Luke the Evangelist

Luke was not one of the 12 Disciples of Jesus, but he was active in the early church.

It is believed that Luke was Greek but that he was born in Syria. Greek traders had settled along the coast in the Bible lands.

. Image Credit: History Alive Textbook

1. Identity.

“Luke is mentioned by name only three times in the NT—all by Paul while in prison (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philem 24). He never mentions his own name in his writings unless it is in an Armenian reading of Acts 20:13, based on a “Western” text which says “I Luke” (F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 5). However, his identity was certainly known to Theophilus and, no doubt, to the reading public of that day. Luke does identify himself in a measure in the “we” sections of Acts. All the leading associates of Paul (mentioned in the epistles) are eliminated from possible authorship by data in Acts, except Titus and Luke. Since no case can be made for Titus, Luke implies his own authorship. This inference is supported by unanimous early tradition. There are, then, valid autobiographical references by Luke particularly in Acts. His personality shows through in the gospel also.

“Luke was a Gentile, not “of the circumcision” (Col 4:10-14). His skill in the use of Greek, with his viewpoint and attitudes (e.g., “the barbarians,” Acts 28:2, 4 KJV) mark him as a Greek. He was a physician, a traveler, a missionary, and a writer.

2. Background.

“He probably was born in Antioch in Syria. So say Jerome (De Vir. Ill., vii) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. III. 4. 7). Luke shows unusual interest in Antioch (Acts 6:5; 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:19, 21, 26; 15:22, 23, 30, 35; 18:22). Even Ramsay conceded that he was born in Antioch of a Macedonian family (St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. xxxviii). Some think he was the brother of Titus (2 Cor 8:18; 12:18). If so, this helps answer the silence of Acts about Titus. D. Hayes conjectures that Paul may have known Luke at the University of Tarsus in student days (The Most Beautiful Book Ever Written, p. 21). He also suggests that Luke may have known the family of the Latin poet Lucanus, the nephew of Gallio and Seneca—a possible cause of Gallio’s leniency toward Paul in Acts 18:12-17 (pp. 7-12).

“Some have thought Luke may have been a freedman. Names with contractions ending in as were particularly common among slaves. Greek and Roman. masters often educated slaves as physicians and later freed them for their services (Hayes, p. 46). It is even conjectured that he may have been born in the household of Theophilus, a wealthy government official in Antioch (Luke 1:3).

3. Medical missionary.

“If the reading of Codex D in Acts 11:27f. is correct, Paul may have known Luke in Antioch. At least by Troas on the second journey, Luke joined Paul and was with him at least intermittently until Paul’s final imprisonment in Rome. The beloved physician not only bolstered Paul’s frail health and perhaps added years to his life, but he also practiced medicine at least at times in their journeys. The word for “cured” (Acts 28:8-10) means “medically treated.” Luke shared the labor and the rewards. Luke also shared the call and labors of preaching (16:10-13). He was likely the first university-trained medical missionary.

4. The historian.

“Luke was an able and deliberate historian, writing more than one-fourth of the volume of the NT—more than any other man. Modern research has vindicated the quality of his work. In legend, Luke was a painter. In fact, he was the recorder of truth that supplied the inspiration and subjects for religious art.”

Bible Encyclopedia

Bibliography W. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882), xxix-xxxvi, 1-297; A. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke (1898), xi-xxii; W. Ramsay, Luke the Physician (1908), 3-68; A. Harnack, Luke the Physician (1909), 1-198; D. Hayes, The Most Beautiful Book Ever Written (1913), 3-54; H. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (1927), 213-368; A. Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of Research (1930), 1-29; F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1951), 6-8; N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (1952), 15-22, 39, 40; J. Baker, “Luke, the Critical Evangelist,” Exp T, 68 (1956-1957), 123-125.