supremacy, therefore, which God had bestowed on the tribe of Judah, was allowed by him to be broken down for a time, so that the attention of the people might be more strongly directed to the expectation of Christ’s reign. But when the destruction of the Sanhedrin appeared to have cut off the hope of believers, suddenly the Lord shone forth. Now, it belongs to the arrangement of history to mark the date of the transaction; but for no light reason did the word king mark, at the same time, the wretchedness of that period, in order to remind the Jews that their eyes should now be turned to the Messiah, if they would sincerely keep the covenant of God.
Zacharias, of the course of Abia. We learn from sacred history (1 Chronicles 24:3, 31) that the families of the priests were arranged by David in certain classes. In this matter, David attempted nothing contrary to what the law commanded. God had bestowed the priesthood on Aaron and his sons (Exodus 28:1). The other Levites were set apart to inferior offices (Numbers 3:9). David made no change in this respect; but his object was partly to secure that nothing would be done in tumult and disorder, partly to oppose ambition, and at the same time to ensure that it would not be in the power of a few persons, by taking the whole service into their own hands, to leave the greater number unemployed at home.
Now in that arrangement, Abijah, son of Eleazar, held the eighth rank (1 Chronicles 24:10). Zacharias, therefore, belonged to the priestly family and to the posterity of Eleazar who had succeeded his father in the high priest’s office (Numbers 20:28). In what manner Elisabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, could be Mary’s cousin (verse 36), I will explain in the proper place. It is certainly by way of respect that Luke mentions the genealogy of Elisabeth; for Zacharias was permitted by the law to marry a daughter of any private Levite. From this suitable marriage, therefore, it is evident that he was a man respected among his own rank.
"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." — Luke 1:6 (ASV)
And they were both righteous before God. He bestows on them a noble testimony: not only that among people they lived holy and upright lives, but also that they were righteous before God. This righteousness Luke defines briefly by saying that they walked in all the commandments of God.
Both aspects should be carefully observed. For although praise is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth to show us that the lamp, whose light preceded the Son of God, was taken not from an obscure house but from an illustrious sanctuary, their example also presents to us the rule of a devout and righteous life.
Therefore, in ordering our lives (Psalms 37:23), our first concern should be to be approved by God. We know that He primarily requires a sincere heart and a pure conscience. Whoever neglects uprightness of heart and regulates his outward life only by obedience to the law neglects this order.
For it should be remembered that the heart, and not the outward mask of works, is primarily regarded by God, to whom we are commanded to look. Obedience occupies the second rank; that is, no one must devise for themselves, according to their own pleasure, a new form of righteousness unsupported by the Word of God, but we must allow ourselves to be governed by divine authority.
Nor should we neglect this definition: that they are righteous who regulate their life by the commandments of the law. This implies that, in God’s sight, all acts of worship are counterfeit, and the course of human life false and unsettled, to the extent that they depart from His law.
Commandments and ordinances differ in this way. The latter term relates strictly to exercises of piety and divine worship; the former is more general, extending both to the worship of God and to the duties of charity. For the Hebrew word הקים, which signifies statutes or decrees, is rendered by the Greek translator as δικαιώματα, ordinances; and in Scripture הקים usually denotes those services which the people were accustomed to perform in the worship of God and in the profession of their faith. Now, although hypocrites are very careful and exact in that respect, they do not at all resemble Zacharias and Elisabeth. For sincere worshippers of God, like these two, do not cling to naked and empty ceremonies but, eagerly focused on the truth, observe them in a spiritual manner. Unholy and hypocritical persons, though they expend diligent effort on outward ceremonies, are still far from observing them as enjoined by the Lord and, consequently, only waste their labor. In short, under these two words Luke embraces the whole law.
But if Zacharias and Elisabeth were blameless in keeping the law, they would have had no need of Christ's grace; for complete observance of the law brings life, and where there is no transgression of it, no guilt remains. I reply that these magnificent commendations bestowed on God's servants must be understood with some qualification.
For we should consider how God deals with them. He deals with them according to the covenant He has made with them, the first clause of which is free reconciliation and daily pardon, by which He forgives their sins. They are accounted righteous and blameless because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness and that the fear of God dwells in them, as they set a holy example.
But since their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God without obtaining pardon. The righteousness commended in them depends on God's gracious forbearance, as He does not count their remaining unrighteousness against them. In this way, we must explain any expressions in Scripture applied to human righteousness, so as not to overturn the forgiveness of sins, on which this righteousness rests like a house on its foundation.
Those who explain this to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith—simply because they freely obtained God's favor through the Mediator—distort and misapply Luke's words. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the truth, but not the whole. I do acknowledge that the righteousness ascribed to them should be regarded as obtained not by the merit of works but by the grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed their sins to them, He has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect, life the designation of righteousness.
The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. They contrast the righteousness of faith with this righteousness ascribed to Zacharias. However, the latter certainly springs from the former and therefore must be subject, inferior, and (to use a common expression) subordinate to it, so that there is no conflict between them. The false interpretation, too, which they give to a single word is pitiful.
Ordinances, they tell us, are called commandments of the law, and therefore, they claim, these justify us. It is as if we asserted that true righteousness is not set forth in the law, or complained that its instruction is at fault for not justifying us, rather than acknowledging that the law is weak through our flesh (Romans 8:3). In God's commandments, as we have countless times acknowledged, life is contained (Leviticus 18:5; Matthew 19:17), but this will be of no avail to people, who by nature were altogether opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by God's Spirit, are still very far from observing it perfectly.
"And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were [now] well stricken in years." — Luke 1:7 (ASV)
And they had no child. By an extraordinary purpose of God it was appointed that John should be born out of the common and ordinary course of nature. The same thing happened with Isaac (Genesis 17:17; Genesis 21:1–3), in whom God had determined to give an uncommon and remarkable demonstration of his favor. Elisabeth had been barren in the prime of life, and now she was in old age, which in itself closes the womb.
By these two hindrances, therefore, the Lord gives a twofold, surprising exhibition of his power, in order to testify, by stretching out his hand, as it were, from heaven, that the Prophet was sent by himself (Malachi 3:1; John 1:6). He is indeed a mortal man, born of earthly parents; but a supernatural method, so to speak, recommends him strongly, as if he had fallen from heaven.
Jump to: