Luke a slave?

I've never heard that before. I've always heard that Luke was a physician that was a disciple. He was more educated than most, and as such wrote the most comprehensive gospel and the book of Acts.

 

Here are some commentary notes, they deal more with who Theophilus was than who Luke was:

[Re: Theophilus] “His [Luke’s] patron, to whom he dedicates this book (I should rather say his pupil, for he designs, in dedicating it to him, to instruct and direct him, and not to crave his countenance or protection), is Theophilus, v. 1. In the epistle dedicatory before his gospel, he had called him most excellent Theophilus; here he calls him no more than O Theophilus; not that he had lost his excellency, nor that it was diminished and become less illustrious; but perhaps he had now quitted his place, whatever it was, for the sake of which that title was given him,—or he was now grown into years, and despised such titles of respect more than he had done,—or Luke was grown more intimate with him, and therefore could address him with the more freedom. It was usual with the ancients, both Christian and heathen writers, thus to inscribe their writings to some particular persons. But the directing some of the books of the scripture so is an intimation to each of us to receive them as if directed to us in particular, to us by name; for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.” (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

“It is likely, therefore, that “Theophilus” was chief magistrate of some city in Greece or Asia Minor, [WEBSTER and WILKINSON]” (A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Jamieson, Fausset, Fausset)

“Theophilus may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, John Walvoord).

Rob

 

I have also heard that 'theophilus' itself simply means 'friend of God', and therefore that Luke may not have been writing to a person of that particular name but to someone of that character. Has anyone else heard this?

 

Yes, that is a definite possibility. "lover of God" as described in the name, could have been one person, but also could have been addressing a larger community.

 

I would find it hard to believe that Luke was a slave in the traditional sense. He was a physician, and Acts reads very much as a legal brief for Paul's defense. (And I happen to believe that is why it was written, but that's just me.) He seems to be well educated and above the social status that would be normal for a slave.

 

I ran a search in the church fathers, and the possibility that Luke was a slave is never mentioned. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia likewise says nothing in either the original version or the revision.

 

He was a high status slave. We show our wealth by driving
a big car or even better: have somone else drive
our big car. The Romans showed their wealth
by buying good Doctor slaves. Yes, in the First
century (0001-0100AD) Roman world a Doctor
was a slave.

Do not confuse Roman societly of the first
century with US society of the 21st
century (2001-2100) where the Doctor who
doesn't get sued gets rich.

 

Ed, I've heard it the same way - as a possible explanation of the relationship between Luke and Theophilus. Regardless, the name meaning "lover of God" makes this all very interesting - meaning that these writings are for all who love God.

 

Interesting! Ed

 

I'll see your 'Ed' and raise you a double 'eded"

 

As I'm actually Ed, Jr. (does that count?) I'll call!
Ed

 

(KJV)

 

I'm a senior citizen (if 60 is the break-line). So I can be Ed, Sr

Remember what our English friends say:
two 'eds are better than one

 

As a senior citizen myself, I'll see your senior, but you have yet to call my junior, and I have yet to call your second, 'ed'. Aye, but I think we both are 'eded in the right direction!
Ed

 

Amen, Sir Ed - Preach it!


I'll call you 'Sir Ed' (the past tense of 'sir' ).
You call me 'Sir Ed'. We will confuse them all

 

Si, Sir Sr. Ed Ed, sir. I see.
You see, I seem to see the seeming benefit of clarity at the scene, allowing one to see more scenery from a scenic view. I see that not all see the scene as clearly as I seem to.
Signed, Sr. Sir Ed Jr.