luke 1.1-4

It is clearly important to Luke that his account be taken to be trustworthy. He’s giving us an account of the life of Jesus, and it’s unlike anything we’ve ever encountered before. And so it seems reasonable that he begin with his credentials of trust.

For Luke, it seems sufficient that he’s done his research, and is presenting an orderly account based on the reports of eyewitnesses. Presumably his relationship with Theophilus is such that there’s already an earned trust because of which Theophilus may be confident that Luke is being consciously truthful.

What Luke does not say is that he prayed over it, or that the words he writes are inspired by the Holy Spirit. For a gospel which certainly highlights both prayer and the Holy Spirit, this is a striking omission. This does not mean that he did not pray over it, nor does it imply that his words are not inspired by the Holy Spirit — absence does not imply negation.

So why did he neither mention prayer, nor the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Previous
Previous

42

Next
Next

what is the gospel?