-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Luke a slave?
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
Here are some commentary notes, they deal more with who Theophilus was than who Luke was:
[Re: Theophilus] “His [Luke’s] patron, to whom he dedicates this book (I should rather say his pupil, for he designs, in dedicating it to him, to instruct and direct him, and not to crave his countenance or protection), is Theophilus, v. 1. In the epistle dedicatory before his gospel, he had called him most excellent Theophilus; here he calls him no more than O Theophilus; not that he had lost his excellency, nor that it was diminished and become less illustrious; but perhaps he had now quitted his place, whatever it was, for the sake of which that title was given him,—or he was now grown into years, and despised such titles of respect more than he had done,—or Luke was grown more intimate with him, and therefore could address him with the more freedom. It was usual with the ancients, both Christian and heathen writers, thus to inscribe their writings to some particular persons. But the directing some of the books of the scripture so is an intimation to each of us to receive them as if directed to us in particular, to us by name; for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.” (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)
“It is likely, therefore, that “Theophilus” was chief magistrate of some city in Greece or Asia Minor, [WEBSTER and WILKINSON]” (A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Jamieson, Fausset, Fausset)
“Theophilus may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John Walvoord).
Rob
[Re: Theophilus] “His [Luke’s] patron, to whom he dedicates this book (I should rather say his pupil, for he designs, in dedicating it to him, to instruct and direct him, and not to crave his countenance or protection), is Theophilus, v. 1. In the epistle dedicatory before his gospel, he had called him most excellent Theophilus; here he calls him no more than O Theophilus; not that he had lost his excellency, nor that it was diminished and become less illustrious; but perhaps he had now quitted his place, whatever it was, for the sake of which that title was given him,—or he was now grown into years, and despised such titles of respect more than he had done,—or Luke was grown more intimate with him, and therefore could address him with the more freedom. It was usual with the ancients, both Christian and heathen writers, thus to inscribe their writings to some particular persons. But the directing some of the books of the scripture so is an intimation to each of us to receive them as if directed to us in particular, to us by name; for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.” (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)
“It is likely, therefore, that “Theophilus” was chief magistrate of some city in Greece or Asia Minor, [WEBSTER and WILKINSON]” (A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Jamieson, Fausset, Fausset)
“Theophilus may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John Walvoord).
Rob
T
TaterTot
Guest
Yes, that is a definite possibility. "lover of God" as described in the name, could have been one person, but also could have been addressing a larger community.
I would find it hard to believe that Luke was a slave in the traditional sense. He was a physician, and Acts reads very much as a legal brief for Paul's defense. (And I happen to believe that is why it was written, but that's just me.) He seems to be well educated and above the social status that would be normal for a slave.
I ran a search in the church fathers, and the possibility that Luke was a slave is never mentioned. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia likewise says nothing in either the original version or the revision.
It was one of those sermons that I was listening to, but not actively following along in the Bible. The minister was talking about Luke's version of the birth of Jesus and he just came out and said that Luke was Theo's slave and Theo had commanded him to investigate and write about this Jesus person.
I had never heard that one before, but before I asked him and sounded like an idiot, I wanted to see if this was common knowledge that I missed in first grade Sunday School 101.
Thanks for the great answers.
I had never heard that one before, but before I asked him and sounded like an idiot, I wanted to see if this was common knowledge that I missed in first grade Sunday School 101.
Thanks for the great answers.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
He was a high status slave. We show our wealth by driving
a big car or even better: have somone else drive
our big car. The Romans showed their wealth
by buying good Doctor slaves. Yes, in the First
century (0001-0100AD) Roman world a Doctor
was a slave.
Do not confuse Roman societly of the first
century with US society of the 21st
century (2001-2100) where the Doctor who
doesn't get sued gets rich.
USN2Pulpit
New Member
Ed, I've heard it the same way - as a possible explanation of the relationship between Luke and Theophilus. Regardless, the name meaning "lover of God" makes this all very interesting - meaning that these writings are for all who love God.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I'll see your 'Ed' and raise you a double 'eded"
psalm40.17
New Member
(KJV)
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I'm a senior citizen (if 60 is the break-line). So I can be Ed, Sr
Remember what our English friends say:
two 'eds are better than one
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen, Sir Ed - Preach it!Originally posted by EdSutton:
As a senior citizen myself, I'll see your senior, but you have yet to call my junior, and I have yet to call your second, 'ed'.
Aye, but I think we both are 'eded in the right direction!
Ed
I'll call you 'Sir Ed' (the past tense of 'sir'
).You call me 'Sir Ed'. We will confuse them all
