A Private Commentary on The Bible: Luke’s Gospel 1:1–12:59

By James D. Quiggle

A thoroughly exegetical and explanatory commentary explaining the meaning and significance of Luke’s Gospel. The book assumes and defends Luke as the true author based ion his investigation of eyewitness testimony. The exposition is based on the author’s translation of the Greek text, with notes to identify certain word choices. Textual views are discussed where appropriate. The book has a high view of Scripture as God’s inerrant Word, and uses grammatical-historical principles to interpret the text. The book treats Luke’s Gospel as an independent portrait of Christ, but also coordinates with the other Gospels to provide a clear picture of Luke’s view of the life and times of Jesus the Christ. The book takes a dispensational view of Christ’s first advent salvific mission and eschatological prophecies. The author writes for any Christian who wants to continue their study of the Bible, for Bible study leaders and teachers, Bible college students, and local church Pastors.

• Language: English
• Publisher: James D. Quiggle
• Release date: Aug 2, 2021
• ISBN: 9781005544034

James D. Quiggle

James D. Quiggle was born in 1952 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He grew up in Kansas and the Texas Panhandle. In the early 1970s he joined the United States Air Force. At his first permanent assignment in Indian Springs, Nevada in a small Baptist church, the pastor introduced him to Jesus and soon after he was saved. Over the next ten years those he met in churches from the East Coast to the West Coast, mature Christian men, poured themselves into mentoring him. In the 1970s he was gifted with the Scofield Bible Course from Moody Bible Institute. As he completed his studies his spiritual gift of teaching became even more apparent. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Bethany Bible College during the 1980s while still in the Air Force. Between 2006–2008, after his career in the Air Force and with his children grown up, he decided to continue his education. He enrolled in Bethany Divinity College and Seminary and earned a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theological Studies.As an extension of his spiritual gift of teaching, he was prompted by the Holy Spirit to begin writing books. James Quiggle is now a Christian author with over fifty commentaries on Bible books and doctrines. He is an editor for the Evangelical Dispensational Quarterly Journal published by Scofield Biblical Institute and Theological Seminary.He continues to write and has a vibrant teaching ministry through social media.

Book preview

Luke’s Gospel

Luke 1:1 – 12:59

BOOKS BY JAMES D. QUIGGLE

DOCTRINAL SERIES

Biblical History

Adam and Eve, a Biography and Theology

Angelology, a True History of Angels

Essays

Biblical Essays

Biblical Essays II

Biblical Essays III

Biblical Essays IV

Marriage and Family

Marriage and Family: A Biblical Perspective

Biblical Homosexuality

A Biblical Response to Same-gender Marriage

Doctrinal and Practical Christianity

First Steps, Becoming a Follower of Jesus Christ

Thirty-Six Essentials of the Christian Faith

The Literal Hermeneutic, Explained and Illustrated

Christian Living and Doctrine

Spiritual Gifts

Why Christians Should Not Tithe

Dispensational Theology

A Primer On Dispensationalism

Understanding Dispensational Theology

Dispensational Eschatology, An Explanation and Defense of the Doctrine

Antichrist, His Genealogy, Kingdom, and Religion

God and Man

God’s Choices, Doctrines of Foreordination, Election, Predestination

God Became Incarnate

Life, Death, Eternity

Did Jesus Go To Hell?

COMMENTARY SERIES

The Old Testament

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Judges

A Private Commentary on the Book of Ruth

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Esther

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Song of Solomon

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Daniel

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Jonah

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Habakkuk

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Haggai

The New Testament

The Gospels

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Matthew’s Gospel

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Mark’s Gospel

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Luke 1–12

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Luke 13–24

A Private Commentary on the Bible: John 1–12

A Private Commentary on the Bible: John 13–21

(John’s Gospel is also in a one volume edition)

The Parables and Miracles of Jesus Christ

The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ

The Christmas Story, As Told By God

Pauline Letters

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Galatians

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Ephesians

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Philippians

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Colossians

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Thessalonians

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Philemon

General Letters

A Private Commentary on the Book of Hebrews

A Private Commentary on the Bible: James

A Private Commentary on the Bible: 1 Peter

A Private Commentary on the Bible: 2 Peter

A Private Commentary on the Bible: John’s Epistles

A Private Commentary on the Bible: Jude

Revelation

The Epistle of Jesus to the Church

REFERENCE SERIES

Dictionary of Doctrinal Words

Translation of Select Bible Books

Old and New Testament Chronology (Also in individual volumes: Old Testament Chronology; New Testament Chronology)

TRACTS

A Human Person: Is the Unborn Life a Person?

Biblical Marriage

How Can I Know I am A Christian?

Now That I am A Christian

Thirty-Six Essentials of the Christian Faith

What is a Pastor? / Why is My Pastor Eating the Sheep?

(All tracts are in Kindle format and cost $0.99)

Visit me at https://www.facebook.com/BooksOfQ

A Private Commentary on the Bible

Luke’s Gospel

Luke 1:1 – 12:59

James D. Quiggle

Copyright Page

A Private Commentary on The Bible: Luke’s Gospel 1:1–12:59

Copyright © 2021 James D. Quiggle. All rights reserved.

Published by James D. Quiggle, 2021

Translation of the Gospel According to Luke by James D. Quiggle.

All translations except as noted are from James D. Quiggle Translations of Select Bible Books, copyright 2020.

Some Bible versions cited or quoted were sourced from PC Study Bible®, version 5, release 5.2. Copyright© 1988–2008, by BibleSoft, Inc.

American Standard Version (ASV). Public Domain.

Authorized (King James) Version (KJV). Public Domain.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Scripture quotations marked HCSB are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Holman CSB®, and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

New King James Version® (NKJV). Copyright © 1982, 1983 by Thomas Nelson Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV). Copyright © 2000, 2001 by Crossway Bibles, A Division of Good News Publishers, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, Illinois 60187, USA. All rights reserved.

The Holy Bible: New International Version (NIV), Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Holy Bible, New Living TRANSLATION (NLT) ® Copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Young's Literal TRANSLATION of the Holy Bible (YLT), by Robert Young, Originally Published In 1862, Edinburgh. Revised Edition 1887. Public Domain.

This print edition of A Private Commentary on the Bible: Luke Gospel 1:1–12:59 contains the same material as the digital versions.

Table of Contents

Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

Luke One

Luke Two

Luke Three

Luke Four

Luke Five

Luke Six

Luke Seven

Luke Eight

Luke Nine

Luke Ten

Luke Eleven

Luke Twelve

Sources

Preface

The Private Commentary series on the Old and New Testaments is my interpretation of the Bible, neither more nor less. I am responsible for the use made of all quoted and cited material.

The scope of the Private Commentary series is to bring the reader to a practical understanding of Scripture. I explain and discuss each verse, idea, theme, and biblical truth as discovered in turn during the course of the exposition. My target audience is the Bible college/seminary student, Bible study/small group leader, Sunday School teacher, and local church Pastor. My point of view is a conservative theology. Other opinions concerning the Scripture are presented and discussed as I believe will profit the target audience. Bible students who desire to understand and apply the scriptures are invited to study the book with me and come to their own conclusions.

This material is copyrighted to prevent misuse or abuse. Those persons using this material in their teaching/preaching ministry may copy and distribute individual pages (e.g., an excursus, a table/list, or an appendix) for distribution to one’s students or auditors. The entire book may not be copied and/or distributed, nor large portions of the book, such as a chapter or extended comments on Scripture passages. The cost of this work has been kept as low as possible so every interested teacher, preacher, and student may afford a personal copy.

Abbreviations

AD … Anno Domini (In the year of the Lord [since Christ was born])

ANF … Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ant. … Antiquities of the Jews

AUC … Anno Urbis Conditae. In the year of the founded city. The date in years from the founding of Rome, which was about 753 BC.

BC … Bello Christo (Before Christ [was born])

ca. … about (an approximate date) (Latin: circa)

cf. … compare (Latin: confer)

e.g. … for example (Latin: exempli gratia)

etc. … and so forth, and so on (Latin: et cetera)

ff. … and the following verses.

HGH … Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutic (aka, Literal hermeneutic)

Ibid … in the same place (referring to the source cited in the previous entry) (Latin: ibidem)

i.e. … that is (Latin: id est)

NPNF … Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

LXX … Greek translation of the Old Testament

n. … note (referring to a footnote or endnote in the work cited)

m. … Mishnah (followed by tractate name, e.g., m. Baba Metzia)

s. v. … under the word (Latin: sub verbo)

v. … verse

vv. … verses

Introduction

Any commentary on the four gospels must answer the question, Why are they so alike but also so different? A simple illustration will explain my answer to that question.

Let us suppose four friends visit the Grand Canyon in Arizona, USA. Each person has been given a camera and notepad (or a phone and I-Pad) with which to record his experiences. Let us suppose they almost always travel as a group, thus visiting the same places at the same time. Occasionally one will go somewhere by himself, or perhaps just stay in the tent for the day. Each takes pictures of similar vistas, but each has his own perspective. Each writes of his own particular experience.

Upon returning home, each prepares a book with narrative and pictures of his experience. Upon comparison, some narratives and pictures are the same, some similar, some different, some missing. Although they almost always went together to the same place and saw the same scenes, each person has his own experiences, perspective, photographs, and style of writing.

When we compare the four gospels, the above scenario becomes more complicated. John was with Jesus from the beginning, as was Peter and Andrew. John, Peter, and Andrew began following Jesus, John 1:37, 40–42, before Jesus called them to minister with him, Matthew 4:18–22, and a second time at Luke 5:10–11. There is evidence these three and John’s brother James returned home now and then to take care of their families and fishing business, Mark 1:16–20. Not all twelve were present during the raising of Lazarus: Thomas, not Peter, is the spokesman for the group, John 11:16. Matthew joined the group between Passover AD 30 and the end of summer that year, Matthew 9:9.

The narratives of Christ’s ministry in each of the four gospels is based on the personal experiences of many eyewitnesses. Matthew learned from Peter, Andrew, John, James, et al, what happened before he began to travel with Jesus. Those absent during the Lazarus incident learned from those present. Luke learned from many people by conducting interviews of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry (Luke 1:1–4). Each writer was guided by the Holy Spirit to record what they saw and heard, making their own choices and writing in their own style, superintended by the Holy Spirit. That is inspiration. God so prepared and superintended the writers of Scripture that in speaking and writing their own words, they wrote God’s words. God intended each to write a narrative of Jesus’ words and works from his own particular perspective and experiences. When the gospel accounts are put together, they give us a complete picture of Jesus Christ’s Person, words, and works—not everything Jesus did but sufficient for understanding.

Luke’s Origin

The author of Luke’s Gospel has always been identified with the Luke who accompanied Paul. The Luke named as the author of this gospel has always been identified by the New Testament church as the beloved physician, Colossians 4:14, the companion of Paul the apostle, 2 Timothy 4:11, and fellow laborer in the gospel with Paul, Philemon 24. These are all the occurrences of the name Luke.

Because the Book of Acts refers to a former account written for Theophilus, the person mentioned at Luke 1:3, the Book of Acts was also accepted by the New Testament church as being composed by Luke, Paul’s companion and fellow laborer. Beginning at Acts 16:10, the we passages have been identified as referring to Luke meeting and traveling with Paul.

Acts 16:9–12 (ESV), And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, Come over to Macedonia and help us. And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days.

Their meeting was approximately AD 49–50, based on the dating of 1 Thessalonians, written from Corinth. (The dating of Paul’s time in Corinth is based on the Gallio Inscription, cross-referenced with Acts 18:12. See Hollingsworth, 198.)

The change from we to they at Acts 17:1 indicates Luke remained in Philippi when Paul left for other cities. Luke rejoined Paul a few years later when Paul returned to Philippi, Acts 20:6, and remained with Paul through his several imprisonments in Israel and Rome, Acts 28:16. The date when Luke rejoined Paul was approximately AD 58.

Most Bible students believe Luke wrote his gospel during Paul’s two years (Acts 24:27) as a prisoner in the governor’s house (governor Felix, then governor Festus) at Caesarea, Acts 23:24 through 27:1. The accepted dates for Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea (based on the governorship of Felix and Festus) are AD 58–60. The accepted dates for Luke writing his gospel are AD 58–62.

What seems likely is Luke’s gospel was in or near its final form about the time Paul was sent to Rome in AD 60. David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels?, presents a strong case for the origin of Luke’s Gospel. In Black’s view, Matthew was written ca. AD 42 as the evangelistic gospel of the early church. This was the gospel Paul used during his missionary journeys. Paul’s experience evangelizing gentiles led him to conclude a gospel written for non-Jews, for gentiles, was needed.

Paul had Luke write that gospel. Black proposes that when Paul came to Rome, he asked Peter to review and give his approval of Luke’s gospel. Black suggests Peter did this in a series of lectures. These lectures were stenographically recorded, and a short time later published by Mark. This origin of the gospel we name Mark’s Gospel agrees with the testimony of Papias (AD 70–155), Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

And the Presbyter [John] said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [Roberts, ANF, 1:153, 155–156 (Fragments, 1, 6).]

According to Black, the order in which the gospels were written is Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. This means one of Luke’s written sources was Matthew’s Gospel. Mark’s Gospel was third in order and was not dependent on any other gospel. I agree with this view. Mark and Luke were probably published about the same time, and both probably first published in Rome.

Luke is mentioned as the author of Acts by Irenaeus (AD 120–202) [Roberts, ANF, 1:414 (Against Heresies, 3.1.1)]. just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews. Origen (AD 184–253) said of the four gospels, the first is written according to Matthew . . . the second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained to him . . . and the third according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles, and last of all the gospel according to John [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25].

Luke claims he "accurately investigated [parakolouthéō] all these things from the first," interviewing eyewitnesses or those who heard directly from the eyewitnesses. Certainly in AD 58 many eyewitnesses could be found. Jesus was crucified AD 33, twenty-five years before Luke began to write his gospel.

The details in the infancy narratives of John and Jesus leads to the strong possibility Mariam mother of Jesus was still living. If, as the culture of the times indicates, she was about thirteen to fourteen years old when Jesus was born ca. 5 BC, then she was in her early sixties in AD 58. Although the average life-span was thirty-five to forty years, that low figure was due to high mortality rates at birth, in infancy, and the death of the mother as she gave birth. Mariam was cared for by her children and the church, Acts 1:14, and thus likely to live a long life. There is no reason to doubt Luke’s word that he investigated all these things from the first.

TRANSLATION Issues

One of the characteristics of any of the four gospels is the heavy use of pronouns. Usually context establishes the correct noun for the pronoun. At other times it is difficult to know who is who. For example, at Jesus’ baptism by John, 1:10, And immediately coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens split open, and the Spirit as a dove coming down upon him. Both Jesus and John were in the water and therefore came up out of the water. So which of the two men saw the heavens split open and which of the two men saw the Spirit as a dove coming down upon him? The most likely answer is, And immediately coming up out of the water, John saw the heavens split open, and the Spirit as a dove coming down upon Jesus.

Here is another example, the healing of the withered hand, Mark 3:2, And they watched him, whether on the Sabbath he would heal him, in order they might accuse him. There is no obvious noun referent for they, although synagogue in v. 1 seems likely. And who is the first he? The chapter begins with and he entered. The sentence should most likely be understood as, And the leaders of the synagogue watched Jesus, whether on the Sabbath Jesus would heal the man having a withered hand, in order they [the leaders of the synagogue] might accuse Jesus.

Luke has similar issues.

Some modern translations supply a noun in place of the pronoun in the text. For example, in the preceding example, the HCSB, NIV, and ESV change they to people.

My intent in translating is always to translate vocabulary, grammar, and syntax as close to the Greek text as the rules of English allow. (This does not always mean a word for word translation.) Where Luke’s text uses pronouns, so does my translation. Should I believe the noun the pronoun is referring to is not obvious from the context, I will address that issue in the exposition.

Another issue of Luke’s frequent use of the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive indicates a possibility, probability, exhortation, or axiomatic concept [Mounce, 287 ff.]. The subjunctive mood is used when something will happen but has not yet happened. The words shall, should, might, may, continually are used to indicate the subjunctive. My preference was to use might or may.

Exegesis (Interpretation)

My theological perspective may be adequately described as Dispensational Calvinist Baptist. The word Calvinist requires a moment’s comment. Most people, believers and unbelievers alike, think of Calvinism solely in terms of soteriology, God’s sovereignty, and election. That is a gross error. Calvinism is a complete theology describing all aspects of Bible doctrine. As a Dispensationalist I have a different understanding of eschatology and a few related issues than does Calvinism.

My Dispensational Calvinist Baptist perspective affects the interpretation. Like most Calvinists, Dispensationalists, and Baptists, my hermeneutical (interpretive) methodology is the historical-grammatical hermeneutic (HGH), otherwise known as Literal interpretation. (See my book, The Literal Hermeneutic, Explained and Illustrated.)

The HGH or Literal hermeneutic understands the words and language used by the human authors of the Bible in the normal and plain sense of words and language as used in everyday conversation and writing.

Understanding words in their plain and normal sense means all words in all languages have a semantic content and range that reflects the historical-cultural background of the original writer and reader.

Understanding words in their plain and normal sense means that languages also communicate meaning through well-defined rules of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax.

Understanding words in their plain and normal sense means recognizing all language includes idioms, slang, figures of speech, and symbols specific to that language and the historical-cultural circumstances of original writer and reader, and that these must be interpreted for the modern reader in terms of his or her language.

Understanding idioms, slang, figures of speech, and symbols in the plain and normal sense of language means an idiom, slang, figure of speech, or symbol is based on something literal and is intended by the writer or speaker to communicate something literal.

Understanding the biblical use of words, figures of speech, idioms, slang, and symbols means recognizing the biblical authors sometimes used and invested these parts of language with specific theological or spiritual meanings, and that the Holy Spirit maintained the consistency of those meanings among the several human authors.

If an interpretation invests an author’s words, figures of speech, idioms, slang, or symbols with a meaning other than the plain and normal meaning of their use in the language in which he is communicating, then it is not a literal interpretation, but is an allegorical interpretation: an abstract distortion of the meaning of the text dependent on the interpreter’s imagination, not the biblical writer’s truth-intention.

The HGH looks for authorial intent: what did the human author mean when he wrote, and the corollary, what did his original audience understand when they read what he had written? In 1976, E. D. Hirsch, an English professor at the University of Virginia, wrote, in Validity in Interpretation, about why one must seek the literal interpretation of any written communication:

Verbal meaning is whatever someone (usually the author) has willed to convey by a particular sequence of words and which can be shared by linguistic signs.

The author’s truth-intention provides the only genuinely discriminating norm for ascertaining valid or true interpretations from invalid and false ones.

The first objective of hermeneutics is to make clear the text’s verbal meaning, not its significance.

Meaning is that which is represented by the text and what an author meant to say by the linguistic signs represented.

Significance, by contrast, names a relationship between that meaning and a person, concept, situation, or any other possible number of things.

The meaning of a text cannot change, but significance can and does change. If meaning were not determinate, then there would be no fixed norm by which to judge whether a passage was being interpreted correctly. [Kaiser and Silva, Hermeneutics, 30–31.]

Authorial intent is the core of the literal method. Modern theorists of interpretation have posited the reader decides intent, which means what was written means something different—even radically different and opposite—to another reader. Under that method the norm for interpretation is each reader’s imagination. The literal method looks for the original’s author’s intent to establish meaning.

The literal method comes to its conclusions by analyzing the scriptures. The literal method understands the biblical text in the plain and normal sense of words and their meanings. This book interprets Scripture from the plain and normal sense of the words of the text by using the following seven methods of analysis. [The first five are from Virkler, Hermeneutics, 76. The last two are from me.] The interpreter synthesizes these methods to arrive at an understanding of the texts.

Historical-Cultural analysis: considers the historical-cultural milieu in which the author wrote. This analysis discovers the facts of the historical-cultural background of the passage by reconstructing or comprehending the historical and cultural features of the specific passage. This requires an understanding of:

— The situation of the writer, especially anything that helps explain why he or she wrote the passage.

— The situation of the people involved in the text and/or the recipients of the book that can help explain why the writer penned this material to them.

— The relationship between the writer and audience or the people involved in the text.

— The cultural or historical features mentioned in the text.

Contextual analysis: considers the relationship of a given passage to the whole body of an author’s writing.

Lexical-Syntactical analysis: develops an understanding of the definitions of words (lexicology) and their relationships to one another (syntax).

Theological analysis: studies the level of theological understanding at the time the revelation was given in order to ascertain the meaning of the text for its original readers. It takes into account related scriptures, whether given before or after the passage being studied.

Literary (Genre) analysis: identifies the literary form or method used in a given passage: historical narrative, letters, doctrinal exposition, poetry, wisdom, prophetic.

Comparison with other interpreters: compares the tentative interpretation derived from historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analysis with the work of other interpreters.

Doctrinal analysis: the harmonization of doctrine in a specific passage with the full teaching of Scripture on that doctrine.

The goal of a proper biblical interpretation is to apply the principles and perform the analysis in order to discover what the human author meant as he wrote the scriptures, and what his original readers understood when they read the scriptures.

Thus the plain and normal method, aka the literal method of interpretation is really the historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, theological, literary, comparison, doctrinal method of interpretation. That unwieldly phrase is why it is called by the shorter designation of literal interpretation or grammatical-historical interpretation.

A consistent application of the principles and analytical methods of the literal method of interpretation will reveal the plain sense of the words—the meaning and significance the human authors intended as the Holy Spirit wrote the bible through them.

My interpretation of Luke’s Gospel will utilize the HGH, i.e., the literal method of interpretation, to determine Luke’s intended meaning—his truth-intention, as it is called by some.

Eschatology in Luke’s Gospel

Like all Dispensationalists, and unlike most Calvinists (and some Baptists) I apply the HGH to all scriptures and doctrines. In relation to Luke’s eschatology, I do not hold to Amillennial, Postmillennial, or historic premillennialism. I am a Dispensational Premillennialist. I believe the scriptures teach the return of Christ at the end of the Tribulation period to rule over the earth and its peoples for 1,000 years.

I also do not hold to a partial, mid-, mid-wrath, or post-tribulation rapture. I believe the scriptures teach a pretribulation rapture.

I do not believe Scripture teaches the New Testament church has superseded, replaced, or is a continuation of national ethnic Israel. The New Testament church is a people group with its own yet-future destiny in the plan of God, just as national ethnic Israel has its own yet-future destiny in the plan of God. Those yet-future destinies overlap at certain points, but the New Testament church and national ethnic Israel are separate people groups in the plan of God. For further discussion of these and other eschatological issues see my book, Dispensational Eschatology, An Explanation and Defense of the Doctrine.

Last Thoughts

As I read commentaries on Luke’s Gospel, I am struck by the assumption the story belongs to Luke. Commentators are always asking why Luke wrote this or why Luke wrote that. For example, when looking at Gabriel’s announcement to Mariam, commentators wonder why Luke did not reference Isaiah 7:14. I know why. Luke reports the facts, he reports what was said. Luke was not creating a story, he was reporting what happened. What happened was the two participants, Mariam and Gabriel, did not make any reference to Isaiah’s prophecy.

Let me repeat something I said when I wrote my commentary on the Revelation (The Epistle of Jesus to the Church). John did not create the Revelation, he reported what he saw and heard. He was the scribe to the revelation, not the author. Even so, Luke did not create a history. He reported the history his investigations revealed, using those facts to create an historical narrative that gives the facts. Here and there Luke gives his conclusions based on the facts, but he never confuses the facts with his conclusions.

When Luke reports the words of the angel Gabriel to Zecharias, and later to Mariam, where did Luke get those words? According to Luke’s own testimony he learned those words from those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. The most likely eyewitness is Mariam, and if not her then someone to whom Mariam gave her account of the events. Thus we need not wonder the origin of Gabriel’s words, we need merely seek to understand them.

If we will but scrupulously attend to the purpose of inspiration to give an accurate, credible, and authentic report of what really happened, and trust that this is what the Holy Spirit did through Luke, then we can set aside speculations and explanations whose origin is skepticism that Luke’s Gospel is a genuine historical narrative of what really happened. Luke did not create the gospel bearing his name. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Luke accurately reported the authentic words he heard from reliable eyewitnesses, thereby creating a credible report of those events.

As some readers may know, I have published commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and John. Some of the comments and information in this commentary were drawn from those commentaries.

Luke One

TRANSLATION Luke 1:1-4

1 Inasmuch as now many attempted to compose in an orderly manner a history concerning the things accomplished among us, 2 as delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, 3 so I believed myself also, having accurately investigated all these things from the first, to write an orderly account to you, most noble Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the words concerning which you were instructed.

EXPOSITION

Luke begins with a brief preface certifying he has produced an historical document. Luke 1:1 testifies there were other historical accounts. Luke’s Gospel is not a Greek bíos, a biography, where the character of the subject was more important than the facts of his or her history. Luke has written a history, and if the dedication to Theophilus is what it seems to be, it is an historical account to be used to instruct Christians. Black’s suggestion (see Introduction) that it was written by Luke at the prompting of Paul, to be used to evangelize the gentiles, is an equally valid origin, which does not deny its value as educational. Regardless of why it was written, this gospel is both instructive and evangelistic.

Luke’s preface shows agreement with other historians of the ancient world, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and medical writers such as Dioscorides [Geldenhuys, 51]. Like all historiography, Luke’s gospel is a combination of fact and explanation. The facts are from the eyewitnesses, the explanations (the interpretation of the facts) are from both the eyewitnesses and Luke.

All the gospels were written within living memory of the events: the things accomplished among us. The first person plural us (hēmin), points to first generation Christians: those who saw these events. Not everyone, of course, saw every event. For example, Mariam of Nazareth was the only living witness to the events of Luke 1:5–2:40 (perhaps through 2:52). Luke’s account is factual; all the facts communicate the perspective and understanding of the eyewitnesses and the writer.

The historical accuracy of Luke’s gospel cannot be seriously doubted. The accuracy of Luke’s geography (various named villages and places) was rejected when higher criticism began to develop and influenced the church. But the claims of the critics spurred archaeological and historical discoveries in the 18th and 19th centuries, which laid that skepticism to rest. As Bock says [1:13], Luke is a first-class ancient historian. (An excellent and accessible work on the history and archaeology of the Bible is A Christian’s Guide to Evidence for the Bible, J. Daniel Hays. The subtitle is 101 Proofs from History and Archaeology.)

The word translated eyewitnesses is autóptēs [Zodhiates, s. v. 845]. The word means one who has seen with his own eyes. Luke’s turn of phrase, eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word are certainly a single group of people, not two [Bauckham, 30]. Those people were first generation Christians. Luke was a second generation Christian. The eyewitnesses were servants (hupērétēs, Zodhiates, s. v. 5257) of the Word who ministered the word to others (indicating Luke used oral eyewitness testimony as well as written sources made by eyewitnesses; certainly Matthew’s Gospel among them). These people are the many disciples who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry. Acts 1:15, 21–22 makes it clear there were many.

And in these days Peter stood up among the brothers, saying—then was the number of names at the same place about one hundred twenty . . . It is necessary, therefore, the men who accompanied us, in all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from John’s baptism until the day in which he was taken up from us, one of these to become a witness of his resurrection with us.

Luke mentions these people in his gospel. For example, 6:17, a large crowd of his disciples, 10:1, the seventy sent out to proclaim the kingdom, and 19:37, all the multitude of the disciples. We should understand some of these people were Luke’s sources for his historiography of Jesus. The obvious eyewitness character of the history before Jesus’ baptism indicates Mariam of Nazareth was living, or at the least had told the history to her children, of whom we know James (d. AD 69, possibly AD 62) and Jude (his epistle is dated AD 67–70) were living when Luke wrote his gospel.

Why Luke dedicated this gospel to Theophilus, and who this person was is unknown. We cannot be sure he was a Christian, but we know he had received some instruction in the history of Jesus. The title Luke gives him, Most Noble, was used primarily as a title for rulers or government officials [Mauck, vii], but not always, so it is possible Theophilus was not a Roman official. Mauck views the Book of Acts as a legal brief in defense of Paul before Nero, and Theophilus as the Roman official responsible for the judicial investigation of trials to be conducted before the Emperor Nero [Mauck, x].

Mauck’s view of Acts does not mean Luke’s Gospel was written as part of Paul’s defense. If, as most believe, Luke’s Gospel was written prior to Paul being taken to Rome for his trial, a copy may well have been given to Theophilus upon arrival, with to you, most noble Theophilus through the end of v. 4 added as part of the preface, and further copies made from that particular copy, resulting in the copy we have. But, if so, it was the only surviving copy from Luke’s hand (unlikely, Metzger, 108, has no such comment), because the many manuscripts we possess give no witness the inscription was missing from any copy.

But Mauck’s identification of Theophilus is, after all, an unprovable theory. (Mauck’s book, however, is well-worth reading.) Theophilus may have been a gentile Christian of Paul and Luke’s acquaintance, with them in Israel, to whom Luke dedicated the book because Paul refused such a dedication, and to whom Luke gave respect with an honorable title. Why Theophilus is mentioned, who he was, and his relationship to Luke has no bearing at all on the interpretation of Luke’s Gospel. The Holy Spirit used Theophilus, that is, mention of him, to tie together the books of Luke and Acts, creating the two volume history of Jesus and Jesus’ New Testament church.

TRANSLATION Luke 1:5–7

5 There was in the days of Herod King of Judea a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron; and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Now they were both righteous before God, conducting their manner of life in all the commandments and laws of the Lord blameless. 7 And there was to them no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both of them were advanced in years.

EXPOSITION

The days of Herod King of Judea identifies the period of time during which the following events took place. Luke uses several historical time markers in his gospel. For example, 2:2; 3:1.

Herod was born 73 BC. He became involved in Roman politics in 57 BC, leading to his appointment as governor of Galilee in 47 BC. In 40 BC he was named King of Judea, Galilee, and Perea by the Roman Senate. Three years later, in 37 BC, after several battles, he took control of Jerusalem from the Jews. Jesus was born between 7–5 BC (this commentary will use 5 BC as the year of Jesus’ birth). Herod died in late March, 4 BC (the new year began in March, or Nisan 1 on the Jewish calendar). Herod had been king for about 35 years when the events Luke is about to tell us took place. (For a detailed history of Herod, see Herod, King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, Peter Richardson.)

In the days of Herod the king, there was a certain priest, Zacharias by name. We know he was an older man. We know he was married to a woman in the lineage of Aaron whose name was Elizabeth. We know Elizabeth was also elderly. How old they were is not known, but at 1:18 Zecharias implies Elizabeth was near or had experienced menopause, placing her at about fifty years of age. (Menopause can occur between forty to fifty years of age; the average age in the USA is fifty-one.) Luke says, both of them were advanced in years. Men married at a later age than women, and Zecharias may have been sixty years or older, m. Aboth, 5:21, at sixty for to be an elder.

Zecharias and Elizabeth were righteous before God, conducting their manner of life in all the commandments and laws of the Lord blameless. That does not mean they were sinless. It means they lived as they were supposed to live, according to the commandments of the Lord, including sacrifices for sins, thanksgiving, praise, etc.

They could do this because both were in a salvific relationship with the Lord. We know they were in a salvific relationship with YHWH because they were able to conduct their manner of life in all the commandments and laws of the Lord blameless. Only a saved person is able to do that.

They had a normal marriage, conforming to their culture, and they were childless. God withheld children because he had one child he wanted them raise. YHWH waited to bless them with a child, because YHWH wanted mature parents to raise this child in all the commandments and laws of the Lord blameless.

Zecharias would have been in the lineal descent from Aaron’s son Eleazar. The priesthood was originally descended from Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar. But Ithamar’s descendant Eli (in the time of Samuel the prophet) did not honor the Lord or his priestly responsibilities, for he allowed his sons to corrupt the priesthood.

Therefore the Lord the God of Israel declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father [Ithamar] should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.’ 1 Samuel 2:30 (ESV).

There are several scriptures that refer to the duties of Aaron and his offspring forever. For example, the clothing they should wear forever, Exodus 28:43. That Aaron and his offspring shall tend to the lampstand forever, Exodus 27:21. The portions of the sacrifices went to Aaron and his descendants forever, Exodus 29:28. But only one of Aaron’s descendants was given a perpetual priesthood.

Numbers 2:11–13 (ESV), Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’

Of course, perpetual means for as long as there was a Mosaic Law requiring an Aaronic priesthood. Christ being the end of the law was the end of the Aaronic priesthood.

First Samuel 23:11–22 tells us Saul had all the priests of Ithamar’s line killed, and only Abiathar escaped. First Kings 2:27 tell us King Solomon removed the last priest of Ithamar’s line, Abiathar, from the priesthood.

The Bible gives scant information on Ithamar’s descendants. When diagrammed the descent of high priests of the lineage of Eleazar and Ithamar looks like this. (See graphic next page.)

Zecharias was not a high priest, so we don’t have his lineage. But we do know Zecharias was in the lineage of Eleazar, and we do know, because Luke tells us, that Zecharias was one of the priests of the course of Abijah.

Now the courses of the priesthood were developed during the time of King David. There must be priests in the temple at all times to meet the needs of the people and offer worship to YHWH on behalf of the people. Only so many priests were needed to serve in the temple on any one day. There were more priests than needed for service any one day. So David and co-high priests Zadok and Abiathar (aka, Ahimelech), divided the priests into twenty-four scheduled weeks of service throughout the year. Each course served eight days, from one Sabbath to the next. This dividing of the priests into courses may be seen at 1 Chronicles 24:1–19.

As we know, there are 52 weeks in a year. Twenty-four courses each serving one week twice a year equals forty-eight weeks. During the other four weeks all the priests served. Those four weeks were the busiest weeks, when all the priests were needed to serve the people, because the feasts were held during those weeks. All the priests served during the weeks of Passover-Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Tabernacles, and Day of Atonement.

Based on calculations made by others (conveniently in several places on the internet), we can surmise when Zecharias was in the temple. The weekly rotation of the twenty-four courses began when the new year began, Nisan 1. For reasons I will explain when we get to chapter 2, we are going to assume the year is 6 BC. Here is the schedule for Zecharias in the spring of 6 BC [Hollingsworth, 361]. Remember Zecharias is part of the eighth course of Abijah.

Zecharias’ days of service were from May 22–29, 6 BC. When he finished his duties on May 29th, which was the Sabbath day, he could not travel to his home as this would have placed him in violation of Rabbinical interpretations of Mosaic Law (and thereby religious laws of the times). There were travel restrictions based on Exodus 16:29. The scribes used this verse to place limits on travel between domains. The limit of travel on the Sabbath day from one domain to another was defined as 2,000 cubits (about 1,000 yards/3,000 feet, defining one cubit as eighteen inches). The 2,000 cubit limit apparently came from scriptures such as Numbers 35:5; Joshua 3:4. Zecharias lived in the hill country, which was south and a little west of Jerusalem [Bock, 50, map].

Zecharias left Jerusalem for home on Sunday, Sivan 13, May 30, 6 BC or after—although one cannot imagine him waiting long in light of the news he had to share with his wife, Elizabeth. Soon after his return home, Elizabeth became