Luke:  Was he a Jew or a Gentile?

Some would probably say, “who cares and what difference does it make?”  But if Luke was a Gentile, it means that he wrote more of “the New Testament” portion of the Bible than anyone else.  That would include John and even Paul, the one who called himself the apostle to the Gentiles.

Romans 11:13

¹³ For I [Paul] speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am THE apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: [Emphasis added]

Galatians 2:8

⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision [the Jews], the same was mighty in ME [Paul] toward the Gentiles) [Emphasis added]

Such statements are never made about Luke, even though he was a very important writer of Scripture having written the “gospel” writing called Luke as well as the historical book called Acts.  For a better understanding of the importance of Acts, please see my article about it—

Acts: What basics do we all need to know about that book?

Furthermore, there’s nothing in the verses I just mentioned that tells us Paul was somehow sharing this position as the apostle to the Gentiles with anyone else.  Even the gospel message through which people are saved today was delivered to us through the apostle Paul, not Luke or anyone else.

Galatians 2:7

⁷ But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; [Emphasis added]

I might also add that Luke writes not even one word about the message of the mystery anywhere.  Only the apostle Paul discloses the details of that VERY important message most people know so little about.

Ephesians 3:1-5

¹ For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

² If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given ME to you-ward:

³ How that by revelation he made known unto ME the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

⁴ Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand MY knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

⁵ Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [Emphasis added]

If you’re not familiar with that message, as nearly all Christendom isn’t, and the extreme significance of it, you’ll find articles with the details about it on this website.  Here are the names and links to several—

Mystery: What is The Key to Understanding the Bible?

Mystery:  What is the fellowship of the mystery?

Mystery: What is this secret that Paul wrote about?

As it is often stated, the Bible truly is a Jewish book.  No Gentiles had anything to do with the writing of any portion of it.  Tradition would try to tell us otherwise, but tradition has so much else that’s wrong, why not this too? The “evidence” these people have for Luke being a Gentile is paper thin.  Again, the idea that Luke was a Gentile is based on tradition, not strong biblical evidence.  However, it is true that this matter cannot be settled conclusively because the Scriptures never specifically tell us Luke’s background, but the arguments for him being a Jew appear to far outweigh those for him being a Gentile.  But let’s look at the things in Scripture people tend to consider as they address this subject.  We’ll begin with this one that gives us the names of some of the people who were closely associated with the man called our apostle, the apostle Paul.

Colossians 4:7-18

⁷ All my [Paul] state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord:

⁸ Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts;

⁹ With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here.

¹⁰ Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)

¹¹ And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision [meaning they were all Jewish]. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

¹² Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.

¹³ For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.

¹⁴ LUKE, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

¹⁵ Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

¹⁶ And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

¹⁷ And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.

¹⁸ The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen. [Emphasis added]

In verse 14 of this passage, you can see how Paul refers to Luke as the beloved physician. The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision,” he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence that he was a Gentile. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching but was instead Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke on the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry. But him not being listed with these others is the “strongest evidence” people have that Luke must have been a Gentile.

Proponents of the idea that Luke was a Gentile have also argued that the name Luke [or Lucas] is, in itself, evident of this.  However, there are others in the Colossians 4 passage who have Gentile names but are stated to be Jews.  That would include Aristarchus, Marcus, Justus, and even Paul.  We know for a fact that all these men with Gentile names were Jews!

Then we have the situation with Peter to consider.  His Hebrew name was Simon.  We find that Jews who lived in the Diaspora [Jews living in Gentile nations] used two names:  one, a Jewish name, which was used in the synagogue, and the other, a Gentile name, which was used socially and in business.  Therefore, Luke could be the name of a Jew who lived among the Gentiles.  I believe this was the case for Luke.

I have even found that there are some who claim that since Luke was a physician he must have been a Gentile because there were no physicians in the Roman world.  Such is simply not true.  The things people will sometimes come up with to make their case have always amazed me.

Christ referred to physicians in Israel on several occasions:

“Physician, heal thyself…” [Luke 4:23]

“They that are sick have need of a physician…” [Matthew 9:12]

There is as much reason to believe that Jews were in the medical profession in ancient times as they are today.

Therefore, none of the arguments that support the idea that Luke was a Gentile are strong. It is helpful, then, to turn to the arguments that Luke was a Jew.  Let’s look at them.

As I’ve already stated, there are no specific statements as to the background of Dr. Luke. The only way we can know anything for certain about Luke’s background is from the inferences we have in the Scriptures.

As we draw this article to a conclusion, there are serval other items to consider—

1. It was the Jews who were said to be the oracles of God.

This responsibility was never shared with Gentiles.  Note what the apostle Paul says about this—

Romans 3:1-2

¹ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

² Much every way: chiefly, because that UNTO THEM were committed the oracles of God. [Emphasis added]

This is Bible documentation for the fact that it was through the Jews and not any Gentiles that God provided the revelation of Himself for the human race.  That would therefore mean that if Luke was a Gentile he would have had no part in this.  God used some Gentiles historically all right, but not in revelation. It was only Jews that God chose to use as the vehicles of His revelation.  If Luke was somehow an exception to this, we need proof of it.  We know there is none. Only speculation!

2. It was Trophimus, not Luke, who was the cause of Paul’s arrest.

It was Luke who was a constant companion of the apostle Paul from the time he sailed from Troas to Europe.  He was even with him on his fateful visit to Jerusalem and was an eyewitness to Paul’s arrest in the Temple recorded in Acts 21.  The crowd there believed Paul had unlawfully brought Gentiles into the Temple precincts which was a crime punishable by death.  Luke defended him saying he was innocent of that charge. He explained that Paul didn’t bring any Gentiles into the Temple, but he was seen on the streets of Jerusalem with “Trophimus, an Ephesian.”  It appears that Paul brought Trophimus with him so the apostles and the church there could see first-hand some of the fruit of their labors with the Gentiles.  Even though the charge brought against Paul was false, a riot erupted, and he was arrested.  The point is that, when the Jewish people wanted to accuse Paul of bringing a Gentile into the Temple area, they chose Trophimus.  If Luke as an eyewitness there was a Gentile, why didn’t they bring him into this matter? The obvious and, therefore, correct answer to that is that they knew Luke was a Jew, not a Gentile. Because Luke was not a controversial subject when Paul had traveled to Jerusalem and the Temple, it must be assumed and assumed correctly that he must have been a Jew.  Therefore, there’s no mention of Luke when Paul was arrested.

3. As a Jew, Luke had an intimate knowledge of the Temple.

We see this in his announcement to Zacharias concerning the birth of John the Baptist.  Luke is very familiar with the rotation of the selection of the Levitical priests for serving in the Temple according to their families.  He even described the position of the priest before the altar of incense where the angel appeared to Zacharias [Luke 1:8-20].  Only a Jew would be so familiar with such things.

4. Luke’s intimate relationship with Mary.

He is able to relate the story of the birth of Jesus mainly from Mary’s point of view and said that she hid these things “in her heart” [Luke 2:19, 51].  How would he know that without an intimate relationship with her? He, of course, could have gained this knowledge by some special revelation but there’s no record of that happening.  It just seems highly unlikely that he could have gotten close enough to Mary to learn these things if he had been a Gentile.

Conclusion—

As you’ve seen in this article, there’s Scripture and sound reason to believe Luke was a Jew. The idea that he was a Gentile is really nothing but speculation.  The biblical evidence strongly supports the position that Luke was a Jew.  We should never accept church tradition over what’s stated in the 66 books of the Bible no matter what the subject. When church tradition so often can’t even state the gospel message for one’s salvation correctly, why should they be trusted on these lesser matters? We all need to heed this command—

2 Timothy 2:15

¹⁵ Study [SPOUDAZO = be diligent] to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. [Emphasis added]

It is only the Bible that we should trust without reservations.

2 Timothy 3:16

¹⁶ All scripture is given by inspiration of God [THEOPNEUSTOS = God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [Emphasis added]