THE BOOK OF LUKE IS FROM ABOVE

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:1-4, KJV).

Who was Luke?

Over a fourth of the New Testament is attributedⁱ to a person named Luke: i.e., the third record of Jesus' ministry and the book of Acts. In Luke 1:2 he excludes himself from being an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. In the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 16:10) he indicates by saying "we" that he accompanied the apostle Paul on the latter's preaching journeys. He is described by this apostle as his "fellowlabourer" (Philemon 24) and as the "beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14). Some scholars deduce from the two books being "in good idiomatic Greek that Luke had a cultivated literary background."ⁱⁱ It is still surprising to some that a biography of Jesus and some early disciples by an obvious latecomer takes up such a large amount of the New Testament. How reliable would a human biographer be, who is not a direct witness of the key persons he's writing about? How would a come-lately disciple claim to know more fully than the eyewitnesses and hence "perfectly"? I submit that Luke's source of writing is beyond mortal man.

IS LUKE'S MESSAGE "FROM ABOVE"?

"These four verses are ... a very valuable preface, because they are a declaration from the author himself of the manner in which we are to regard his work." ⁱⁱⁱ

Therein, Luke states that previous "attempts" to organize the matters of the Faith had been transmitted "to us" by those who from the beginning had been eyewitnesses and ministers of the Logos. So Luke's decision is to write "in order" the matter since he had "full knowledge."^iv This article is intended to prove that Luke claimed that his perfect knowledge was given "from above"; i.e., from God.

SOURCE OF LUKE'S KNOWLEDGE

FROM BEGINNING OR FROM ABOVE?

There are two "beginning" expressions in the context of Luke 1:1-4: "from the beginning" and "from the first."

THE FIRST "BEGINNING" is in verse 2. It identifies when certain ones were eyewitnesses. The original word used, as Strong^v points out, is the word archē^G746 meaning "a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank)." The following comment accurately covers the main interpretation of what Luke is meaning: "from the beginning--that is, of [Jesus] public ministry."^vi Luke uses the same word in Acts 1:1 and is translated by BBE^vii as "of all the things which Jesus did, and of his teaching from the first."

PRIMARY DEFINITION. The second "beginning" word in verse 3 (KJV uses "first"; NIV, NASB, ISB, NET, etc. has "beginning") is not arche^G746. According to Thayer, this second Greek word is ἄνωθεν^G509 (anōthen). It can be translated as one of three things: "1) from above, from a higher place; 1a) of things which come from heaven or God; [but a secondary use can be] 2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first; 3) anew, over again." According to this Greek lexicologist, the primary meaning of the word (#1) then is "from above." It could also be used to mean "from the first (beginning)" or "again" but in order for translators to use either for anothen ^G509 in Luke 1, they must first reject the primary meaning as being unreasonable in the context.

PROBLEM OF REJECTING PRIMARY MEANING IN LUKE 1:3. By rejecting the primary definition then we are left with the same English word "first" or "beginning" that's used in verse 2. Although different words, both are assumed by the translators and commentators to mean the same in this context; e.g., "from the very first--that is, from the very earliest events; referring to those precious details of the birth and early life, not only of our Lord, but of His forerunner, which we owe to Luke alone."^viii Both verses are assumed to have the same meaning except the second would mean just a little earlier "beginning."

COMMENTATOR THAT DISAGREES. The reputable commentator Matthew Henry^ix does not agree with the comment. He asks and rightly so, why does Luke use a different word if he meant the same thing in both instances? I might add how could a commentator ascertain that Luke meant the same thing but with a varying degree of its "beginning"?

THE FOLLOWING AGREES TO "FROM ABOVE"

Vincent's Word Studies. Luke 1:3, "Lit., from above"; however, Vincent's would interpret as "the events being conceived in a descending series." This would be understandable if it made sense. How would Luke descend a narrative about Jesus?

NASB (Greek) Lexicon: "from above"; their translation uses "from the beginning" (?)

Yandex online translator: ἄνωθεν = "from above."^x Using the computer, I typed verse 3's Greek into a "Modern" Greek translator; the result: "was noted that from above all things, by your writing ." This just proves that Luke's ancient word still means "from above" in today's Greek.

LITERAL VERSUS ANALOGY. Strong's Dictionary actually explains the difference between the primary and secondary meaning for this word: "ἄνωθεν^G509. (From ἄνω^G507: upward or on the top); from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew."^xi The primary meaning is "from above." The secondary meaning is a figurative one. Whether to use or not use "from above" is therefore subjective. Is it meant to be literal? This indicates that the major translations considered Luke 1:3 to be an analogy or a figure of speech and not the preferred or literal "from above".

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

But why would the versions interpret the passage to be an analogy and not literal? "The Golden Rule of interpretation," (formulated by Dr. David L. Cooper of the Biblical Research Society), states: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. In other words, take every word of Scripture at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental Biblical truths, indicate otherwise."^xii

PRIMARY "LITERAL" TRANSLATION OPTION USED:

Translations that consider the literal option of "from above" for anothen^G509

Luke 1:3 All things from above (EMTV; SLT; WPNT)^xiii(ERRB^xiv)

John 3:3 & 7 Born from above (CEV; ERRB; ISV; JUB; YLT)^xv

John 3:31 He that cometh from above.

John 19:11 Power... except it be given thee from above.

James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above.

James 3:15 Wisdom is not from above but earthly

James 3:17 Wisdom that is from above

from the "top" of the temple curtain: literal for only these versions:

          Matthew 27:51"from above unto below" (ABP+^xvi, SLT^xvii)

          Mark 15:38 "from above unto below" (ABP+^xviii, SLT^xix)

* * * The other two passages using anothen, Acts 26:5 and Galatians 4:9, properly select the analogy meaning.

MY THEORY ON THE GENERAL PREFERANCE FOR ANALOGY DEFINITION.    If you don't believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, then would not a rational and polite person possibly deny respectfully that Luke honestly thought that his message was indeed from heaven; hence, the figurative meaning selection.

This is not unusual. As a teen my best friend was a devout. He had been taught that the New Testament was inspired but when I tested him with a verse, he said that that was just Paul's interpretation. I found out later that his learned pastor Dr. Orr, respected by all in town, had taught him that the Bible was inspired but not inspired "word for word" from God. Rather, as I understand it, he believed the NT writers were "inspired" like Shakespeare might "inspire" a poet. In other words, the writers of the NT would have been "influenced" to write their interpretation of spiritual things. Therefore, since he didn't like what Paul wrote, he didn't believe Paul had understood correctly. Therefore, if Dr. Orr was translating this passage, would he not honestly consider that it was impossible for Luke to have meant what he said literally.

However, is this not what the apostle Paul confirmed in the Ephesians letter concerning what had been from the ages a secret to men but now revealed from above?

Why do we have perfect knowledge from above written for us? "How by revelation the secret was made clear to me, as I said before in a short letter, By the reading of which you will be clear about my knowledge of the secret of Christ; Which in other generations was not given to the sons of men, but the revelation of it has now been made to his holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:4-6, BBE).

Paul ascribes His teachings from a revelation from above that was heretofore silent and secret concerning Christ but now made known to not only Paul but to the other apostles and to prophets (persons selected to be mouthpieces for God) ^xx such as the fellow worker Luke.

Although Luke was not an eyewitness nor an apostle, his receiving the secret from Heaven makes him one of the prophets that laid the base of our Faith (Ephesians 2:20, BBE). His preface assures us from whence he received his revelation: "from above." So that we "might know with certainty of those things."

Gaylon West

THROW OUT THE LIFELINE