Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes, welcome him),
and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are of the circumcision; they have proven to be a comfort to me.
Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ, greets you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that you may be perfect and complete in all the will of God.
for I bear him witness that he has a great zeal for you, and those who are in Laodicea, and those in Hieropolis.
Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.*[Colossians 4:10-14]
In the first part of this series, we looked at a couple of the evidences that Luke was Jewish, not a Gentile as many people mistakenly believe.
The first line of evidence we considered is the highly likely possibility that Colossians 4:10-14 has been misinterpreted when commentators cite the passage as “proof” that Luke was a Gentile.
The second line of evidence is the fact that, of all the New Testament writers, Luke alone gives a prominent place to the Temple in his writings.
In this article we shall give additional evidences.
EXHIBIT #3
Of all the Gospel writers, Luke alone promotes a knowledge of Jewish practices and customs.
The first such demonstration of Luke’s attention to Jewish customs is seen in Luke 1:5. In this passage, Luke notes that Zechariah was a priest and Elizabeth was a “daughter of Aaron.” This is significant because, post-Exile, it became mandatory for priests to marry only women who were descendants of Aaron. [1]
The next notice of Jewish practice is found in the Magnificat. [2] The Magnificat makes reference to customs which would have no meaning to a Gentile audience.
Luke is the only one of the Gospel writers who makes mention of Jesus’ circumcision. [3] To a Gentile audience, this would not merely appear a meaningless detail, but would be considered barbaric and offensive.
Luke also gives careful attention to Jesus’ having to be redeemed as the firstborn and for Mary’s purification in the Temple. [4] Again, this is a detail which would carry no meaning for a Gentile audience.
EXHIBIT #4
Of all the Gospel writers, Luke alone presents a favorable view of the priesthood.
Of course, the most obvious example is that of Zechariah in Luke 1. Even though Luke points out Zechariah’s disbelief in Luke 1:18-20, Luke also records his later repentance and recovery. [5]
Although many people believe Luke painted a negative picture of the priesthood in the parable of the Good Samaritan [6], I do not believe this is the case. Looking at the context, Jesus is telling the parable to a “lawyer” — one of the so-called “experts” in the Law. Most likely the lawyer was a Pharisee—who were scrupulous to the point of imposing and elevating their inferences drawn from the Law over the Law itself. In the parable, the priest and the Levite are symbols of the Law. The point Jesus is making is summed up in the rabbinical teaching called pickuach nefesh, the teaching that one is exempt from observance of the law if it is necessary to save a human life.
Luke also mentions in Acts that “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” [7] This detail is not merely superfluous, but meaningless, if Luke was a Gentile writing to other Gentiles.
EXHIBIT #5
This brings us to the another piece of evidence — the identity of Theophilus.
Historically, the proposals for the identity of Theophilus include the following possibilities: (1) Theophilus was not a real person, but merely a generic title for an imagined reader. This is based solely on the word “Theophilus” meaning “one who loves God.”
(2) The second possibility posited by commentators is that “Theophilus” was a high ranking official in the Roman government who was secretly a believer.
(3) The third possibility, and the one I believe the most probable, given Luke’s emphasis on the Temple and Priesthood, is that Theophilus was a Jew, and not merely a run of the mill Jew, but, more specifically, a high priest.
Theophilus was the Hellenized name of John, the son of the high priest Annas [aka Ananias]. John himself served as high priest from 37-41 AD. John was deposed by Herod Agrippa I for being too sympathetic to the new sect of Christians. [8]
That Theophilus was most likely a former high priest would be most compelling evidence evidence for Luke being Jewish — because the testimony of a Gentile would not have been deemed credible in any type of Jewish legal proceeding, especially when the one hearing evidence was a high priest or former high priest.
EXHIBIT #6
The most significant evidence that Luke was Jewish and not a Gentile is found in the account of Paul’s arrest in the Temple. [9] Paul was arrested on the false charge of bringing a Gentile into the Temple precincts where Gentile presence was forbidden. This is written as a first person account — Luke thereby inferring he was an eyewitness to the events which transpired. At the same time, the Jews who attacked Paul did not attack him. Moreover, the idea that Paul had supposedly brought a Gentile into the Temple was because of his association with Trophimus, not Luke. Had Luke been a Gentile as many allege, two facts are significant: (1) the accusation against Paul would have been true, and (2) Luke would have been stoned immediately.
EXHIBIT #7
Finally, it must be noted that during the first six centuries of church history, none of the post-apostolic fathers identified Luke as a Gentile. While this is, admittedly, an argument from silence, it must be noted that following the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the church became increasingly anti-Semitic and infected by a false teaching called supersessionism [aka “replacement theology”]. That being the case, if Luke had been thought to have been a Gentile, that claim would have been published far and wide because it would have bolstered the claims of those advocating for supersessionism.
Thus we see seven strands of evidence which point to a Jewish identity for Luke which defy rebuttal and refutation — against highly questionable speculation and supposition for the allegation that Luke may have been a Gentile. There are very good reasons to believe Luke was Jewish and there is no objective, verifiable reason to believe he was a Gentile.
*Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[1] David L. Allen, The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), p. 278. See also Thomas S. McCall, “Was Luke a Gentile?” https://www.levitt.com/newsletters/1996-03.html
[2] Luke 1:46-55
[3] Luke 2:21
[4] Luke 2:22-24. See also Exodus 12:12-14; 22:29; 34:19-20; Numbers 18:15
[5] Luke 1:63-79
[6] Luke 10:30-37
[7] Acts 6:7
[8] David L. Allen, pp. 327-337. See also Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 19:6.2
[9] Acts 21:27-29
davestheology 