Hypothetically, if it were to be settled in court that Luke was a Gentile, one would need a kangaroo court—a biased, unreliable, agenda-driven court that predetermines cases without evidence. The case is that weak. Luke’s profile as the New Testament’s only Gentile author was emboldened by centuries of tradition in which people parroted the idea without question. I was once guilty. It didn’t seem important enough to even investigate at the time. I was wrong—for repeating an unchecked statement and for doubting its significance.
Does It Really Matter?
The truth always matters, and false narratives have negative consequences. Furthermore, consider the “latent ‘antisemitism’” that surfaces when scholars pontificate as to why Luke wasn’t Jewish. It’s often said his writing reflects someone who was sophisticated, refined, educated, and highly proficient with the Greek language—as if 1st-century Jews were incompetent.1
I believe Luke’s non-Jewishness actually contradicts a biblical maxim from Romans 3:1–2: “The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.”
Significantly, I believe Luke’s non-Jewishness actually contradicts a biblical maxim from Romans 3:1–2: “The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God” (ESV).2 All other canonical texts—inspired by the Holy Spirit—were penned by the stock of Jacob. It’s a challenge for Jewish people to consider the New Testament’s witness about Messiah if its most prolific author (27 percent) was a non-Israelite.3 Additionally, there’s an excellent linguistic case that Luke likely authored Hebrews (as a Jew),4 raising his contribution to 31 percent.5 If the traditional view of Luke is wrong, we must ask, What support was there for ever believing he was not Jewish?
The Case That Luke Was a Gentile
Traditions aside, Luke’s non-Jewishness was inferred from Colossians 4:10–14. There, Paul sent greetings from three men he called the “only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are of the circumcision” (v. 10). Three verses later (v. 14), Paul says, “Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.” Since Luke was not mentioned with those three men “of the circumcision,” many suspect he was a Gentile.
Problems With the Colossians 4 Reading
The Colossians argument assumes Paul uses “the circumcision” synonymously for all Jews; further assuming he didn’t add Luke as an afterthought when closing the letter.6 It also assumes Paul didn’t have another reason to exclude Luke from the previous group.7 The biggest blow to the Colossians 4:10–14 argument points out that the Greek behind the phrase “from the circumcision” (v. 11) is better translated as “from the circumcision party,” as with Galatians 2:12 in multiple translations.8
Remember, an immediate debate arose among Jewish-only believers after Jesus ascended: How are Gentiles incorporated into this new understanding of the Jewish faith? Two groups emerged in the early church: 1) The circumcision party insisted Gentiles must follow Moses and be circumcised to become Christians (Acts 15:1, 5); and 2) The leading Jewish Christians stood alongside the Hellenists—Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews—and opposed them (Acts 15:23–29).
The circumcision party notoriously antagonized Paul; but he said in Colossians 4 that Aristarchus, John Mark, and Justus are the only ones of that party that comforted him. Context even suggests that this circumcision issue was what divided Paul and Barnabas over John Mark in the first place (Acts 13:13; 15:36–40).9 Paul is asserting John Mark’s restoration (Colossians 4:10) for the Colossians.
The Evidence for Luke’s Jewishness Is Stronger
Seriously, “not one of the [so-called] church fathers identified Luke as a Gentile.”10 A stronger case exists that Luke was a Hellenistic Jew. Consider that:
Luke is a strange name . . . . it rarely appears outside of the New Testament . . . in spite of . . . a vast number of documents in Greek mentioning thousands of Greek names. So we are justified in asking . . . “What if Luke is not his full name?”11
Astonishingly, it has been “discovered in the papyri of Pisidian Antioch that ‘Luke’ and ‘Lucius’ were used interchangeably for the same individual.”12 The explanation is that Luke is:
a diminutive version of a Greek name that is very well attested in Greek literature. . . Lucius. In English Luke and Lucius have only 2 letters in common, but in Greek it becomes five [(Loukas and Loukios, respectively)]. In fact, in Greek they are almost one and the same name.13
Acts 20:1-6 indicates that Luke was present when Paul likely wrote Romans.14 Astonishingly, Paul refers to this Loukios (Lucius) as a fellow Jew in Romans 16:21.15
Luke as a Participant in His Own Book of Acts
Syrian-Antioch figures prominently in Acts as the first church outside of Jerusalem; it was originally only Jewish (Acts 11:19–21). In Acts 13:1, a list of Antioch’s leaders contains a Loukios (Lucius) “of Cyrene.” Could this be Luke, unobtrusively listing himself among Antioch’s first leaders? Possibly. We can’t be sure. The first “we” passage of Acts makes Luke a participant at verse 11:28 in some manuscripts—rather than the usual 16:10—putting Luke in Antioch at its first mention.16 Eusebius wrote that Luke was born there.17
What we do know is that as a witness to the book’s events (chaps.16; 20—21; 27—28), Luke was present for Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem. Paul was falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the Temple and defiling it (21:28). Significantly, Luke doesn’t record himself, but Trophimus, as the Gentile that everyone was concerned with (v. 29).18
The Identity of Theophilus
Theophilus, Luke’s intended recipient and possible benefactor (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), has been the subject of guesswork for centuries. Those envisioning a Gentile-Luke writing mainly to Gentiles imagine Theophilus as a Roman dignitary. Indeed, calling him “most excellent” does convey he’s someone of rank (Luke 1:4; Acts 24:3), but not necessarily a Roman. The argument that he was Theophilus ben Annas, a deposed Sadducean high priest of Israel (AD 37–41) is stronger; at least it has evidence based on an actual historical figure. His existence is confirmed both archaeologically19 and in the writings of Josephus.20 Since the archaeological discovery indicates that Theophilus’ granddaughter was named Joanna, it’s even suggested that this explains why a woman named Joanna is unique to Luke’s Gospel (8:2–3; 24:10).21
Luke’s Concern With the Temple and the Priesthood Explained
The biblical data supports Luke writing to a high priest like Theophilus and a larger Jewish audience as well. His Gospel begins and ends with the Temple. He doesn’t bother to elaborate on the priesthood’s customs, probably because he didn’t have to. He’s the only writer to mention that “a large number of priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Jerusalem’s centrality and the Tanakh’s importance in his writings reflect someone steeped in Jewish Scripture and history. Israel’s redemption and the testimony of righteous Israelites figure prominently in Luke’s narrative.22 It’s been shown that Luke is preoccupied with priestly matters.
Jerusalem’s centrality and the Tanakh’s importance in his writings reflect someone steeped in Jewish Scripture and history.
The books of Luke and Acts emphasize themes like the resurrection, assistance of angels, and God’s sovereign intervention into human affairs; as if to convince a Sadducee to abandon his party.23 A Gentile writing to convince Gentiles would hardly take interest in Jewish details like Luke does. If Theophilus ben Annas is Luke’s recipient, it underscores the magnitude of Luke’s assurance that he’ll order a narrative of “things which have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). It’s a narrative their ancestor prophets had spoken of long ago (24:27).
Conclusion
It’s more sensible that a Hellenistic Jew would dedicate himself to the cause of doing exactly what the prophets say Israel should do: remain a light while blessing the Gentiles (Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 49:6). Would it be impossible to write, or would it change Scripture’s truth, if Luke were a convert to Judaism? No. However, it’s rightly noted that a Gentile-Luke’s message seems “self-serving”; but from a Jew this worldwide Gospel becomes truly “compelling.”24 Clearly, the New Testament is totally Jewish; capturing in-house debates within Judaism while revealing how Abraham’s Seed would truly bless the Gentiles (Genesis 12:3).
Endnotes
1 R. Wayne Stacy, “Colossians 4:11 and the Ethnic Identity of Luke,” Eruditio Ardescens: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 6 (2015): 4-5, accessed August 19, 2022, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jlbts.
2 Thomas McCall, “Was Luke a Gentile?,” Zola Levitt Ministries, March 1996, accessed August 19, 2022.
3 Doug Enick, “The New Testament’s Most Prolific Authors,” Pastor’s Blog, December 11, 2017, accessed August 19, 2022, (http://dougenick.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-new-testaments-most-prolific-authors.html).
4 David A. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).
5 Compare this to Paul’s 23.5 percent and John’s 20.4 percent.
6 Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, “Could Luke be Jewish? (Part 1),” Israel Bible Weekly, June 25, 2018, accessed August 19, 2022, (https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/luke-jewish-possibly-part-1/).
7 McCall 1996.
8 Stacy, 6-11.
9 Ibid., 11.
10 Allen, 263.
11 Lizorkin-Eyzenberg 2018.
12 Allen, 266.
13 Lizorkin-Eyzenberg 2018.
14 Allen, 267.
15 Interestingly, Paul uses Demas, a diminutive of Demitrius, in Colossians 4, where Luke’s diminutive is used. However, he uses Sosipater instead of the diminutive Sopater in Romans, which is the place where he uses Lucius instead of the diminutive Luke. Allen suggests it’s because the church in Rome wasn’t familiar with Paul and his inner circle at the time Romans was written.
16 Allen, 264-265.
17 C.F. Cruse, trans., Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 69.
18 McCall 1996.
19 Merrilyn Mansfield, “Joanna and Theophilus: A Proposal” (University of Sydney), 1, accessed on August 23, 2022, (https://www.academia.edu/43708969/Joanna_and_Theophilus_A_Proposal).
20 William Whiston, trans.,The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 485 and 520.
21 Mansfield, 1.
22 Michael Brown, “The Gospel of Luke and Jewish-Christian Relations,” in A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Gospels, ed. Craig A. Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2021), 301.
23 Allen, 335.
24 Stacy, 12.
About the Author
Comments 12
A very well researched writ on Luke-was he a son of A I J?
I have had in the last year two reliable sources say that
1. Luke could have written HEBREWS.
2. The 66 Books are all writ by Hebrew men, sons of A I J.
that would include Luke.
Thanks for the fine paper on Luke.
Fentress C. Horner
The reference to “the oracles of God” in the book of Romans strikes me as the most compelling as to the Luke’s descent.
I find it hard to understand how members of the “circumcision party” could be such a great comfort to Paul, their arch enemey.
I searched and found your article after searching online to understand the origins of Lucien of Antioch. I have for a longtime “felt” that Luke was a Jew. Simply a ‘gut feeling’, whenever I read his Gospel or the Book of Acts. I am convinced that you are right and I am now very happy to have some hard core factual reason to ‘think’ that Luke was indeed a Jew!
Thanks! Great article and research and insight. I’m starting Luke tomorrow and will hand out some copies of this. Perfect timing.
Nice article. Please correct “papyri” to “inscriptions”.
Great article. Confirms my gut instinct that the Bible was written by God-inspired Jews in this time of so much antisemitism enacted also by the church.
Excellent article and research! I Pastor a local church and this is the same way I teach Luke’s background. The most compelling piece of data, that you deal with well, is that if Luke is a Gentile, then those two books are the only books in the Bible written by Gentiles. Daniel 4 was written by Daniel, but he is transcribing Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to the Babylonian people. It’s a Gentile statement, but transcribed by Daniel. As a side note, since you brought it up…Check out the ending of the book of Hebrews again. I’m pretty sure that Paul is the human author of the book, as many of the early church fathers say he was, but it may be possible that Luke penned the book. Hebrews ends, just as many of Paul’s writings and he mentions people that he also mentioned in other books. He wanted so badly for his own people, the Jews, to believe in Christ, so I personally believe, that Hebrews is Paul’s attempt to demonstrate how the entire religious system, from the Old Testament, practiced by the Jews, pointed to Christ. I know that this comment is somewhat late to the party, but I just read this today. Thanks for sharing this information!
Interestingly, it seems like Luke partially records what is commonly referred to as “The Lord’s Prayer” found in Matthew 6. This prayer seems to be a condensed version of key components of the Amidah, a traditional Jewish prayer originating around 450 BCE. It’s known as the standing prayer and is repeated to this day in Judaism. It’s an interesting study on the standing prayer and worthy of learning.
Luke did not ‘partially record’ what Yeshua said. His record is accurate. In truth, he was not there when Yeshua said this. Rather, he had the Ruach HaKodesh guiding him in his writings. The Spirit of Truth is not a liar. Yeshua, the Annointed One born of the virgin, the only begotten Son of the Living G-d, was a man very much living completely in the moment, but also fully aware of what had come before and what was coming. And he knew what was in a man’s heart. Yeshua said what was needed to say, because it was not Yeshua whose words were being offered, but rather, as Yeshua tells us, “I only say what my Father in Heaven tells me to say.” You know this, so act accordingly. I tell you truly, that Yeshua offered another, shorter version of a prayer to his Talmidim, on the night he was betrayed. If you want proof that Yeshua was only concerned with what was most needed in a situation, then witness what Yeshua told Peter, John and James on this night, not once but three times. The most pressing thing on this evening was that Peter, John and James remain awake and pray continually not to fall into temptation. So here you have Yeshua offereing another version of prayer to fit a specific situation. Think of it like this. Yeshua knows what is coming. His Father in Heaven has told him that Satan has gone to G-d to ask permission to ‘sift the talmidim like wheat.’ What does Yeshua tell Peter, “I have prayed for you Simon …” So if you want to pray like Yehsua, then remain always spiritually aware of your Father’ will, our Father in Heaven, Yeshua’s Father, through His Spirit of Holiness. Now you know why Yehsua went to the Father to request and arrange for this gift to be given to us, and what he meant when he taught us, “What man would give his son a stone when he asked for bread?” GIVE US THIS DAY OUR PORTION (ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY) OF WHAT YOU (OUR FATHER) KNOW TO BE PERFECTLY SUFFICIENT FOR OUR TRUE NEEDS.
According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, there is no definite proof, either way, whether Luke was a Jew or a Gentile.
While I was educationd with the thought that Luke was a Gentile, I keep finding Hebreisms in Lukes writing, which has made me wonder how he got them. EG. Luke 16:9–13 as discussed by Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (pp. 378–380). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.] If you have not been amin [faithful]
in the unrighteous mammon [your material possessions]
the amuna [the truth]
who will ja’min ith kun [entrust to you].