Very possibly Luke was facing the very same problem that is before us teachers to-day--very possibly Theophilus, to whom the Gospel and The Acts were dedicated, was a young man who had grown up in the Church and could now no longer be satisfied with the vague and unsystematic instruction that had been given him in childhood. At any rate, whether he was a young man grown up in the Church, or a recent convert, or merely a Gentile interested in Christianity, he was a person of intellectual interests, and those interests are treated by the evangelist not with contempt but with the utmost sympathy. The Gospel was written in order that Theophilus might "know the certainty" of those things wherein he had been instructed.
That might be regarded as the motto for the entire course of study which we have undertaken this year. It should be our aim to lay before young people of the Church the certainty of the things wherein they have been instructed--to enable them to substitute for the unreasoning faith of childhood the profound convictions of full-grown men and women. Moreover, exactly like the author of the Third Gospel, we are endeavoring to accomplish this aim, not by argument, but by an orderly presentation of "those matters which have been fulfilled among us." A simple historical presentation of the facts upon which Christianity is founded is the surest safeguard of Christian faith.
Alone among the Synoptists Luke gives his readers some direct information about the methods of his work. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2. This information, which was barely touched upon in the Student's Text Book, must here be considered somewhat more in detail.
=(1) Luke Not an Eyewitness from the Beginning.=--From the prologue to the Gospel, Luke 1:1-4, it appears, in the first place, that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events that he narrates--at least he was not an eyewitness "from the beginning."
=(2) His Predecessors.=--In the second place, it appears that he had had predecessors in his task of writing an account of early Christian history. Apparently, however, none of these previous works were produced by an apostle or by an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Jesus. The previous writers, like Luke himself, were dependent upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Matthew, therefore, since it was written by an apostle, was not one of the works to which reference is made. This conclusion is amply confirmed by a comparison of Matthew with Luke. Evidently, at least, the two are entirely independent. If Luke refers to the First Gospel in the prologue, at any rate he made no use of it.