In Colossians 4:14, Paul writes, "Luke, the beloved physician, sends his greetings, and also Demas." Luke was undoubtedly a trusted fellow worker with the apostle Paul. Some have even claimed that Luke was Paul's personal doctor. That very well may be true. We know that he was with Paul at the end of his life. According to 2 Timothy 4:11 (which is probably Paul's last letter before he is put to death, according to secular history, by Nero), the apostle writes, "Only Luke is with me ..." What do we know about Luke?
First, scripture tells us he was a doctor (Col. 4 for example). The 19th century scholar W.K. Hobart found evidence in Luke/Acts of medical language (The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882). While later scholars argued that Hobart made too much of this so-called medical terminology, this position should not be dismissed. One example will suffice. In Luke 4:38, Luke records where Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law. While parallel accounts in Matthew (8:14) and Mark (1:30) only mention she had a fever, Luke mentions she had a "high fever." Luke also mentions she was healed "immediately."
Second, the author of the third gospel is the same author of the book of Acts. The "we" sections in Acts suggests the author was an eyewitness (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). Luke definitely qualifies as a witness of many of these events. Besides this internal evidence, we know that early church history (the church fathers) unanimously attributed authorship to Luke.
Third, Luke was obviously a historian. The one-time skeptic William Ramsey set out to show the unreliable nature of Luke as a historian came to an opposite conclusion - only a person with firsthand knowledge could have written Acts. The preface in Luke (1:1-4) and Acts (1:1) is similar to the preface Josephus writes in his two volume work Against Apion. Luke's preface also shows he set out to write an "accurate account" of the life of Christ and history of the early church.
Article to be continued
By Randy Neal
First, scripture tells us he was a doctor (Col. 4 for example). The 19th century scholar W.K. Hobart found evidence in Luke/Acts of medical language (The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882). While later scholars argued that Hobart made too much of this so-called medical terminology, this position should not be dismissed. One example will suffice. In Luke 4:38, Luke records where Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law. While parallel accounts in Matthew (8:14) and Mark (1:30) only mention she had a fever, Luke mentions she had a "high fever." Luke also mentions she was healed "immediately."
Second, the author of the third gospel is the same author of the book of Acts. The "we" sections in Acts suggests the author was an eyewitness (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). Luke definitely qualifies as a witness of many of these events. Besides this internal evidence, we know that early church history (the church fathers) unanimously attributed authorship to Luke.
Third, Luke was obviously a historian. The one-time skeptic William Ramsey set out to show the unreliable nature of Luke as a historian came to an opposite conclusion - only a person with firsthand knowledge could have written Acts. The preface in Luke (1:1-4) and Acts (1:1) is similar to the preface Josephus writes in his two volume work Against Apion. Luke's preface also shows he set out to write an "accurate account" of the life of Christ and history of the early church.
Article to be continued
By Randy Neal