ISRAELITE LUKE

From a message of 18Jul1994 from a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subj: PHARISEES

>>Previous Person> ...and Luke is the only non-Jewish apostle...<

Correction: Luke the physician is never called an "apostle" in the scriptures, and he is neither called a "Jew" nor a "Gentile."

>CQ> The view that Luke was Gentile is probably wrong...
>CQ> Eusebious stated that he was one of the seventy that were sent out, which is only mentioned in Lukes gospel.

When Luke refers to a group of people in Acts of which he was a part, he says "we" (or "us") instead of "they." He didn't say "we" or "us" when speaking of the seventy.

>CQ> Jerome flattly states that he was the cousin of Paul and is the "Lucius" of Romans 16.

The name Luke/Lucas (lu'-cus) is different from Lucius (lu'-she-us). Lucius of Cyrene is connected with Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus; the same Rufus Paul mentions in Romans 16. Paul sent Romans from Corinth. Luke was STILL in Macedonia, and re-joined Paul's company in Acts 20:5 heading back to Troas, (where Luke first joined up with Paul;) and from thence on to Jerusalem; and when Paul was hauled off to Rome, Luke was with him on the ship and afterward.

In the Bible, "cousin" refers to a mother's sister's daughter. When referring to a male, expressions such as "kinsman" or "sister's son" are used. Paul's kinsfolk mentioned in Romans were "Andronicus and Junia", (Rom.16:7p) and "Herodion" (Rom.16:11p); and Paul's mother was there too, apparently staying with Rufus' mother. Considering now, that Paul closes his part of the epistle at verse 20, be aware:

The speaker in verse 21 to the second closing in verse 24 was TERTIUS, who "wrote" the epistle for Paul. Obviously then, "Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater" were Tertius' "kinsmen"! After Tertius' closing, Paul then added a second "P.S." with the final closing.

>CQ> Add to this that the prime requirement for inclusion of a book as a gospel was the writer be an eye witness to the teaching, sacrifice and resurrection of Yeshua.

Luke claimed to be an EYEWITNESS from the beginning, having had PERFECT understanding of all things, not just from John's baptism, but "from the very first"! He was at the temple when Zacharias "came" out speechless. He was present at the naming of John. He was in Jerusalem and able to "behold" when Simeon "came" into the temple and held the child Jesus in his arms and prophesied of his glory. (And bless God, Luke's firsthand knowledge of Jesus includes not only the day of his birth, but Luke indicates the exact hour! :)

(Please see next message. Thanks. :)

(2) ISRAELITE LUKE

From a message of 18Jul1994 from a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subj: PHARISEES

>CQ> It is usually agreed that the identity of Theophilus is not discernable. From there exigetes, such as the NIV Study Bible, speculate that he was probably a wealthy Greek and Luke's master.

No, Luke was a "physician", (a free man like Paul,) not a slave.

>CQ> Further, it is noted that the Greek of Luke is well studied and the finest specimen of the language in the NT.

(Could Luke have been a "physician" without being "well studied"? :)

>CQ> In the first place, Theophilos is name of a High Priest appointed in 37 CE. He was the son in law of Annanius and brother in law of Caiaphus.

Josephus (Antiq.xviii & xix) mentions such a Theophilus. Luke and Acts were written much later than 37 A.D. though, long after the priest called Theophilus was replaced by a man called Simon.

>CQ> It makes sense that one of the disciples would write a defense or apologetic for the High Priest.

It makes sense that the "disciple that Jesus loved", the very disciple that was "known" unto the high priest, who went in "with" Jesus when he stood before them, even JOHN who stayed with Jesus even to the end; would be a better choice to write such.

>CQ> Luke is uniquely Temple oriented. It begins and ends at the Temple. Almost every positional reference is Temple oriented.

No, most of the positional references are in Galilee or Judaea. Matthew's gospel begins and ends in GALILEE of the gentiles. Mark's gospel begins and ends in JUDAEA (east of Jerusalem. :) Luke's gospel begins and ends in JUDAEA, (at the temple. :) John's gospel SOARS like a "flying eagle" from the beginning of the creation of God, but he lands in Cana of GALILEE with the beginning of Jesus' miracles, and ends his gospel on the shore of the sea of GALILEE.

>CQ> It is Luke who explains Yeshua's life from birth to death was in harmony with the Law. A Greek merchant might not care about that detail, but the High Priest would.

John, (who was "known unto the high priest" :) showed that Jesus' life was in harmony with the law.

(Please see next message. Thanks. :)

(3) ISRAELITE LUKE

From a message of 18Jul1994 from a Curious Questioner--
>CQ> Subj: PHARISEES

>CQ> Also it is Luke who goes to great length to show Yeshua's acceptance by the Pharisees. He is seen eating and conversing with them repeatedly in Lukes Gospel.

John goes to great length concerning the coming to Jesus of the PHARISEE named Nicodemus, the same who defended Jesus in John 7:51. And indeed, "many" of the "chief rulers" believed on the Lord Jesus.

As for Pharisees in Luke, "Simon" the Pharisee outwardly accepted Jesus into his house, but, "he spake within himself" uncharitably. And it is evident that Simon's acceptance did not include the usual welcome of water for foot-washing, nor of a welcome kiss, nor of anointing oil; all of which a "sinner" had to come in and supply.

>CQ> And, notice in Lukes gospel when the Pharisees warn Yeshua that He should skip the Passover celebration because there is a plot to kill, Luke has them laying the root of the conspiracy to Harod, not Caiaphus.

Mark also, early in his treatise, mentions that, "the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him." (Mk.3:6) Mark later lays the blame on the "chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders" of Mk.11:27 for sending unto Jesus, "certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians to catch him in his words." (Mk.12:13p)

>CQ> Would a Greek require such circumlocution, especially at the expense of exact truth? Not likely, but if the Theophilos was the High Priest, then laying it at the feet of the Temple cult leaders would be very foolishl, wouldn't it?

No, Luke plainly laid the blame on the leaders many times, including: "But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him." (Lk.19:47p)

It seems very apparent that Luke the physician, was without a doubt, an Israelite indeed! Grace be unto you. Amen. --Richard