Luke 1:2

They. That is, the “eyewitnesses, and ministers.” The word “they” may also possibly refer to the “many” of v. 1.

Delivered. Gr. paradidomi “to hand over,” “to deliver,” or “to commit.” Here it refers simply to the handing down of information from one generation or group of people to another (see 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; 2 Tim. 2:2). Those who “received” truth were to “deliver” it to others. Paul and Luke were, so to speak, second-generation Christians and had “received” what they passed on to others.

Which. Rather, “who.” In the Greek the clause beginning here does not modify “us,” as it apparently does in the English, but rather the subject “they.” In other words, those who “delivered” the narratives were the “eyewitnesses,” and not those who received them.

From the beginning. That is, from the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, though some of the “eyewitnesses” may also have been able to report circumstances connected with the infancy of John the Baptist and of Jesus.

Eyewitnesses. Gr. autoptai, “those who see with their own eyes.” John referred to himself as an eyewitness (John 1:14; 21:24; 1 John 1:1, 2). All of the Twelve, the seventy disciples, and the women who accompanied Jesus and His disciples and ministered to them were eyewitnesses, more or less “from the beginning.” In contrast, Luke, Paul, and Timothy might be called “ear-witnesses,” for their knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus was derived from others. This apparent handicap, however, in no way diminishes the value of their testimony, for they received their information both through instruction from “eye-witnesses” and by divine revelation (1 Cor. 15:3-7; Gal. 1:11, 12).

The modesty here exhibited by Luke is excellent testimony in favor of the reliability and validity of the Gospel that bears his name. He was careful to state the exact truth, and laid no claim to being an “eyewitness,” as a forger might be expected to do. In fact, Luke himself here clearly states that his own understanding of the facts concerning the life and ministry of Christ came originally through the channel of eyewitness accounts. Thus it appears that the role of Inspiration in Luke’s case was not so much to impart original information as to guarantee the accuracy of what he recorded of the testimony of others. Luke was a historian who went to the original sources, but he was much more than that; he was an inspired historian.

It is clear from Luke’s experience that Inspiration functions in a manner consistent with the natural operation of the mental faculties and does not set them aside. Here is an inspired writer who was led by the Holy Spirit to give diligent study to the available oral and written source materials on the life of Christ, and then to combine into a connected narrative the information thus gathered. For further consideration of the manner in which Inspiration guides the human instrument in the use of extant historical documents, see F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 413-422.