- Luke used twice.
- Included in Eastons: Yes
- Included in Hitchcocks: Yes
- Included in Naves: Yes
- Included in Smiths: Yes
- Included in Websters: No
- Included in Strongs: Yes
- Included in Thayers: Yes
- Included in BDB: No
- G3065 Used 3 times
The evangelist, was a Gentile. The date and circumstances of his conversion are unknown. According to his own statement (Luke 1:2), he was not an "eye-witness and minister of the word from the beginning." It is probable that he was a physician in Troas, and was there converted by Paul, to whom he attached himself. He accompanied him to Philippi, but did not there share his imprisonment, nor did he accompany him further after his release in his missionary journey at this time (Acts 17:1). On Paul's third visit to Philippi (20:5, 6) we again meet with Luke, who probably had spent all the intervening time in that city, a period of seven or eight years. From this time Luke was Paul's constant companion during his journey to Jerusalem (20:6-21:18). He again disappears from view during Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem and Caesarea, and only reappears when Paul sets out for Rome (27:1), whither he accompanies him (28:2, 12-16), and where he remains with him till the close of his first imprisonment (Philemon 1:24; Colossians 4:14). The last notice of the "beloved physician" is in 2 Timothy 4:11.
There are many passages in Paul's epistles, as well as in the writings of Luke, which show the extent and accuracy of his medical knowledge.
(light-giving), or Lu'cas, is an abbreviated form of Lucanus. It is not to be confounded with Lucius, (Acts 13:1; Romans 16:21) which belongs to a different person. The name Luke occurs three times in the New Testament
And probably in all three the third evangelist is the person spoken of. Combining the traditional element with the scriptural we are able to trace the following dim outline of the evangelist's life. He was born at Antioch in Syria, and was taught the science of medicine. The well known tradition that Luke was also a painter, and of no mean skill, rests on the authority of late writers. He was not born a Jew, for he is not reckoned among those "of the circumcision" by St. Paul. Comp. (Colossians 4:11) with ver. 14. The date of his conversion is uncertain. He joined St. Paul at Troas, and shared his Journey into Macedonia. The sudden transition to the first person plural in (Acts 16:9) is most naturally explained after all the objections that have been urged, by supposing that Luke the writer of the Acts, formed one of St. Paul's company from this point. As far as Philippi the evangelist journeyed with the apostle. The resumption of the third person on Paul's departure from that place, (Acts 17:1) would show that Luke was now left behind. During the rest of St. Paul's second missionary journey we hear of Luke no more; but on the third journey the same indication reminds us that Luke is again of the company, (Acts 20:5) having joined it apparently at Philippi, where he had been left. With the apostle he passed through Miletus, Tyre and C'sarea to Jerusalem. ch. Acts 20:6; 21:18 As to his age and death there is the utmost uncertainty. He probably died a martyr, between A.D. 75 and A.D. 100. He wrote the Gospel that bears his name, and also the book of Acts.
Was written by Luke. He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord's ministry, but to have gone to the best sources of information within his reach, and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4). The authors of the first three Gospels, the synoptics, wrote independently of each other. Each wrote his independent narrative under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Each writer has some things, both in matter and style, peculiar to himself, yet all the three have much in common. Luke's Gospel has been called "the Gospel of the nations, full of mercy and hope, assured to the world by the love of a suffering Saviour;" "the Gospel of the saintly life;" "the Gospel for the Greeks; the Gospel of the future; the Gospel of progressive Christianity, of the universality and gratuitousness of the gospel; the historic Gospel; the Gospel of Jesus as the good Physician and the Saviour of mankind;" the "Gospel of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man;" "the Gospel of womanhood;" "the Gospel of the outcast, of the Samaritan, the publican, the harlot, and the prodigal;" "the Gospel of tolerance." The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is fitly expressed in the motto, "Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38; comp. Luke 4:18). Luke wrote for the "Hellenic world." This Gospel is indeed "rich and precious."
"Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself. In many instances all three use identical language." (See MATTHEW; MARK; GOSPELS.)
There are seventeen of our Lord's parables peculiar to this Gospel. (See also List of Parables in Appendix.) Luke also records seven of our Lord's miracles which are omitted by Matthew and Mark. (See also List of Miracles in Appendix.) The synoptical Gospels are related to each other after the following scheme. If the contents of each Gospel be represented by 100, then when compared this result is obtained-
Mark has 7 peculiarities, 93 coincidences. Matthew 42 peculiarities, 58 coincidences. Luke 59 peculiarities, 41 coincidences.
That is, thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke are taken up in describing the same things in very similar language.
Luke's style is more finished and classical than that of Matthew and Mark. There is less in it of the Hebrew idiom. He uses a few Latin words (Luke 12:6; 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words except sikera, an exciting drink of the nature of wine, but not made of grapes (from Heb. shakar, "he is intoxicated", Leviticus 10:9), probably palm wine.
This Gospel contains twenty-eight distinct references to the Old Testament.
The date of its composition is uncertain. It must have been written before the Acts, the date of the composition of which is generally fixed at about 63 or 64 A.D. This Gospel was written, therefore, probably about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. Others have conjectured that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there. But on this point no positive certainty can be attained.
It is commonly supposed that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation of Paul. Many words and phrases are common to both; e.g., compare-
Luke 4:22; with Colossians 4:6. Luke 4:32; with 1 Corinthians 2:4. Luke 6:36; with 2 Corinthians 1:3. Luke 6:39; with Romans 2:19. Luke 9:56; with 2 Corinthians 10:8. Luke 10:8; with 1 Corinthians 10:27. Luke 11:41; with Titus 1:15. Luke 18:1; with 2 Thessalonians 1:11. Luke 21:36; with Ephesians 6:18. Luke 22:19, 20; with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Luke 24:46; with Acts 17:3. Luke 24:34; with 1 Corinthians 15:5.
The third Gospel is ascribed, by the general consent of ancient Christendom, to "the beloved physician," Luke, the friend and companion of the apostle Paul.
- Date of the Gospel of Luke .
From (Acts 1:1) it is clear that the Gospel described "the former treatise" was written before the Acts of the Apostles; but how much earlier is uncertain. Perhaps it was written at C'sarea during St. Paul's imprisonment there, A.D. 58-60.
- Place where the Gospel was written.
If the time has been rightly indicated, the place would be C'sarea.
- Origin of the Gospel.
The preface, contained in the first four verses of the Gospel, describes the object of its writer. Here are several facts to be observed. There were many narratives of the life of our Lord Current at the early time when Luke wrote his Gospel. The ground of fitness for the task St. Luke places in his having carefully followed out the whole course of events from the beginning. He does not claim the character of an eye-witness from the first but possibly he may have been a witness of some part of our Lord's doings. The ancient opinion that Luke wrote his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the exclusive guidance of Paul or of any one apostle and as little could they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every quarter, sought it from the preaching of his be loved master St. Paul; and the apostle in his turn employed the knowledge acquired from other sources by his disciple.
- Purpose for which the Gospel was written.
The evangelist professes to write that Theophilus "might know the certainty of those things wherein he had been instructed." ch, (Luke 1:4) This Theophilus was probably a native of Italy and perhaps an inhabitant of Rome, in tracing St. Paul's journey to Rome, places which an Italian might be supposed not to know are described minutely, (Acts 27:8,12,16) but when he comes to Sicily and Italy this is neglected. Hence it would appear that the person for whom Luke wrote in the first instance was a Gentile reader; and accordingly we find traces in the Gospel of a leaning toward Gentile rather than Jewish converts.
- Language and style of the Gospel.
It has never been doubted that the Gospel was written in Greek, whilst Hebraisms are frequent, classical idioms and Greek compound words abound, for which there is classical authority. (Prof. Gregory, in "Why Four Gospels" says that Luke wrote for Greek readers, and therefore the character and needs of the Greeks furnish the key to this Gospel. The Greek was the representation of reason and humanity. He looked upon himself as having the mission of perfecting man. He was intellectual, cultured, not without hope of a higher world. Luke's Gospel therefore represented the character and career of Christ as answering the conception of a perfect and divine humanity. Reason, beauty righteousness and truth are exhibited as they meet in Jesus in their full splendor. Jesus was the Saviour of all men, redeeming them to a perfect and cultured manhood.
1. Moderately warm; tepid; as lukewarm water; lukewarm heat.
2. Not ardent; not zealous; cool; indifferent; as lukewarm obedience; lukewarm patriots. Revelation 3:16.
1. With moderate warmth.
2. With indifference; coolly.
Jeremiah 9:3; Ezekiel 13:5; Ezekiel 16:30; Hosea 6:4; Hosea 10:2; Haggai 1:2; Haggai 1:4-11; Haggai 2:15-16; Matthew 26:41; Revelation 2:4; Revelation 3:2; Revelation 3:15-16
Backsliders; Blindness, Spiritual
The Reubenites, when Deborah called on them to assist Sisera
The church at:
1. A mild or moderate heat.
2. Indifference; want of zeal or ardor; coldness.
The defect of zeal is lukewarmness or coldness in religion.