Who wrote the book of Luke? Who was the author of Luke?

First, as to the authorship of the third of the Gospels, which, like the rest, is anonymous. This has been traditionally ascribed to LUKE; in the manuscript copies that have come down to us, the shortest form of title, "according to Luke," is borne by the two oldest, the so-called "Sinaitic" () and "Vatican" (B). The Apostle Paul names in his Epistles, as a close companion in his labours, a Luke, described by him as "the beloved physician" (Col. 4:14). Comparison of the Preface to the Gospel with the introductory words of the "Acts of the Apostles" — also traditionally connected with the name of the same writer — in which (Luke 1:1) reference is made to a "former treatise," seems to determine the authorship without dispute, for, although the later book does not name its writer, the common style and dedication support the belief that these two books were produced by one and the same person, each of them affording indication that he was a physician.

The writer of the third Gospel does not mention his name, though he speaks of himself in the opening verses of the first chapter. The first verse in the Book of Acts makes known that the same writer who wrote the Book of Acts also wrote the third Gospel and that both mention the same person, who is addressed, that is Theophilus. Furthermore, we learn from Acts 1:1, that the third Gospel had been written, when the writer of Acts began his work. Inasmuch as Luke is undoubtedly the writer of the Book of Acts, he is also the penman of the third Gospel. "It has been generally and almost unanimously acknowledged that the Gospel, which we now possess is that written by Luke." (Dean Alford.)

Luke did not belong, as some hold, to the seventy our Lord sent forth to minister. His own words answer this statement. (Read Luke 1:2.) The Epistles give us the only reliable information about his person. In Colossians 4:14 we read of him as "the beloved physician." In the Epistle to Philemon he is called a fellow laborer of the Apostle Paul. From Second Timothy we learn that he was in Rome when Paul was a prisoner and remained faithful to him when others forsook the Apostle. He had also joined the Apostle during his second missionary journey at Troas (Acts 16:10). The evidence of it is found in the little word "we." He went with Paul to Macedonia and remained sometime in Philippi. In Colossians, chapter 4 we find also the fact brought out that he was a Gentile. First Paul mentions those of the circumcision (Colossians 4:11). Then Epaphras, a Colossian Gentile, is mentioned, followed by the names of Luke and Demas, both undoubtedly Gentiles. He is therefore the only writer in the Bible who was a Gentile. The reason that he was selected to write the Gospel, which pictures the Lord Christ, as the perfect Man, and the Book of Acts is more than interesting. The Gospel of Luke, a Gentile, addressed to a gentile (Theophilus) is the Gospel for the Gentiles. And the same Gentile instrument was chosen to relate the history of the Gospel going forth from Jerusalem to the Gentiles. Other critical questions, such as the time it was written, where it was written, etc., we are obliged to pass by.

There is no doubt that the writer of the third Gospel record is the one whom the Holy Spirit selected to write this account of the establishment of the Church on earth and the events connected with it. This becomes clear if we read the beginning of that Gospel and compare it with the beginning of Acts. The writer in the third Gospel says: "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:3-4). The Acts of the Apostles begin: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach." The former treatise known to Theophilus is the third Gospel, called the Gospel of Luke. The writer of that Gospel must therefore be the penman of the Book of Acts.

Though we do not find Luke's name mentioned in the Gospel, nor in the second Book, he was entrusted to write by inspiration, there is no doubt that he wrote them both. We find his name mentioned a number of times in the Epistles, and these references give us the only reliable information we have. In Colossians 4:14 we read of him as "the beloved physician." In the Epistle of Philemon he is called a fellow laborer of the Apostle Paul, and from the last Epistle the great Apostle wrote, the second Epistle to Timothy, we learn that Luke was in Rome with Paul and was faithful to him, while others had forsaken the prisoner of the Lord. From Colossians 4 we also may gather that he was not a Jew, but a Gentile, for with the eleventh verse Paul had mentioned those of the circumcision. Epaphras was one of the Colossians, a Gentile, and then follow the names of Luke and Demas, both of them undoubtedly Gentiles. The reason that the Holy Spirit selected a Gentile to write the Gospel which pictures our Lord as the Man and the Saviour and the Book of Acts, is as obvious as it is interesting. Israel had rejected God's gift, and the glad news of salvation was now to go to the Gentiles. The Gospel of Luke addressed by a Gentile to a Gentile (Theophilus) is the Gospel for the Gentiles, and Luke the Gentile was chosen to give the history of the Gospel going forth from Jerusalem to the Gentiles.

Fellow labourer with Paul, and called 'the beloved physician.' He is only three times mentioned by name. Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philemon 24. He was the writer of the Gospel bearing his name, and also of the Acts of the Apostles, the introduction to both being addressed to a certain Theophilus. It is supposed, from Col. 4:11, 14, that he was a Gentile, though these verses are no proof of it.

And I might observe the fitness of the penman to the peculiar task assigned him. For we hear of Luke in the divine history as the companion of the apostle of the Gentiles. Acts 16:11; Col. 4; 2 Tim. 4; Philem. 24. He became associated in labour with one whose ministry, I may say, respected neither Jew nor Greek, but addressed itself to man as such. And indeed I believe that he himself had been a Gentile. His name is of Gentile character, and he seems to be distinguished in Col. 4:14 from brethren who were of the circumcision.

If the reader suggest that the inquiry might with more propriety have come from another quarter than the pen of an M.D., the Author ventures to reply that he is but walking in the steps of "Luke, the beloved physician," in using his pen in divine things. That God-honoured physician was inspired by the Holy Ghost to write the Gospel which bears his name and also the Acts of the Apostles, from which much in the following pages has been culled.

If the reader suggest that the inquiry might with more propriety have come from another quarter than the pen of an M.D., the Author ventures to reply that he is but walking in the steps of "Luke, the beloved physician," in using his pen in divine things. That God-honoured physician was inspired by the Holy Ghost to write the Gospel which bears his name and also the Acts of the Apostles, from which much in the following pages has been culled.

Verses 1-4. Many had undertaken to give an account of what was historically received amongst Christians, as it had been related to them by the eye-witnesses. However well intended this might be, yet it was a work undertaken and executed by men. Luke had an exact and intimate knowledge of all from the beginning, and he found it good to write in order to Theophilus, that he might know the certainty of the things he had been instructed in. It is thus that God has provided for the whole church by the teaching contained in the living picture of Jesus that we owe to this man of God. For Luke, although he might be personally moved by Christian motives, was of course none the less inspired by the Holy Ghost to write.

Many had undertaken to give an account of that which was historically received among Christians, as related to them by the companions of Jesus; and Luke thought it well — having followed these things from the beginning, and thus obtained exact knowledge respecting them — to write methodically to Theophilus, in order that he might have the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed. It is thus that God has provided for the instruction of the whole church, in the doctrine contained in the picture of the Lord's life furnished by this man of God; who, personally moved by christian motives, was directed and inspired by the Holy Ghost for the good of all believers.

The Source. — Now those to which Luke refers were authentic, being derived from eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, for legends and apocryphal gospels were the product of later times. But authentic though these were, they were derived from human sources. Thus they differed from the gospels of Matthew and John, the writers of which were themselves eye-witnesses of most that they related; for none of them professed to be histories drawn up at first hand. They were compilations of facts, etc., reported by others. That evidently was well known, and doubtless fully acknowledged. Now, was Luke's gospel of a nature akin to these compilations? His differed from such, he tells us, inasmuch as though not an eye-witness, any more than those to whom he refers, he had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first" [or, traced the course of all things accurately from the first]; so that Theophilus might know the certainty concerning the things wherein he had been instructed. Certainty, therefore, the evangelist claimed for his narrative. On it Theophilus could rest. It was not a mere statement of that which Luke had gleaned from human sources. He knew the certainty of it all. It differed from all those he referred to. It was really inspired. Now by that we mean, as St. Paul has explained what inspiration is, that Luke wrote his history in words taught of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13). He did not write to correct the other records. He does not for one moment call in question their truthfulness, but certainty as to the things wherein Theophilus had been instructed that Gentile convert could acquire, not by perusing them, but by giving heed to the history as set forth by our evangelist. Luke does not assert that his gospel is inspired; but it is difficult to think he could thus write, if it was not.