A subtle attack

[Van]

Christian scholars are divided on how to interpret Colossians 4:11. Some, and I side with them, say this verse excludes Luke and Demas as being Jews (circumcised). Others say this verse only refers to those working with Paul "at the time the letter was written" and there does not exclude Luke from being "of the circumcision."

Either way, the idea that the personal bias of an inspired writer might introduce error into the text is without merit. As beautifully stated earlier, God used the experience, education and vocabulary of the inspired writer to express His (God's) own message!!!!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I don't know of a single competent biblical scholar who thinks Luke was a Gentile. Every one I am aware of believes Luke was a Hellenistic Jew.

I am familiar with many very prominent and competent scholars who have written that Luke was a Gentile. But, of course, I do not read only those scholars who agree with me!

 

[TCassidy]

first-century physicians in the Hellenistic world were Gentiles rather than Jews

Jesus did not seem to be aware that physicians were Gentiles rather than Jews.

Matthew 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Ironically Luke didn't seem to think it was necessary to correct the Lord's error.

Luke 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

 

[rsr]

Jesus did not seem to be aware that physicians were Gentiles rather than Jews.

I also would refer you to the 38th chapter of Wisdom of Sirach, supposedly written in the second century B.C.:

1 Honour a physician with the honour due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him: for the Lord hath created him.
2 For of the most High cometh healing, and he shall receive honour of the king.
3 The skill of the physician shall lift up his head: and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration.
4 The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them.
5 Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known?
6 And he hath given men skill, that he might be honoured in his marvellous works.
7 With such doth he heal men, and taketh away their pains.
8 Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and of his works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth,
9 My son, in thy sickness be not negligent: but pray unto the Lord, and he will make thee whole.
10 Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all wickedness.
11 Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour; and make a fat offering, as not being.
12 Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him.
13 There is a time when in their hands there is good success.
14 For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that he would prosper that, which they give for ease and remedy to prolong life.
15 He that sinneth before his Maker, let him fall into the hand of the physician. (King James Version)

 

[Craigbythesea]

Jesus did not seem to be aware that physicians were Gentiles rather than Jews.

Matthew 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Ironically Luke didn't seem to think it was necessary to correct the Lord's error.

Luke 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Where in the proverb that Jesus is quoting from does it specify the ethnicity of the physician?

 

[Craigbythesea]

I also would refer you to the 38th chapter of Wisdom of Sirach, supposedly written in the second century B.C.:

1 Honour a physician with the honour due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him: for the Lord hath created him.
2 For of the most High cometh healing, and he shall receive honour of the king.
3 The skill of the physician shall lift up his head: and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration.
4 The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them.
5 Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known?
6 And he hath given men skill, that he might be honoured in his marvellous works.
7 With such doth he heal men, and taketh away their pains.
8 Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and of his works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth,
9 My son, in thy sickness be not negligent: but pray unto the Lord, and he will make thee whole.
10 Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all wickedness.
11 Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour; and make a fat offering, as not being.
12 Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him.
13 There is a time when in their hands there is good success.
14 For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that he would prosper that, which they give for ease and remedy to prolong life.
15 He that sinneth before his Maker, let him fall into the hand of the physician. (King James Version)

Thank you for this quote. However, I wrote that “first-century physicians in the Hellenistic world were Gentiles rather than Jews.” Moreover, the “medicine” practiced by ancient Jewish “physicians” was more akin to sorcery and magic than the medical arts of ancient Greek medical practice.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The phrase "of the circumcision" is more likely used to differentiate between those Christians who strictly observed the rituals of Judaism and those who did not. Luke, being a Hellenized Jew, obviously did not. (See: Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Gospels" pp. 266–268.

Strelan, Rick. Luke the Priest – the Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel – Was Luke a Jew or Gentile? Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., May 1, 2013, pages 102–110.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Micropædia vol. 7, p. 554–555. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc, 1998. ISBN 0-85229-633-9.

And here is an excellent article by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D. Was Luke a Gentile?

http://www.levitt.com/essays/luke

Romand 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 3:1. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2. Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Romans 3:29. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30. since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Romans 4:7. “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8. blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.”
9. Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.”
10. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
11. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,
12. and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised. (NRSV)

 

[Craigbythesea]

I don't know of a single competent biblical scholar who thinks Luke was a Gentile. Every one I am aware of believes Luke was a Hellenistic Jew.

Alfred Plummer, in his commentary on the Greek text of the gospel according to Luke in the I.C.C. series, writes in his introduction, “Almost all critics are agreed that in Col. iv. 14 Luke is separated from “those of he circumcision,” and therefore was a Gentile Christian.

 

[rsr]

Thank you for this quote. However, I wrote that “first-century physicians in the Hellenistic world were Gentiles rather than Jews.” Moreover, the “medicine” practiced by ancient Jewish “physicians” was more akin to sorcery and magic than the medical arts of ancient Greek medical practice.

I think that may be mistaken. I would refer you to Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity by Gary B. Ferngren, who asserts that there are records of Hellenistic Jewish physicians practicing in Palestine during the time of Jesus. Sirach dates from two centuries or so before Christ and clearly is not advocating "sorcery or magic."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't know of a single competent biblical scholar who thinks Luke was a Gentile. Every one I am aware of believes Luke was a Hellenistic Jew.

Really? Would you not count William Hendriksen as a competent biblical scholar?
But actually, what difference does it make? 'All Scripture is God-breathed.....' whether the authors are Jewish or not.

 

[rsr]

To be clear, I am agnostic on whether Luke was Jewish or Gentile. The truth is we don't know; there are some supports for both positions, but none of them seem to me to be definitive (hence my arguments, and I would make a similar argument on his "Roman" name.)

My larger point is that I don't think it makes a bit of difference as to the authenticity or canonicity of his writings.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I think that may be mistaken. I would refer you to Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity by Gary B. Ferngren, who asserts that there are records of Hellenistic Jewish physicians practicing in Palestine during the time of Jesus. Sirach dates from two centuries or so before Christ and clearly is not advocating "sorcery or magic."

Please see this work on the subject,

Carmoly, Eliakim. Histoire des Médecins Juifs, Anciens et Modernes. Brussels, Société Encyclographique des Sciences Médicales, 1843.

Carmoly writes that in the early days of the Jewish state the priests were the physicians, and that the direct agency by which the people were healed was יהוה (YHWH). Regarding the later days of the Jewish state, he writes,

“On the other hand there is no doubt that this science was cultivated by the doctors of the law, of whom Ezra, the scribe, may be considered the chief. The doctors of the law have always been the depositaries of it and esteemed it as appertaining exclusively to their province. Seeing the influence and consideration that their knowledge gave them with the public they shrouded it in mystery, and took all possible precaution to prevent the admission of other classes of the community.

“But did they cultivate this science in a methodical manner, and is it evident that what they have done gave it a perceptible progress? We think not; at least they have handed down to us nothing by which we could judge. Nevertheless, according to tradition, Ezra and Nehemiah were very well versed in the virtues of herbs and the qualities of roots.” (As translated into English by John R. W. Dunbar, M. D.).

When Paul, in Col. 4:14, referred to Luke as “the beloved physician,” he most certainly was not referring to a Jewish “physician,” but to a Greek physician.

 

[stilllearning]

Sorry for the confusion, but the main point of this thread is the issue of "Luke's personal influence", while he was being used by God to give us Luke and Acts. Believing that he(or any other human being), could effect the words used in the Bible, might draw us away from the "awe", that we should have for God’s Word!

The fact is, because it is “God’s Word”, means that not a single word of it, can be a result of man’s intellect or investigation...... (2 Peter 1:20)
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
------------------------
The Lord, in trying to get this point across, tells us that any information from “any source”, can not be compared to the supernatural reliability of God’s Word:
Not even GOD’S VOICE, SPOKEN FROM HEAVEN! ...... (2 Peter 1:16-19)
V.16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
V.17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
V.18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
V.19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Even though Peter was an “eyewitness” of God’s voice from heaven, declaring who Jesus was; God tells us(here in 2 Peter), that this eyewitness account, “holds less validity” than the words of the Bible!

 

[Deacon]

I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised when I say that I disagree with you, Stillearning.

I think that God uses us as we are. He uses our intellect, or lack of it; he uses our strengths and weaknesses for his glory.

He used Luke to communicate his word in a way only Luke could have done.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

The fact is, because it is “God’s Word”, means that not a single word of it, can be a result of man’s intellect or investigation...... (2 Peter 1:20)
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
------------------------

This is not true in any shape or form. God can be and is sovereign even while men make choices, do investigations, and write divine books included in the canon.

Further, man's intellect and investigation used in the writing of scripture has nothing to do with 2 Peter 1:20. That would be a complete misapplication of that passage. Not even close.

Luke, while writing his gospel did so under the following conditions:

1. Not knowing that his writings would be part of the complete canon.
2. Did so as an eye witness and minister of the word to a specific audience.
3. He compiled an orderly account for the certainty of others as to what happened in Jesus ministry.

These are the conditions under which Luke wrote his gospel and yet during the entire time God is able to remain sovereign over all of His writing. We need to be careful of man made standards as to how God accomplishes things. Especially when we set them up where scripture itself has not.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Luke, while writing his gospel did so under the following conditions:

1. Not knowing that his writings would be part of the complete canon.

I suspect Luke did not even have in his mind the concept of a canon of scripture, much less that his writings (at least the ones that we have) would survive two millennia and be used as an authoritative source for faith and practice.

Nevertheless, Luke did his work under the guidance and assistance of the Spirit, and it survives and continues to bless others.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I suspect Luke did not even have in his mind the concept of a canon of scripture, much less that his writings (at least the ones that we have) would survive two millennia and be used as an authoritative source for faith and practice.

I wonder if this is the case. Paul certainly knew that he was writing the words of God. 1 Cor. 14:37. If anyone thinks himself a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.'

Nevertheless, Luke did his work under the guidance and assistance of the Spirit, and it survives and continues to bless others.

That is absolutely true.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Revmitchell

You talk as if you “know” what it was like, to be used by God to give us His Word!

This is what the Bible says about it.....
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)

Note, this is the verse following the verse we are talking about: God knowing that this was going to be discussed and therefore gave us an answer.
------------------------
Being “moved by the Holy Ghost”, meant that neither Luke or Paul or Moses for that matter, did the things that you and I might do, before writing a letter.

In fact, we are told that these writers “didn’t even understand the things they were writing”! They were just recording the “words” that God gave them......(1 Peter 1:10-12)
V.10 ¶ Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:
V.11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
V.12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hello Revmitchell

You talk as if you “know” what it was like, to be used by God to give us His Word!

Actually I talk like I have read the Bible


------------------------

Being “moved by the Holy Ghost”, meant that neither Luke or Paul or Moses for that matter, did the things that you and I might do, before writing a letter.

Where in scripture does it say that what it meant?

In fact, we are told that these writers “didn’t even understand the things they were writing”! They were just recording the “words” that God gave them......(1 Peter 1:10-12)
V.10 ¶ Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:
V.11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
V.12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

That is not what that says. It is a reference to the progressive revelation of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Nevertheless, Luke did his work under the guidance and assistance of the Spirit, and it survives and continues to bless others.

Having thought about this a little more, I would want to say that Luke did his work under the direction of the Holy Spirit.