LUKE AND MIRACLE

PREPARED BY
MAKINDE KOLAWOLE MOSES
MATRIC NO: 08508

SUBMITTED TO REV’D DR.M. D. OLAJIDE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT TO THE COURSE REQUIREMENT TITLED
LITERATURE AND THEOLOGY OF LUKE AND ACTS
COURSE CODE: BBS 414

NOVEMBER 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

LUKE’S BIOGRAPHY

LUKE’S HAS A PHYSICIAN

LUKE’S VIEW ON HEALING/HEALTH

LIFE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE LIFE OF DR. LUKE

CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION.
The purpose of this work is to show, from an examination of the language employed in the third
Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, that both are the works of a person well acquainted with the
language of the Greek Medical Schools a fact which, if established, will strongly confirm the
belief that the writer of both was the same person, and was the person to whom they have been
traditionally assigned by the Church (a), who is mentioned by St. Paul (Coloss. 4:14) as “Luke,
the beloved Physician” an identity which some have doubted or denied. The subject is one which
has not hitherto, so far as the author is aware, been specially examined. The only notice of it with
which he is acquainted is a paper in the Gentleman’s Magazine for June, 1841, in which, among
other interesting remarks on the medical style of St. Luke, attention is called to the following
words, as being technical medical terms employed by him. It will be seen, from the investigation
which is the object of the present work, that these form but a small portion of such words, either
peculiar to St. Luke, or which, though not peculiar, are yet for the most part more frequently
employed by him than by the other New Testament writers.
The subject seemed to divide itself naturally into two heads, under which it has therefore been
arranged:
(1). Words and phrases, employed in the account of the miracles of healing, or of those of an
opposite character, which show that the writer was more circumstantial in relating these than the
other Evangelists, that he was also well acquainted with the diseases which he describes, and that
in describing them he employs language such as scarcely anyone but a medical man would have
used, and which exhibits a knowledge of the technical medical language which we meet with in
the extant Greek medical writers.
(2). Words and phrases, employed in the general narrative not relating to medical subjects, which
were common in the phraseology of the Greek Medical Schools, and which a physician from his
medical training and habits would be likely to employ.
It may be noticed in connection with this latter head that Greek medical language was
particularly conservative in its character, the same class of words being employed in it from the
time of Hippocrates to that of Galen.
It is remarkable, besides, that, with the exception of Hippocrates; all the extant Greek medical
writers were Asiatic Greeks. Galen was a native of Pergamus in Mysia; Dioscorides, of Anazarba
in Cilicia; Aretaeus was surnamed the Cappadocian from his native land; and Hippocrates,
though not an Asiatic Greek, yet was born and lived in close proximity to the coast of Asia
Minor, being a native of Cos, an island off the coast of Caria. Hence it is natural that a similarity
of diction should occur in writers who were trained in the Medical Schools of Asia Minor.
St. Luke, too, was in all probability an Asiatic Greek.
He was born at Antioch in Syria, and “was probably of Gentile origin, if we may judge from
Coloss. iv. 11, 14, where St. Paul, having saluted several persons Aristarchus, Marcus, Jesus
Justus adds that they were of the circumcision, separating them in this manner from those
mentioned immediately afterwards, among whom is Luke, and, as his name is a Greek one, he
was in all probability a Greek.”
It will be found in the second part of this work that, independently of such obvious medical
phrases. There is a class of words running through the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles,
and for the most part peculiar to these of the N. T. writings, with which a medical man must have
been very familiar, as they formed part of the ordinary phraseology of Greek medical language.
In thus using words to which he had become habituated through professional training, St. Luke
would not be singular, for the Greek medical writers, also, when dealing with unprofessional
subjects, show a leaning to the use of words to which they were accustomed in their professional
language.

LUKE’S BIOGRAPHY

Eusebius (AD 260-340), considered to be the Father of Early Church History, described Luke the
Physician in these terms: 'Luke, who was by race an Antiochian and a physician by profession,
was long a companion of Paul, and had careful conversation with the other Apostles, and in two
books left us examples of the medicine for the souls which he had gained from them'.1
Human beings are made in the image of the Triune God, thus we are a tricotomous (three-part)
being with a body, soul and spirit (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 1 Thess. 5:23). The Apostle Paul concluded
his first epistle to the Thessalonians with these words: “Now may the God of peace Himself
sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In this essay, we will examine the life of Dr. Luke and see
how his life and his writings ministered, not only to the soul as Eusebius said, but to the whole
person – body, soul and spirit. Dr. Luke used the 52 chapters of the gospel that bears his name
and the Book of Acts to minister to our physical needs (body), emotional needs (soul), and
spiritual needs (spirit).
Dr. Luke is only mentioned by name three times in Paul’s epistles (Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2
Tim. 4:11), although he might be hinted at on several other occasions. When he wrote his gospel
and the book of Acts, he did not mention his name at all (Acts 1:1), nor did he mention his
brother Titus. Dr. Luke was a humble person and he did not want to call attention to himself or
his family, but rather, he wanted to point people to the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the
work of the Holy Spirit in His Church.
His Ethnicity – An Antiochian Gentile
At the end of Paul’s epistle to the church at Colossae, written about AD 62, he sent greetings
from different people who were laboring with him in Rome, even though he was under house
arrest and waiting for his trial before Nero. He wrote: “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets
you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to
you, welcome him), and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the
kingdom of God who are of the circumcision; they have proved to be a comfort to me. Epaphras,
who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ, greets you, always laboring fervently for you in
prayers that you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bare him witness
that he has a great zeal for you, and those who are in Laodicea, and those in Hierapolis. Luke the
beloved physician and Demas greet you” (Col. 4:10-14).
These verses imply that Dr. Luke was a Gentile. Paul recounted greetings from Aristarchus,
(John) Mark, and Jesus/Justus and identified them as being of the circumcision, i.e. they were
Jewish. The next three names, by implication, were Gentiles: Epaphras, Luke, and Demas. Luke
may also have been a “God-fearer,” a Gentile who followed the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, but who did not undergo circumcision in order to enter the Jewish nation.

1
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1. Trans. by K. Lake. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Loeb
Classical Library, 1980) 197.
As previously mentioned Eusebius stated that Luke was “by race an Antiochian.” Sir William
Ramsay, the noted authority on the historicity of the Book of Acts, pointed out that: “Eusebius,
however, does not say that Luke was an Antiochian; he merely speaks of him as ‘being
according to birth of those from Antioch. 2’ The curious and awkward expression is obviously
chosen in order to avoid the statement that Luke was an Antiochian”. He went on and
conjectured that Luke had some kind of family connection with Antioch. On the other hand
Jerome, a near contemporary of Eusebius, stated that Luke was “a physician of Antioch”. I will
assume in this essay that he had some personal connection with Antioch.
Dr. Luke had the distinct honor of being the only non-Jewish writer of the New Testament. If
that is the case, then it would rule out Church traditions that identified him with Lucius (Acts
13:1; Rom. 16:21),3 or one of the “seventy” (Luke 10:1-20), or the companion of Cleopus on the
road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-33). In fact, Luke implied in the introduction to his gospel that he
had not seen the Lord, but rather, heard about events in the life of the Lord Jesus from other eye-
witnesses (Luke 1:2).
It is hinted in the Book of Acts that he is an Antiochian. He mentioned this city a number of
times and gave details of it and showed some “civic pride” (Acts 11:19-30; 13:1; 14:26-28;
15:22, 30-35; 18:22). Interestingly, when he wrote about the six deacons in Jerusalem who were
waiting on tables, he mentioned them by name, but only Nicolas is identified by where he was
from Antioch (Acts 6:5). Luke also mentioned the fact that the believers in the Lord Jesus were
first called Christians at Antioch (11:26).
LUKE’S HAS A PHYSICIAN
During Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, he wrote to the believers in Colossae and identified
Luke as: “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14). Reading through the Gospel of Luke and the Book
of Acts in Greek, one is struck with the abundant use of medical terminology in these books.4
Luke is the only gospel writer that recorded Jesus’ statements about physicians. “Physician, heal
yourself!” (Luke 4:23). “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are
sick” (Luke 5:31). He also extended “professional courtesy” to his fellow doctors when he
recounted the events surrounding the woman with the issue of blood for twelve years. John Mark
writes, “Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years, and had suffered many
things from many physicians. She had spent all that she had and was no better, but rather grew
worse” (5:25-26). Dr. Luke toned his account down in an almost clinical statement about the
inability of the woman to get healed: “Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years,
who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any” (8:43).

2
William Ramsay, Luke the Physicain and Other Studies in the History of Religion, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House. 1956),46
3
Peter Lewis, From Iconium to the Home of Saint Luke: A Numismatic Odyssey. (The Celator, 2010), 6-
12.
4
William Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke; a Proof from Internal Evidence that “The Gospel
According to St. Luke” and “The Acts of the Apostles” were Written by the Same Person, and that the Writer was a
Medical Man. (London: Longmans and Green. 1882) 168-172
It is interesting to conjecture where Dr. Luke got his medical training. There were important
Greek medical centers in Pergamum, Tarsus, Athens, Alexandria in Egypt, Berytus (Beirut in
Lebanon), Laodicea ad Mare (“by the sea,” Latakia in Syria), and the Asklepion shrine on the
island of Cos that was established in honor of Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine.
Interestingly, Luke did not record anything about this medical center or what transpired on the
island when he and the Apostle Paul landed on the island on their way to Jerusalem at the end of
Paul’s third missionary journey. All Dr. Luke recorded was: “And it came to pass that, that when
we had departed from them [the Ephesians elders] and set sail, running a straight course we came
to Cos, the following day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara” (Acts 21:1).
Hippocrates is known as the father of modern medicine because he broke from the traditional
Greek view of sickness and disease. In his day it was believed that a person was sick because the
gods were angry at the individual. So the solution to the problem was to offer sacrifices to the
offended deity. On the other hand, Hippocrates brought medicine into the realm of science. He
diagnosed the patient ailments and disease by his clinical observation of the body and enquired
about the patient’s lifestyle. Hippocrates also understood the inner workings of the body because
he dissected some of his patients, presumably after they died! Hippocrates believed in a cause
and effect relationship between the patient and the disease. In essence, you were sick because of
your lifestyle – what you ate, what you drank, what you did or did not do to your body. If you
were sexually promiscuous, chances are you would get a sexually transmitted disease! This was
interesting because in the Greek world, the gods and goddesses were immoral and sexually
promiscuous and the people just emulated their deities. So why should the gods be angry at the
people and give them a sexually transmitted disease if the people were only emulating the gods?!
This does not make sense. I’m sure Hippocrates understood the inconsistency of Greek
mythology which led him to the conclusion that you got sick because of your lifestyle.
Hippocrates also looked for natural remedies for people’s sickness. On the island of Cos there
was a white willow tree. Hippocrates observed that the bark and leaves from this tree cause the
pain in a patient to diminish or cease. Only recently did scientists analyze the bark from this tree
and found out that the active ingredient is what is found in Aspirin. Hippocrates was 2,300 years
ahead of Beyer Aspirin!
In the Greek world, medicine was considered an art, or a philosophy, but not so much a science.
There were at least two philosophical schools of thought concerning medicine and healthcare in
Luke’s day. The first school of thought had been championed by the Athenian philosopher Plato
(427 – 347 BC). In this philosophy, the doctor made medical, and health care, decisions to
advance the good of the society, thus their primary job was to protect the welfare of the state. 5
Plato wrote: “... but that, when bodies were diseased inwardly and throughout, he did not attempt
by diet and by gradual evacuations and infusions to prolong a wretched existence for the man
and have him beget in all likelihood similar wretched offspring? But if a man was incapable of
living in the established round and order of life, he did not think it worthwhile to treat him, since
such a fellow is of no use either to himself or to the state” (Republic 407D; LCL 5:279).
On the other hand, the Hippocratic school of thought on medicine and healthcare was patient
centered and emphasized the doctor/patient relationship. The first principle of Hippocrates was

5
C. L. Grey, The Battle for America’s Soul. Healthcare, the Culture War, and the Future of Freedom.
Hickory, (NC: Eventide, 2011), 29-41
“Do no harm to the patient.” The Hippocratic Oath still stands as a cornerstone in modern
medicine and it even forbids doctor assisted suicide and abortion. The Hippocratic School was
patient oriented, and not state oriented.
Again, it could be conjectured which school of thought Dr. Luke might have favored. Dr. Luke
was called a “beloved physician” indicating that he cared for his patients, and was also the
personal physician to the Apostle Paul. This would suggest that Dr. Luke followed the
Hippocratic philosophy and not the statist Platonic philosophy.
James Smith, a classical scholar and yachtsmen, has also suggested that Luke was at one time a
ship doctor because he was versed in nautical matters, and described them in the appropriate
language of seamanship.6 Luke used many detailed nautical terms when he recorded the voyage
to Rome in Acts 27-28.

LUKE’S VIEW ON HEALING/HEALTH

Jesus heals a woman’s spinal problem. Obviously, spinal affliction, like other physical problems,
can have a range of causes, but in this case Jesus addresses the spiritual dimension behind it.
Building on decades of collected empirical research, modern biomedicine offers an increasingly
high rate of cures. At the same time, health professionals also often recognize emotional and
spiritual components in healing. A majority of the world’s cultures also believe in active spiritual
as well as physical forces at work.
Luke does not associate every sickness with the presence of a demon. But from his perspective,
sickness is ultimately the devil’s sort of work, which Jesus came to combat (Acts 10:38). The
contrast in this passage is sharp: Satan afflicts people, whereas Jesus cares for people’s wellness.
That is, ill health is one of this world’s evils that we should work against. By restricting anyone’s
access to health care, some by-the-book religious observers risk siding more with Satan’s
opposition to this woman’s health than with Jesus’ concern for it.
Experts on the law debated whether healing were allowed on the Sabbath if one’s life was not at
stake. Before the temple’s destruction in 70, many synagogue leaders probably followed the
stricter approach that prohibited healing on the Sabbath. Yet Jesus applies no medicine; he
merely lays hands on the woman and declares her healed. Because God does the work, even the
strictest synagogue leader should not have argued against this healing. As Jesus notes, his critics
would untie their animal on the Sabbath to water it; how much more should this daughter of
Abraham be released on God’s special day?
Some Christians today follow their traditions so strictly that they care more about detailed rules
than they care about human need. Some rules are important, but we risk taking pride in our strict
observance or even in strictly avoiding being like such strict people instead of remembering that
us all need God’s grace.
Although through much of history Christians have taken the lead in building hospitals, some
Christians have emphasized concern only for the “soul.” But the latter approach owes more to
Plato than it does to the Bible. Jesus’ ministry repeatedly shows that God cares about our
6
James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. 4th edition, Reprint of 1880 edition, (Grand Raids,
MI: Baker, 1978), 21
physical health. Those who work to improve people’s health, whether by research or treatment or
prayer, care about and labor for a cause dear to God’s heart.
LIFE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE LIFE OF DR. LUKE
There are at least five lessons we can learn from the life of Dr. Luke, the beloved physician. The
first lesson is that Dr. Luke showed humility. God lists seven things that He hates and considers
an abomination. The first on God’s hate list is a proud look (Prov. 6:16-18). The opposite of
pride is humility. Luke exemplified that by not calling attention to himself or his family, but
rather the person of the Lord Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Second, Dr. Luke used his medical training and ability as a mission field and a tool to further the
gospel. Medicine, if one follows the Hippocratic philosophy, is patient centered and ideal for
Christian involvement. Dr. Luke was a personal physician who was patient oriented. Thus the
adjective “beloved” is used to describe him. The medical field could be a great missionary field
for individual Christians. I once had a doctor, who on his business card placed the statement,
“An assistant to the Great Physician” under his name. He acknowledged that he used medical
treatments, but it was the Lord Jesus who was the Great Physician and ultimate Healer.
A young lady who was in fellowship at Valley Bible Chapel graduated from nursing school and
had to decide what area of nursing she wanted to go in. She chose the cancer ward. Folks, people
who go there are terminal! They are about to check out of this life and into Eternity. Some
people who go there may be in denial, but most people realize they are about to hit the end of the
road. She chose this field because she wanted to show Christian love and compassion towards
those who were in pain and about to die. It was also a great opportunity to share the gospel of the
Lord Jesus because people want to know where they are going to spend eternity when they died:
Heaven or Hell. Nancy made it clear that they could be assured of a home in Heaven when they
died, also the forgiveness of sins, and the righteousness of God freely given to them, if they put
their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior (Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9; 1 John 5:13). It is
because of His death on Calvary’s cross and His bodily resurrection from the dead that all sin
had been paid for in full. All a person has to do, the only thing a person can do, is to trust the
Lord Jesus as his or her Savior.
Third, Dr. Luke demonstrated loyalty to his friend the Apostle Paul. Prov. 18:24 states: “A man
who has friends must himself be friendly, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.”
We like to sermonize this passage and say it’s the Lord Jesus that always sticks closer than a
brother and that is true, but Dr. Luke stuck close to Paul in his darkest hour when everybody else
had left him for another task, or even deserted him completely. Haunting words, “Only Luke is
with me.” How many people can we count on as friends who will be with us through thick and
thin during our lonely hours when everybody seems to have deserted us? But to put the shoe on
the other foot, how many people will we be loyal to when they are going through rough times?
Do we stick closer to them than a brother?
Fourth, Dr. Luke was a man of prayer. He did it and he wrote about it. How is your prayer life?
Is it a priority in your life? Do you set a specific time apart for this spiritual exercise? Do you
rejoice when you see God answer your prayers, sometimes in the most unexpected ways?
Fifth, Dr. Luke ministered, by his life and writings, to the whole person. Human beings are made
in the image of the Triune God, thus we are a tricotomous (three-part) being with a body, soul
and spirit (Gen. 1:26-27; 1 Thess. 5:23). We should follow the example of Dr. Luke when we
minister to an individual; he ministered to the whole person. At times we have to deal with
peoples physical needs (body). The epistle to James had already been written. In it, James the
son of Zebedee gives an example of lack of faith toward our fellow human being. There was
somebody in the assembly who did not have cloth or food and asks his fellow believers for some
of these items. One of the brothers or sisters said, “God bless you, be warmed and filled,” but did
nothing to help that fellow believer. James said that persons faith is useless – dead (James 2:14-
17). Dr. Luke took care of Paul’s physical needs when he was imprisoned in Rome. He also gave
medical treatment to the people on Malta.
At other times we need to attend to people’s emotional needs (soul). Dr. Luke ministered to
Paul’s loneliness when others had left him. Finally, at times we need to attend to people’s
spiritual needs (spirits). Dr. Luke was actively involved in Paul’s ministry as a co-laborer, but he
had his own writing ministry that touched the spiritual being in each individual. The written
Word of God, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, strengthened and encouraged individual
believers in their walk with the Lord. As he wrote to Theophilus: “That you may know the
certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” These books also built up the Body of
Christ.
So, how are we doing in our ministry to dispense spiritual medicine to the whole person - body,
soul, and spirit?
CONCLUSION
Church tradition has said that after the death of Paul (AD 67), Dr. Luke went and ministered in
the region of Boiotia in central Greece today, and particularly in Thebes of Boiotia. Tradition
also stated that he wrote to Theophilus who was the governor of Achaia. If we follow Marx’s
suggestion, however, that Theophilus was King Agrippa II. It is plausible that Luke handed him
a copy of the Book of Acts when he went through Achaia to Rome during the winter of AD
68/69 (Josephus, Jewish Wars 4.499; LCL 3:149).
Church tradition also stated that a mob arrested Luke in Thebes at the age of 84, flayed him alive
and crucified him on an olive tree which some say is still there today. This ended the earthly life
and ministry of the beloved physician, Dr. Luke. The story of his bones will be recounted
elsewhere.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1. Trans. by K. Lake. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University. Loeb Classical Library, 1980.

Ramsay, William. Luke the Physicain and Other Studies in the History of Religion. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House. 1956.

Lewis, Peter. From Iconium to the Home of Saint Luke: A Numismatic Odyssey. The Celator,

2010.

Hobart, William. The Medical Language of St. Luke; a Proof from Internal Evidence that “The

Gospel According to St. Luke” and “The Acts of the Apostles” were Written by the Same

Person, and that the Writer was a Medical Man. London: Longmans and Green. 1882.

Grey, C. L. The Battle for America’s Soul. Healthcare, the Culture War, and the Future of

Freedom. Hickory. NC: Eventide, 2011.

James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. 4th edition, Reprint of 1880 edition. Grand

Raids, MI: Baker, 1978.