Luk 1:1, Rom 14:5, 2Ti 4:5, 17 | Barnes | STEP | PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. Little is certainly known concerning the time and place of writing this Gospel, or concerning the author. The first time we have any mention of the author is in his own history, . He was then the companion of Paul in his travel, and it is evident that he often attended Paul in his journeys, comp. . In each of these places the author of "the Acts" speaks of his being in company with Paul. That the same person was the writer of this Gospel is also clear from . 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, put down in a book the gospel preached by him." He also says, "Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul." Origen, speaking of the Gospels, says, "The third is that according to Luke, the gospel commended 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 persons that were well acquainted with Jewish manners, as the author does not stop to explain the peculiar customs of the Jews, as some of the other evangelists have done. Respecting the time when it was written nothing very definite is known. All that can with certainty be ascertained is that it was written before the death of Paul (A.D. 65), for it was written before the Acts ( ), and that book only brings down the life of Paul to his imprisonment at Rome, and previous to his going into 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 may be assigned of some weight. 1st. He was intimately acquainted, as appears by the Gospel and the Acts, with the Jewish rites, customs, opinions, and prejudices; and he wrote in their dialect , that is, with much of the Hebrew phraseology, in a style similar to the other evangelists, from which it appears that 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 that was used by native Jews; from which it seems not improbable that he was by birth and education a Gentile. 2nd. In , it is said that the Asiatic Jews excited the multitude against Paul because he had introduced Gentiles into the temple, thus defiling it. In it is said that the Gentile to whom they had reference was Trophimus , an Ephesian. Yet Luke was also at that time with Paul. If he had been regarded as a Gentile it is probable that they would have made complaint respecting him as well as Trophimus; from which it is supposed that he was a Jewish proselyte. But again, in the Epistle to the Colossians, , we find Paul saying that Aristarchus, and Marcus, and Barnabas, and Justus saluted them, "who are," he adds, " of the circumcision ," that is, Jews by birth. In he says that Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas also saluted 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 above place 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 of technical correctness than those of the other evangelists. Luke does not profess to have been an eye-witness of what he recorded. See . It is clear, therefore, that he was not one of the seventy disciples, nor one of the two who went to Emmaus, as has been sometimes 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 his Gospel and the 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 give satisfaction: 1st. They were received by all the churches on the same footing as the first three Gospels. There is not a dissenting voice in regard to their authenticity and authority. The value of this argument is this--that if they had been spurious, or without authority, the fathers were the proper persons to know it. 2nd. 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. 3rd. It is the united testimony of the fathers that this Gospel was submitted to Paul, and received his express approbation. It was regarded as the substance of his preaching, and if it received his approbation it comes to us on the authority of his name. Indeed, if this be the case, it rests on the same authority as the epistles of Paul himself. 4th. 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. 5th. 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 witness 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 in the order of its arrangement so much, and adding so many new facts, and repeating so many recorded also 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 with the force of this remark. 6th. If it be objected that, not being an apostle, he did not come within the promise of inspiration ( ) 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. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE CHAPTER 1 Verse 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 denotes clearly more than two . Besides, it is said that they undertook to record what the eye-witnesses had delivered to them, so that the writers did not pretend to be eye-witnesses themselves. It is clear, therefore, that other writings are meant than the gospels which we now have, 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 awful. 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 farther from 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, &c., 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 -- 1st. 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. 2nd. That infidels 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. 3rd. 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 Saviour lived, bled, died, rose, and still lives; that he was their atoning sacrifice, and that he is God over all, blessed for ever.

Luke 1:1

PREFACE

TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

Little is certainly known concerning the time and place of writing this Gospel, or concerning 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 travel, and it is evident that he often attended Paul in his journeys, comp. Acts 16:11-17; 21:1-6. In each of these places the author of "the Acts" speaks of his 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, put down in a book the gospel preached by him."

He also says,

"Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul."

Origen, speaking of the Gospels, says,

"The third is that according to Luke, the gospel commended 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 persons that were well acquainted with Jewish manners, as the author does not stop to explain the peculiar customs of the Jews, as some of the other evangelists have done. Respecting the time when it was written nothing very definite is known. All that can with certainty be ascertained is that it was written before the death of Paul (A.D. 65), for it was written before the Acts (Acts 1:1), and that book only brings down the life of Paul to his imprisonment at Rome, and previous to his going into 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 may be assigned of some weight. 1st. He was intimately acquainted, as appears by the Gospel and the Acts, with the Jewish rites, customs, opinions, and prejudices; and he wrote in their dialect, that is, with much of the Hebrew phraseology, in a style similar to the other evangelists, from which it appears that 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 that was used by native Jews; from which it seems not improbable that he was by birth and education a Gentile.

2nd. In Acts 21:27, it is said that the Asiatic Jews excited 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 had reference was Trophimus, an Ephesian. Yet Luke was also at that time with Paul. If he had been regarded as a Gentile it is probable that they would have made complaint respecting him as well as Trophimus; from which it is supposed that he was a Jewish proselyte.

But again, in the Epistle to the Colossians, Co 4:9-11, we find Paul saying that Aristarchus, and Marcus, and Barnabas, and Justus saluted them, "who are," he adds, "of the circumcision," that is, Jews by birth. In Co 4:14 he says that Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas also saluted 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 above place 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 of technical correctness than those of the other evangelists.

Luke does not profess to have been an eye-witness of what he recorded. See Lk 1:2,3. It is clear, therefore, that he was not one of the seventy disciples, nor one of the two who went to Emmaus, as has been sometimes 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 his Gospel and the 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 give satisfaction:

1st. They were received by all the churches on the same footing as the first three Gospels. There is not a dissenting voice in regard to their authenticity and authority. The value of this argument is this--that if they had been spurious, or without authority, the fathers were the proper persons to know it.

2nd. 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.

3rd. It is the united testimony of the fathers that this Gospel was submitted to Paul, and received his express approbation. It was regarded as the substance of his preaching, and if it received his approbation it comes to us on the authority of his name. Indeed, if this be the case, it rests on the same authority as the epistles of Paul himself.

4th. 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.

5th. 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 witness 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 in the order of its arrangement so much, and adding so many new facts, and repeating so many recorded also 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 with the force of this remark.

6th. If it be objected that, not being an apostle, he did not come within the promise of inspiration (Jn 14:26, 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.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

CHAPTER 1

Verse 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 denotes clearly more than two. Besides, it is said that they undertook to record what the eye-witnesses had delivered to them, so that the writers did not pretend to be eye-witnesses themselves. It is clear, therefore, that other writings are meant than the gospels which we now have, 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 awful. 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 farther from Lk 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, &c., 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 -- 1st. 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.

2nd. That infidels 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.

3rd. 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 Saviour lived, bled, died, rose, and still lives; that he was their atoning sacrifice, and that he is God over all, blessed for ever.

Romans 14:5

Verse 5. One man esteemeth. Gr., judgeth, (κρινει). The word is here properly translated esteemeth. Comp. Acts 13:46, 16:15. The word originally has the idea of separating, and then discerning, in the act of judging. The expression means, that one would set a higher value on one day than on another, or would regard it as more sacred than others. This was the case with the Jews uniformly, who regarded the days of their festivals, and fasts, and Sabbaths as peculiarly sacred, and who would retain, to no inconsiderable degree, their former views, even after they became converted to Christianity.

Another esteemeth. That is, the Gentile Christian. Not having been brought up amidst the Jewish customs, and not having imbibed their opinions and prejudices, they would not regard these days as having any special sacredness. The appointment of those days had a special reference to the Jews. They were designed to keep them as a separate people, and to prepare the nation for the reality, of which their rites were but the shadow. When the Messiah came, the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the other peculiar festivals of the Jews, of course vanished; and it is perfectly clear that the apostles never intended to inculcate their observance on the Gentile converts. See this subject discussed in the second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians.

Every day alike. The word "alike" is not in the original, and it may convey an idea which the apostle did not design. The passage means, that he regards every day as consecrated to the Lord, Rom 14:6. The question has been agitated, whether the apostle intends in this to include the Christian Sabbath. Does he mean to say that it is a matter of indifference whether this day be observed, or whether it be devoted to ordinary business or amusements? This is a very important question in regard to the Lord's day. That the apostle did not mean to say that it was a matter of indifference whether it should be kept as holy, or devoted to business or amusement, is plain from the following considerations:

(1.) The discussion had reference only to the peculiar customs of the Jews, to the rites and practices which they would attempt to impose on the Gentiles, and not to any questions which might arise among Christians as Christians. The inquiry pertained to meats, and festival observances among the Jews, and to their scruples about partaking of the food offered to idols, etc.; and there is no more propriety in supposing that the subject of the Lord's day is introduced here than that he advances principles respecting baptism and the Lord's Supper.

(2.) The Lord's day was doubtless observed by all Christians, whether converted from Jews or Gentiles. See 1Cor 16:2, Acts 20:7 Rev 1:10. Jn 20:26. The propriety of observing that day does not appear to have been a matter of controversy. The only inquiry was, whether it was proper to add to that the observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, and days of festivals and fasts.

(3.) It is expressly said, that those who did not regard the day regarded it as not to God, or to honour God, Rom 4:6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions, to promote his glory, and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregard the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honour, and to advance in the knowledge of him, by neglecting his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to honour the Lord Jesus, and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead this passage as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it, just as it is, i. e., let him neglect the from a conscientious desire to honour Jesus Christ. Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.

Let every man, etc. That is, subjects of this kind are not to be pressed as matters of conscience. Every man is to examine them for himself, and act accordingly. This direction pertains to the subject under discussion, and not to any other. It does not refer to subjects that were morally wrong, but to ceremonial observances. If the Jew esteemed it wrong to eat meat, he was to abstain from it; if the Gentile esteemed it right, he was to act accordingly. The word "be fully persuaded" denotes the highest conviction--not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination. See Rom 4:21, 2Ti 4:5. This is the general principle on which Christians are called to act in relation to festival days and fasts in the church. If some Christians deem them to be for edification, and suppose that their piety will be promoted by observing the days which commemorate the birth, and death, and temptations of the Lord Jesus, they are not to be reproached or opposed in their celebration. Nor are they to attempt to impose them on others as a matter of conscience, or to reproach others because they do not observe them.

2 Timothy 4:5

Verse 5. But watch thou in all things. Be vigilant against error and against sin, and faithful in the performance of duty. Mt 25:13; 1Cor 16:13.

Endure afflictions. 2Ti 2:3. The Greek word here is the same which is there rendered "endure hardness."

Do the work of an evangelist. On the word evangelist, Acts 21:8. The phrase here means, do the work of preaching the gospel, or of one appointed to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation. This is the proper business of all ministers, whatever other rank they may maintain. Whether it was ever regarded as the proper duty of a separate class of men to do this, Eph 5:11.

Make full proof of thy ministry. Marg., fulfil. Comp. Rom 14:5. The word here used denotes, properly, to bear or bring fully; then to persuade fully; and then to make fully assured of, to give full proof of. The meaning here seems to be, to furnish full evidence of what is the design of the Christian ministry, and of what it is adapted to accomplish, by the faithful performance of all its duties. Timothy was so to discharge the duties of his office as to furnish a fair illustration of what the ministry could do, and thus to show the wisdom of the Saviour in its institution. This should be the aim of all the ministers of the gospel. Each one should resolve, by the blessing of God, that the ministry, in his hands, shall be allowed, by a fair trial, to show to the utmost what it is adapted to do for the welfare of mankind.

(b) "things" 2Ti 2:3 (1) "full proof" "fulfil" (c) "of thy ministry" 1Timm 4:12,15

2 Timothy 4:17

Verse 17. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me. Though all men forsook me, yet God did not. This expresses an universal truth in regard to the faithfulness of God. See Ps 27:10. Comp. Job 5:17-19, Isa 43:1,2.

That by me the preaching might be fully known. The word preaching here probably means the gospel as preached by him. The word rendered "might be fully known" πληροφορηθη means, "might obtain full credence;" that is, might be fully confirmed, so that others might be assured of its truth. The apostle, doubtless, means that on his trial, though forsaken by all men, he was enabled to be so steadfast in his profession of the truth, and so calm in the prospect of death, that all who witnessed his trial, saw that there was a reality in religion, and that the gospel was founded in truth. He had maintained as a preacher that the gospel was able to support the soul in trial, and he was now able to illustrate its power in his own case. He had proclaimed the gospel as the true system of religion, and he was now able to bear testimony to it with the prospect of approaching martyrdom. The sentiment of this passage then is, that the truth of the gospel is made known, or that men may become fully assured of it, by the testimony which is borne to it by its friends in the near prospect of death. One of the most important means of establishing the truth of the gospel in the world, has been the testimony borne to it by martyrs, and the spirit of unwavering confidence in God which they have evinced. And now, one of the most important methods of keeping up the knowledge of the value of religion in the world, and of convincing men of the truth of Christianity, is the spirit evinced by its friends when they are about to die. Men judge much, and justly, of the value of a system of religion by its power to comfort in the day of calamity, and to sustain the soul when about to enter on an untried state of being. That system is of little value to mankind which leaves us in the day of trial; that is of inestimable worth which will enable us to die with the firm hope of a brighter and better world. Christian, having served his God faithfully in life, may, therefore, be eminently useful when he comes to die.

And that all the Gentiles might hear. Paul was at this time in Rome. His trial was before a heathen tribunal, and he was surrounded by Pagans. Rome, too, was then the centre of the world, and at all times there was a great conflux of strangers thee. His trial, therefore, gave him an opportunity of testifying to the truth of Christianity before Gentile rulers; and in such circumstances, that the knowledge of his sufferings, and of the religion for which he suffered, might be conveyed by the strangers who witnessed it to the ends of the world. His main object in life was, to make the gospel known to the Gentiles, and he had thus an opportunity of furthering that great cause, even on what he supposed might be the trial which would determine with him the question of life or death. Comp. Rom 1:10.

And I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. This may either mean that he was delivered from Nero, compared with a lion, or, literally, that he was saved from being thrown to lions in the amphitheatre, as was common in Rome. 1Cor 15:32.

(3.) It is not uncommon in the Scriptures to compare tyrants and persecutors with ravenous wild beasts. Comp. Ps 22:13,21, Jer 2:30. Nero is called a lion by Seneca, and it was usual among heathen writers to apply the term in various senses to princes and warriors. See Grotius, in loc. The common interpretation here has been, that this refers to Nero, and there is no improbability in the interpretation. Still, it is quite as natural to suppose, that the punishment which had been appointed for him, or to which he would have been subjected, was, to be thrown to lions, and that in some way, now unknown to us, he had been delivered from it. Paul attributes his deliverance entirely to the Lord; but what instrumental agency there may have been, he does not specify. It seems probable that it was his own defence; that he was enabled to plead his own cause with so much ability, that he found favour even with the Roman emperor, and was discharged. If it had been through the help of a friend at court, it is hardly to be supposed that he would not have mentioned the name of him to whom he owed his deliverance.