Featured Was Luke a Gentile?

May I suggest that if this were important Scripture would give us a clear answer.

 

Again, if Scripture does not assign weight to this possibility I'm not convinced that we should.

 

(a) Acts 1:19 is pretty compelling, and it's the Bible.
(b) To repeat yet again, why assign significance to this when Scripture doesn't? Where's the applicational value?

 

Thank you for posting about this. I am told that when I write my papers, I am responsible to know of the controversies even if I don't believe them or think they are important.

If much ink has been spilled over this, I guess I am responsible to know that at least. Thanks!

 

A few years ago I led a 17-month verse-by-verse study of the Gospel of Luke on Sunday morning.

At the very beginning of the study, as part of the introductory material, and to provide context, I researched the question of Luke potentially being a Gentile. You mentioned most of the biblical support for the question, but missed the cultural issue. In the Greco-Roman world, physicians were usually from conquered peoples, primarily Greeks, since they were more advanced than the Romans but not as powerful. The vast majority of physicians were slaves, serving the Roman community and armies throughout the Empire.

Given Luke’s remarkable knowledge of the ancient world, describing the growth of the early church through the Roman world, and his dedication of both of his surviving books to “Theophilus” (Greek for “lover of God”) — regardless if that is a specific person with that name or a general address to those who love God — strongly suggests he was not Jewish.

Ultimately, it is not essential for interpretation, but it does explain his omission of “let the reader understand” passage Jesus’ prophecy/warning to flee into the mountains when the Roman army comes to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. (Compare Luke 21:20-24 with Matthew 24:15-20 and Mark 13:14-18, noting specifically Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14). Luke also doesn’t include the reference to Abomination of Desolation for that might not be familiar to his readers, but gives a much more straightforward account.

 

Understanding these “insignificant” things of scripture encourages people from All walks of every tribe of the human race.
God uses the rich and the poor, Healthy and sick, educated and uneducated, the powerful and the weak , the young and the old to fulfill His purpose.
The question is, “Are you available?”

 

The tradition is that Luke was a Gentile, but the evidence is too sketchy to present as doctrine. But I am with those who do not see importance, but wrangling as to the issue, for there is no difference in Christ. The NT is all about our blood heritage meaning nothing.

 

If Colossians 4:14 means Luke was a Gentile then Genesis 35:23-26 means Benjamin was born in Padanaram; but he wasn't.

Gen 35:23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:
Gen 35:24 The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin:
Gen 35:25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:
Gen 35:26 And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

 

Which would be the reason why he shows to us the Jesus that is Roman, Greek, Jewish, is for all!

 

Being a gentile, he would have emphasis about Jesus being Messiah for us also, not just Israel !

 

Yes, this is all well and good, but to really annoy your professors and make a name for yourself, and eventually start your own cult, you need to argue persuasively some obscure position or clever twist, such as the obvious fact that Luke was an uncircumcised Jew, like Timothy had been.

 

A lot of people are shocked that Luke was not a disciple or one of the twelve. His gospel starts out as him writing to Theoplius. I've always thought he was a Greek.
MB

 

Yes, but Matthew main emphasis was to the Jews, and Luke seemed to be towards Gentiles!