THE APOSTLE OF THE RECONCILIATION 11

Luke gives a full quotation of the prophet down to the reference to the `rough places'. It occurs nowhere else in the

New Testament. Further studies of this character would only burden the reader, yet we deem it necessary in these

days to show the `infallible proofs' which the Scriptures contain of their authenticity and accuracy. Luke in the

introduction to his Gospel makes it clear that his information was derived from two sources:

`Eye-witnesses', and

`From above'.

`From above' is the translation of anothen consistent with that of John 3:31; 19:11; James 1:17; 3:15-17. Luke

claims to have received `perfect understanding FROM ABOVE.'

Passing from his own claims as to inspiration and accuracy, we notice the peculiar feature of his Gospel is

contained in the words `in order'. The other evangelists have not undertaken to write `in order', whereas Luke does.

When, therefore, we find one order of events recorded in Matthew and another in Luke, we remember that Luke's

order is historically accurate, and Matthew's order is so arranged to suit the special purpose of his Gospel. Whilst no

such statements are repeated in the Acts, it seems quite justifiable to believe that unless we are told to the contrary,

the second volume - written by the same person - shall also be (1) that of eye-witnesses, (2) from above, and (3) in

order. Luke was not an eye-witness of many of the events of the Acts, particularly of the first half; nevertheless, his

narrative leaves no room for error, being `inspired' `from above'.

Consider the pitfalls that beset either (1) an uninspired writer, or even more, (2) a forger of the second century.

The scenes are laid, some in Jewish and Oriental places, some in Western European and Roman cities: some scenes

are laid in the renowned capitals of the Gentiles, some in holy cities of the Jews, some in Roman colonies, and some

in Greek cities, yet others in barbarous districts. Across these varied scenes pass and re-pass the excited, fanatical

Jews; the lewd rabble of the Greek cities; high priests with their attendants; Roman centurions, jailors, soldiers;

governors and kings; philosophers and soothsayers; image worshippers and image makers; all go to swell the throng.

The ever-changing political affairs alone would be enough to trip the most careful. Judaea at one time is a Roman

province under a Procurator, at another it is an independent kingdom under Herod. Geographical names, even, are

not true of the same place all the time; yet Luke has never once made a mistake. If the rulers of Thessalonica were

called Politarchs, he records it; and the British Museum now tells about his accuracy. If he records the title

`Politarchs' for Thessalonica, he speaks of the Asiarchs of Ephesus with equal certainty. Amid all the changes made

by the fickleness of Emperors or the demands of the Senate, Luke never uses Propraetor where Proconsul should

have been used; and has put some of his would-be critics to shame for their premature judgment on this point. With

unerring accuracy he sketches the character of Herod, of Felix, of Gallio.  Through thirty years of critical

happenings, over hundreds of miles of the most varied country, from audiences with kings to women's prayer

meetings by the riverside, the writer of the Acts with utmost care and perfect confidence threads his way from

Pentecost to prison, from Jerusalem to Rome.

What of the personal character of this inspired writer? Little is known. Paul is not generally accused of flattery,

and it is evident that when he writes the words, `Luke the beloved physician', he gives us the finest character that

could be given from one fellow-servant to another. His constancy and faithfulness are seen in the closing record of

Paul's career. Though all in Asia turned away from Paul, and though Demas forsook him, he could write, `only Luke

is with me'.

The reference to Luke as a physician started Hobart upon an exhaustive study, which has proved to an extreme

degree that the author of the Acts was a man to whom medical terms were a part of every-day language; and a

physician's manner of description is the manner of the writer of the Acts. So important is this added testimony that

we desire to give it a place in this chapter of evidences before passing on to more expository studies. Hobart's

volume is of fair size, and we shall content ourselves with a few extracts, all of which are peculiar to Luke; that is,

occurring nowhere else in the New Testament. Now, if the testimony of language stands for anything, then should

the words alone used by Luke be medical terms, Luke being a medical man. The medical works cited by Hobart are

those of Hippocrates (B.C. 460-317); Aretaus (A.D. 1st. Century); Galen (A.D. 130-200); and Dioscorides (A.D. 1st.

or 2nd. Century).