have no right to say. - St. Luke*s meaning appears to be simply^ this, that they wrote without any divine call or inspiration. He certainly does not refer to Matthew and Mark. Ambrose re- marks, " Matthew did not tahe in hand, nor .Mark, nor John, nor Luke. They, the divine Spirit supplying them with abimd- ance of all words and matter, accomplished what they began: without any eflfort."
[A declaration of those things^ A glance at the Greek in this sentence, will show us that the word " of," must be taken as a preposition, and means " about," or " concerning." .
\mo8t surely helieved.l The word so translated is rendered, when applied to Abraham, (Rom. iv. 21.) "fully persuaded," and" when applied to the preaching of the Gospel, "fully known," (2 Tim. iv. 17.) Theophylact, in Suicer, defines it as meaning here, " things fully proved by many arguments."
2. — \The Word.'] Some think that this means the Lord Jesus Christ, the "Word," who "was made flesh." John i. 14. It seems however more probable that we are to take it as the written word, or word of the Uospel. It is not clear that the Lord Jesus is ever called " the Word" by any New Testament writer, except John.
3. — [From the very first.'] The Greek word so translated, means literally, "from above." It is so rendered in John iii 31 : xix. 11 : James i. 17 r iii. 15 : iii. 17. Gomarus and Lightfoot think that it should be taken in this sense, and that it is an assertion of Luke's inspiration. The expression would then signify, " having accurately traced up all things under Divine inspiration, or teaching, from above." The majority of commentators agree with our translators. The Bible writers do not generally assert their own inspiration. The word in Acts xxvi. 6. is rendered, " from the beginning."
[In order.] We must carefully observe that this expression does not imply that Luke followed the chronological order of the chief events m our Lord's history, more than the other Evan- gelists. It rather signifies that he grouped together, and classified in an orderly way, the principal facts which he was inspired to record. Watson remarks, " Luke has less regard to chronological order than Matthew or Mark, and rather classifies the events, than narrates them in a series, — a method of com- posing history not uncommon with the writers of antiquity." A. Clarke gives an example of this in the life of Augustus, by Suetonius. Campbell says that the word translated * in order,* " does not necessarily relate to time. The proper import of it is * distinctly, particularly, as opposed to confusedly, generally.* "
[TheophUm^ We know nothing certain about this person. The prevailing opinion is, that he was some Christian Gentile, in a high position, to whom St. Luke, for wise reasons, unknown