There is no gospel which more shows the mind and love of God than this of Luke. None is more truly and evidently inspired. Nevertheless there is none so deeply marked by traces of the human hand and heart. This is its characteristic object in presenting Christ to us. Luke had, as the work assigned him of the Holy Ghost, to delineate our Lord as a man, both in body and soul. This he does not only as to facts which are related about Him, but in all His course and teaching in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. It is emphatically a man we see and hear, a divine Person, no doubt, but at the same time a real proper man who walks in perfect dependence and absolute obedience, honoring God and honored of Him in all things.
For this reason I believe it is that Luke alone opens his gospel with an address to a particular man. You could not have Matthew, consistently with the purpose and character of his gospel, addressing it to a man; nor is it conceivable of Mark or of John. Luke so writes with the most admirable propriety. “Whereas many have undertaken to arrange a declaration concerning the matter fully believed in among us; even as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having thorough acquaintance from the outset with all things accurately, to write to thee in regular order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest truly know the certainty of accounts [or things] in which thou hast been instructed.” Thus Luke was led of God as one who had a thirst and loving desire for the good of Theophilus, and fitly addresses this gospel to him: and this we shall find in harmony with its character throughout. It was not for him only, of course, but for the permanent instruction of the Church yet none the less was it written to him. Theophilus was laid on the heart of that godly man to be instructed in the things of God, and this draws out the workings of the Spirit of God in him to expound the way of God as shown in Christ more perfectly.
Theophilus appears to have been a man of rank, probably a Roman governor. This seems the reason why he is called here “Most Excellent,” or, as we might say, His Excellency. It relates to official position, and not to his character morally as a man. It is evident be was a believer, but only partially instructed. The object of the evangelist here was to give him a fuller understanding of “the way.”
At this time there were many accounts of Christ in vogue among Christians. The “many” spoken of here who had undertaken to draw up these accounts of our Lord, were not inspired. Luke does not charge them with evil intent in what they wrote, still less with falsehood, But it was clearly inadequate, as being no more than the fruit of a human effort to relate the matters fully believed among the Christians. They did not accomplish the work so as to set aside the need of a fresh and above all a divinely given narrative of the Lord Jesus. Only we must carefully remember that the difference between an inspired writing and any other, is not that the other is necessarily false, and that the inspired one is simply true. There is much more than this. It is the truth as God sees it, and with that special object which God always has in view when He furnishes an account of anything. A gospel is not a mere biography, it is God's account of Christ governed by the special moral object He was pleased to impress on it. This is characteristic of all inspired writings, whatever their form or aim. Inspiration excludes mistake, no doubt; but it does much more than that. It includes a divine object for the instruction of the faithful in the display of God's glory in Christ. These “many” biographers spoken of by Luke were unauthorized by the Spirit of God. They may have entered on their self-imposed task with the best motives, and some or all may have been persons in whom the Spirit of God was (i.e., Christians), but they were not inspired any more than one who preaches the gospel or seeks to edify believers, There is a weighty difference between the leading of the Spirit in a general way, where flesh may more or less impair the truth enforced, and the inspiration of the Spirit, which not only excludes all error but gives what was never given before. Luke was inspired; yet he does not put forward his inspiration. And what then? Who does? Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, or any other? When people write an imposture they naturally pretend to this or that, and are apt most to claim what they have least or not at all. They may talk much about inspiration; the inspired writers, as a rule, take it for granted. It is self-proved, not posted up. The special character that distinguishes these writings from all others to the heart and conscience, gives the believer the certainty of inspiration. For, I repeat, the Holy Ghost not only excludes error, but writes with a divine object, and communicates the truth as none but God can. And these proofs are such as to leave the unbeliever without excuse. Light wants nothing else to show itself.
Observe one marked difference here claimed between these many uninspired writers and Luke's Gospel.
They had taken up the tradition of such as had been from the beginning of the Lord's public life eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. It was founded upon oral testimony. But Luke takes particular pains to let us know that this is not said of his own Gospel. He does not attribute it to the same sources as theirs; but claims an accurate and thorough acquaintance of all things from the very first (ἄνωθεν). He does not explain his sources any more than other inspired men; but he does contrast the character of what he knew and had to say with those who merely drew up a report from the earliest and best tradition. This is of high importance, and has been often overlooked. Like Matthew he goes back to the very first and even before Matthew's relations; for he gives us not only the circumstances that preceded the birth of Christ but the account of all that pertained to His forerunner's birth.
Thus, though Luke does so far say that “it seemed good to me also” as well as to them, nevertheless he otherwise distinguishes his own task entirely from theirs. He does not tell us how he had his perfect understanding of all things from the very first; he simply lays down the fact. Again, it seems to me that the reason why he alone gives us his motive for writing, without putting forward his inspired character, is of all interest. Not only is it unusual in the sacred writers, but also Luke has the human element so predominant that it would be somewhat inconsistent with it to dwell strongly on the fact that it was God's word he was writing. He above all therefore would rather avoid bringing it out prominently or formally, though he proves practically, that every line was truly inspired.
The regular (καθεξῆς) order was not that in which the events occurred. Such a mere sequence is by no means either the only order or the best for all purposes. To Luke it would have been an arrangement infinitely inferior to the one he has adopted. All it means is that he has written his account from the very first in a methodical manner. What that method is can only be learned from studying the gospel itself. It will be proved, as we proceed, that Luke's is essentially a moral order, and that be classifies the facts, conversations, questions, replies, and discourses of our Lord according to their inward connection, and not the mere outward succession of events, which is in truth the rudest and most infantine form of record. But to group events together with their causes and consequences, in their moral order, is a far more difficult task for the historian, as distinguished from the mere chronicler. God can cause Luke to do it perfectly.
Again, Luke writes as a man to a man, unfolding the goodness of God in a man—the man Christ Jesus. Hence all that would exemplify humanity, as in Christ and also in us before God, is brought out in the most instructive manner. He writes for the help of his excellency, Theophilus, that he might truly know (ἐπιγνῷς) the certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed. God thus takes care of those who know Him, though it may be imperfectly, and He would lead them more deeply into the understanding and enjoyment of what He is now communicating to man by His grace. “To him that hath shall be given.” It is the way of God. Theophilus had been enabled to receive Christ and to confess Him. Hence, though Luke sets forth with particular care, how truly the gospel was preached to the poor (see chap, 4, 6, 7), yet his gospel as a whole is addressed to this man of rank, now a disciple. Circumstantially there is no man so much to be pitied as to the truth of God or who so needs the grace of God as one who is great in this world, because he is peculiarly open to snares, temptations, and cares of the world, which war against the soul and threaten to choke up the seed of the word. Therefore we have the gracious care of Him who knows so well what the heart of man needs and who, despising not any, deigns to provide for the great man now made low, and assuredly feeling his poverty, in spite of rank or riches.