Luke 1:2 Commentary and Bible Study

Luke’s Gospel is reliant on eyewitness accounts. The importance of eyewitnesses is stressed in the New Testament (Luke 24:48; John 15:27; Acts 1:21; 2:32; 3:125; 4:20; 5:32; 10:39-41; 26:16; 1 Corinthians 15:6; hebrews 2:3; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 Peter 1:16). The apostles were eye-witnesses who witnessed the resurrection and were ready to die for their testimony. Luke was a reliable historian who researched carefully all that he wrote; the fact that his Gospel was inspired did not relieve him from having to investigate everything thoroughly. The Bible is not handed to us readymade from heaven as a complete text. It is inspired by the Spirit of God, but the Spirit does not bypass the human instrument or the work needed to obtain the account that he writes down. Luke speaks of himself as one who was not personally an eyewitness, but who depended on those who were eyewitnesses, placing himself among those who heard what the eyewitnesses said. ‘From the beginning’, the beginning of the ministry of Christ, and in the case of Mary, the beginning of the life of Christ, for she ‘kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart’ (Luke 2:19). Luke has evidently consulted Mary, and investigated the ministry of John the Baptist. They were early eyewitnesses.There was certainly an oral body of truth delivered unto them that believed. How could the eyewitnesses to these things not speak of such glorious and transforming truths? The woman at the well immediately left her waterpot and went into the city to tell everyone that she had found the Christ. The two on the road to Emmaus, returned to Jerusalem to tell the good news of the resurrection of Christ to the eleven that same night. Again and again the Book of Acts tells us that the apostles were witnesses to these things. The life and teaching of Christ was delivered orally, but needed to be preserved in writing if it was to be reliably passed down to succeeding generations. Luke saw that the body of truth could not be safely preserved unless it was written down, and he was led by God to carry out this noble task. But Luke is also referring to written material when he says, ‘many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration.’ Mark was one who had taken in hand to set forth in order what was written. Hendriksen argues for the priority of Mark, and explains that Luke may have used Mark, but not that Mark used Luke (Matthew commentary pages 36-47). Among other things, he points out that both Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s narrative order, but at times with distinct variations of their own. If one varies from Mark, the other stays with Mark. When they return from any variation, it is to Mark’s order that they return, so that Mark is ‘the man in the middle.’ Hendriksen also points to Mark’s use of the original word spoken by the Lord Jesus – whether Hebrew or Aramaic – when it is absent from Matthew and Luke, even in passages where they run in parallel. He also accepts that Luke used limited written records of certain things, but not that he worked from another complete Gospel which has failed to be preserved (the Q hypothesis).‘Ministers of the word’, servants of the word of God. They were formerly recognised ministers, official teachers in the churches. This is an early use of the term that describes the pastoral office, though some of these may have been apostles also. Christ prepared his apostles and sent them out to teach. The church was to have a teaching office from the start. As Hendriksen notes, they placed themselves under the word as its servants; the great thing was the word itself.