Luke 1:3

It seemed good to me. It seemed appropriate to Luke to compose a complete, accurate, and authentic account of Christ’s life, perhaps with the thought in mind of recording some events that might have been omitted in previous accounts written by “many” (see on v. 1). These words reveal the way in which at least some of the Bible writers were led of God to prepare the inspired record. The impression conveyed to Luke’s mind by the Holy Spirit had the effect of making a certain course of action seem appropriate and desirable to him. In his account of the Jerusalem council at which consideration was given to the admission of Gentiles into the Christian church Luke quotes the apostles as writing to the believers at Antioch that the proposed course of action “seemed good” to them (see Acts 15:25). The brethren had counseled together, but their deliberations were guided by the Holy Spirit, and they explain confidently that “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (v. 28). So it was with Luke; the Holy Spirit impelled him to write. But when he wrote, he wrote of his own free will, guided by God. For the manner in which the Holy Spirit guided the various Bible writers see EGW Supplementary Material, on 2 Peter 1:21.

Having had perfect understanding. Literally, “having followed after accurately.” Luke’s second reason for writing is the desire to pass on to others the benefits of his own thorough study of the life and teachings of Jesus. Apparently, Luke had begun at the beginning and had investigated everything. He offers his gospel narrative as being an accurate, thorough, and systematic presentation of the story of Jesus. These are characteristics of true scholarship. Whereas Matthew emphasizes the teachings of Jesus, and Mark, the incidents from His life ministry, Luke combines both elements in a more complete and systematic way than either of the others. Luke’s claim concerning his “understanding of all things” is no idle boast; 43 of some 179 sections of the synoptic narrative appear only in his Gospel. See pp. 191, 192.

The very first. That is, of the life of Jesus. Like an explorer, Luke traced the stream of events to their very beginning and followed the stream closely throughout its course. Accordingly, Luke sets forth the circumstances surrounding the birth and childhood of Jesus in far greater detail than do the other evangelists. Only Luke records five of the six events mentioned in the Gospels prior to the birth of Jesus (see p. 196).

In order. Gr. kathexes, “one after another,” or “consecutively” (see on v. 1). Matthew consists largely of the discourses of Jesus arranged topically, whereas Mark deals with the events of Jesus’ life, grouping them together according to kind. The general arrangement of both Matthew and Mark is chronological, but chronological sequence was not their primary objective. They rearranged the order of the various incidents in harmony with the guiding purpose of their book. Luke, on the other hand, follows a rather strict chronological order. Matthew and Mark did not attempt such a presentation. See pp. 191, 192.

Most excellent. A title frequently used in addressing high government officials, comparable to the modern “your excellency.” The same term is used in referring to the Roman procurators of Judea (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). It is noteworthy to find a man of apparently high official rank accepting Christianity at this early period.

Theophilus. Literally, “friend of God.” There is little evidence to support the popular explanation that the name Theophilus did not represent any one person but was rather a general name used by Luke for Christians in general. However, the title “most excellent” seems definitely to imply that a real person is intended. Theophilus was probably a Gentile convert, as his Greek name implies.