The “most excellent Theophilus,” to whom Luke wrote two lengthy epistles, his Gospel, and the Acts, is totally unknown to us in any other way. It would be interesting indeed could we unravel his history, or ask him to relate us further details about his friend. That Luke was a Gentile, we may gather from the fact that Paul’s mention of those who “are of the circumcision” (Jews) excludes Luke, of whom he speaks directly after as “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:10, 11, 1410Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;) 11And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. (Colossians 4:10‑11)
14Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. (Colossians 4:14)). But for this verse, we should not have guessed he was a doctor! Twice more Paul writes of him from his Roman prison. “Lucas, my fellow laborer” (Philem. 2424Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlaborers. (Philemon 24)), and “only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:1111Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. (2 Timothy 4:11)). Some years, be it remarked, elapsed between these two mentions of him, and Paul had been set at liberty during that time.
But there is another way of learning about Luke. In reading Acts, we may notice the change of pronoun. It first occurs in chapter 16. In v. 8 it is, “they” came to Troas: there Luke must have joined Paul, for he continues “we” and “us” for some verses. By noting these changes carefully, we may infer when Luke was of the company and when not, as e.g., he was not imprisoned at Philippi, but six or seven years later he rejoined Paul in the same place. He also accompanied him to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, where he seems to have remained near him, probably to the end. He is said to have suffered martyrdom himself at an advanced age.
He was not one of the twelve apostles, yet he writes as vividly as if he had been an eye-witness of the Lord’s life, and, inasmuch as he had “perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” we might expect to find in his Gospel a full account of the blessed One, whom he describes “as He was, a man on the earth — the Person whom we should have met every day had we lived, at that time, in Judea or in Galilee.” Such lovely stories as Luke tells us too! Where besides can we read any like those of Zacchaeus, Lazarus and the rich man, the ten lepers, the walk to Emmaus, and many more?
In this Gospel the lineage of the Lord is traced back to Adam, as if to remind us that, though Adam had failed when placed down here in the garden of God, the last Adam would not, could not, even though in a world of sin, and tempted by the devil. Adam brought in sin; Jesus would deliver from its power. The Lord’s genealogy given here is through Mary.
If Luke describes in his Gospel the life of the Son of man, in his second book he relates the acts of the Holy Ghost, that second divine Person who was to take His place down here, and, it may be added, who is still here. It was in His power that Peter, and Philip, and Stephen, and Paul were enabled to preach, and suffer, and die, as described in Acts, and it was all done for the glory of the One whose life and death Luke related in his Gospel. May the same motive govern our lives too!
ML 10/25/1959