Bible Study Notes: St Luke’s Gospel
Session 2 - Chapter 1 vs. 1-4
So many others have tried their hand at putting together
a story of the wonderful harvest of Scripture and history that took place
among us, using reports handed down by the original eyewitnesses who served
this Word with their very lives. Since I have investigated all the reports
in close detail, starting from the story's beginning, I decided to write
it all out for you, most honourable Theophilus, so you can know beyond
the shadow of a doubt the reliability of what you were taught.
© The
Message
In the introductory session we looked at the prologue to the books of St Luke; his Gospel and the Book of the Acts; and I think it fairly safe to conclude that the introduction was intended for both books, and that the second book should move on seamlessly from the first.
We noted that Luke’s purpose in writing, set out in verse 4, to Theophilus, whoever they might be, was that we should know the truth concerning Jesus. We also concluded that, given Luke’s style, we, you and me, could just as easily be the Theophilus, God lover, which Luke is referring to. We are to discover the truth about Jesus.
His prologue contains a known format for writers of the time.
- The author
- A dedication
- A statement of subject matter
- The author’s sources of information
- Is reliance on eyewitnesses?
All those elements are contained in the first four verses and he joins the style of such writers of the time as, Josephus and Hero of Alexandria.
Various scholars translating Luke’s gospel have attempted to omit this introduction on the basis that it is too individual and private for a gospel deemed to be general and universal. But that’s just the point of St Luke; he wants us to know the truth concerning a very individual and personal Jesus. Our task as we read the books is to discover for ourselves this Jesus.
The preface gets off to an uncertain start in verse 1 by alluding to many other writings on the same subject. Luke does not tell us of his thoughts on these writings just draws our attention to them.
He tells us in verse 1 that he wishes to record those things that have been accomplished. The things that have been done; not the words of Christian instruction, but to Christian events. So the writing of the Acts makes even more sense. Contrasts with Matthew who wants to talk of fulfilment rather than accomplishment, which is what gives Luke’s gospel a distinctive style.
In verse 2 he remind us of the delivery of these facts, reminding us that the earliest Christian writings relied upon the oral tradition of the time.
The oral tradition that was prevalent is different from the tale telling that we are more familiar with. This was no idle gossip or Chinese whispers. It was, in a sense, the fact that it was an oral tradition that validated it. So he is appealing to a Tradition to which they would all have subscribed.
We may think that this renders any account unreliable, but the historian Eusebius, writing about the same time, reminds us, “To collect information from a book is not the same as learning from a living voice”.
An interesting point is to be noted in verse 2 where he talks of ‘ministers of the word’. He is not using the ‘Word’ as we learnt it in John’ ‘the Logos’ and yet when we get to looking at the Acts we will find that he does. Here he is merely talking about the gospel events, those things that the eyewitnesses have reported on.
The expression, ‘ministers of the word’, is unique to Luke and derives from an Hellenistic/Greek word for minister as one who serves but not in the sense of a slave but as a trusted subordinate to a god or another type of authority, a sort of lieutenant, someone who could really be trusted. When we get to look at the Acts of the Apostles we will find a number of such people such as Mark, when he is recruited to travel with Paul & Barnabas (13 v 5)
The statement in the opening of verse 3 caused problems for some of the early scholars because, whilst the phrase, ‘it seemed good to me’ literally, ‘I think’ was considered rather presumptuous. When Luke uses the expression in Acts scholars have added, ‘and to the Holy Spirit’ lest any should be led to think that this is just St Luke speaking and acting.
Also in verse 3 you will notice that Luke uses a very inclusive claim. He says, ‘having followed all things closely’. Again a typical style, he does the same at the beginning of Acts (1 v 1), so when he says ‘all’ this is a convention that cannot be followed literally but is meant to express the importance of the narrative.
Finally in verse 4 he gets to the point. For truth here we need to realise that it is not about knowing, ‘the true meaning’ or ‘the inner, full significance’.
Luke says, ‘you may know the truth’, and here the expression has a number of meanings; you may recognise, get to know, learn, ascertain. ‘It is not to know that something is certain, but to know for certain about something’. ‘The truth’, here uses a word that would have meant safety or security. He wants us to be safe, secure in knowing the truth.
But, it is not only about knowing, it is equally importantly about experiencing. He is talking about events, not theological issues, things that actually happened, unlike John’s prologue that takes us soaring into the heights of theology. Luke keeps us grounded with the person of Jesus.
© Fr Michael Fuller: October 2007