I would have loved to get the answer from “Luke” himself but considering the time zones that I would have to cross I ended up doing some research instead. Let me initiate the argument, which obviously has two sides to it.

The arguments that are in favor of Luke being a Gentile are as follows.

The Lists in Colossians

The argument that Luke was a Gentile is simply made that Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of ‘the circumcision’ according to Colossians 4:10-14 [10]

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;) [11] And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. [12] Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. [13] For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. [14] Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you., he therefore must not be a Jew.

However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather as Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.

The Name and Profession Arguments

Further Luke (Lucas) is in itself, evidenced that he was a Gentile. However, the very names mentioned in Colossians Chapter 4 as being in ‘the circumcision’ are Gentile names: Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus. Paul’s name itself is a Roman name, which he used throughout his ministry among the Gentiles, instead of his Hebrew name, Saul. In the same way Peter’s Hebrew name was Simon.

Others have actually claimed that there were no Jewish doctors in the Roman world. There is as much reason to believe that Jews were in the medical profession in ancient times as they are today.

Arguments in favor of Luke being a Jew are as follows:

The Rule: Oracles Given to Jews

After showing the sinful condition of the Jewish people, explaining how the Jews are just as much subject to sin as are the Gentiles, Paul asks the question, “What advantage has the Jew?” His answer was“Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:1–2). The main advantage that Paul recognizes in the Jewish people was that when God gave revelation to the human race, He gave it to and through the Jews. He did not utilize the Gentile people for this purpose. This was the rule: that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. If Luke was an exception, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that he is an exception.

Thus, one has to prove conclusively that Luke was a Gentile before one should abandon the clear rule about the Jewish writing of Scripture. We must assume that Luke is a Jew unless the evidence is so overwhelming that we must conclude he is a Gentile. As we have seen above, the evidence from the lists in Colossians is so weak that it does not meet that criterion. Gentiles are blessed in many ways, especially during this Church Age, but God has never indicated that He has changed His rule of using only Jews to record His revelation.

Trophimus, Not Luke, the Cause of Paul’s Arrest

The point is that, when the Jewish people wanted to accuse Paul of bringing a Gentile into the Temple, they chose Trophimus. Why didn’t they choose Luke, who was also with Paul, and was an eyewitness to these events? If Luke were a Gentile, it would have been far easier, and far more believable, to accuse Paul of bringing Luke with him into the Temple, rather than Trophimus. The fact that Luke was not mentioned in the accusation is a strong indication that he was not a Gentile. Luke was with Paul on several occasions when they made the various trips to Jerusalem in order to report on their missionary efforts to the apostolic church. The issue was never raised about Luke being a Gentile, although he was there in Jerusalem with Paul.

Luke’s Intimate Knowledge of the Temple

Another argument for the idea that Luke was a Jew is that he showed such an intimate knowledge of the Temple, more than any other of the Gospel writers. When he described the announcement to Zacharias concerning the birth of John the Baptist, Luke went into considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the Levitical priests for service according to their families. He further described the position of the priest before the altar of incense, where the angel appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:8–20).

The fact that Luke alone of the four Gospel writers gives this account, and he does so with such vivid detail, argues for his being a Jew, familiar with the Temple procedures. One could even speculate that Luke might have been a Levite as well, as he knew so much about how the Temple operated. Is it logical to assume, without question, that Luke was a Gentile, when he had such a clear understanding of the most intimate workings of the Temple, where no Gentile was allowed to go?

Luke’s Intimate Acquaintance with Mary

Yet another argument is the striking intimacy that Luke had with the mother of Jesus, Mary. He relates the story of the birth of Jesus primarily from Mary’s point of view, and then said that she hid these things “in her heart” (Luke 2:19, 51). How did Luke, of all the Gospel writers, get so close to Mary that he was able to find out what she had hidden in her heart? As close-knit as the Jerusalem church was, and as difficult as it must have been for Gentiles to have gotten to the “inner circle” of the apostolic leadership, it seems highly unlikely that Luke could have gotten that close to Mary if he were a Gentile.

Conclusion: