Luke - Strength offstage

The references:          Col. 4:14          Luke the beloved physician

                                    2 Tim. 4:11      Only Luke is with me

                                    Phile 24           Luke, my fellow worker

The story that emerges:

Luke gave us over one-quarter of the New Testament literature—the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. His Gospel opens with the claim of objective reliability and careful investigation. This intent parallels the classic approaches of the historians Herodotus and Thucydides. (At least, that is what others say.)

In addition, we know he spent more time with Paul than any other friend or co-worker. For three passages in Acts the narrator is “we,” indicating that Luke was with him at that point of Paul’s life. These periods cover long sea travel and Paul’s prison terms.

Yet—this man receives only three references by Paul and none in Acts. Doesn’t he deserve more? Or not. Am I overlooking “strength that is offstage?” With these questions in mind, I will try uncover what lies within this man. 

I.              What we do notknow with certainty:

The first entry must be about where he was born and raised. At least with Paul we know who his tutor was, Gamaliel. Not so with Luke. Like Melchizedek—well, in some ways—he just appears.

Though he became a close companion of Paul, we are not told how they met. The first time we read of the two of them together is when he joins Paul, Timothy, and Silas for the short trip across the Aegean from Troas to European soil. Before that? Silence.

Lastly, about his death we know nothing. He disappears following his report of Paul at the end of Acts meeting with Jews in Rome. Even the place of his grave is unknown. That puts him in the company of Mozart whose burial site also remains a mystery. Or rather, let me say, Mozart finds himself in the company ofLuke.

II.             What is probable:

Scholars debate if he was Jew or Gentile. While there is no explicit mention either way, there is a listing of Paul’s co-workers who were Jewish in Colossians 4:10, 11. Following that is another list where Luke is named. This, along with the Gentile tilt of the Gospel, does indicate that he was a Gentile.

For his home, there are two possibilities. Antioch is one possible place. When Luke lists the leaders in the church there at the time of Paul’s first missionary journey, one of them is named Lucius. That could be another name for Luke. This would place him as a leader in Antioch.

The other possibility is Troas.  The first “we” passage occurs when Paul and friends were in Troas. That could mean that Troas was his hometown, that he heard Paul preach and became a follower of Jesus, and, free to leave his city, that he accompanied the three of them to Philippi.

III.           Legend

As might be expected of a leader of his prominence, legends arose about Luke. One of the most intriguing is Luke as the first iconographer. One of the sacred texts in the Orthodox Church links him to icons.  “The Paraklesisto the Theotokos” cites Luke as the painter of three icons of Mary, the Theotokos, “Mother of God.” From that Luke has become the patron of all iconographers. 

Legend also tells us that he preached in Dalmatia and Boeotia and also cites Thebes as the place of his death.

And for the great historian and intimate companion of Paul, nothing else.

I stood in front of the kiosk where appointments were made for heavenly interviews and said I would like to sit with St. Luke. He – or was it “She?” – rolled her eyes at that request. “Luke? Today? No, no. Take a number.”

By that I realized: a) Luke was in demand, and b) this profile might take a while. Stay tuned for the interview and more chapters.

“Right ,” I said, “how about Julius?” “Caesar? Not sure where to find him.” “No, Julius the Captain of the Augustinian Cohort.” “Oh, him. No one has asked for him yet. I’ll find him for you. Take a seat.”

For all that Luke represents, he makes no personal appearance in his two volumes and warrants only two references in Paul’s letters. How come? 

After all, most authors writing about a famous figure insert at least a bit here and there about the writer. Who would not? Who resists just a bit of self-name-dropping? Did not James Boswell, the biographer of the famous Samuel Johnson, also write a volume about himself? Or was Luke modest to a painful degree, shrinking from the spotlight? Like the eminent Jane Austen, burning all her correspondence with her sister. Or was there inverted pride, bringing attention to himself by intentionally staying in absentia? 

I thought if anyone could answer, it might be Julius. Why Julius? Because he was the leader of the ship that voyaged from Tyre to Rome with Paul and Luke. 

Enter Julius, a man of such position and clout that all cowered in his presence. He, Julius, was the leader of the Augustinian Cohort, and this man was to take the ship of criminals to Rome. In his order of military life, these men feared no one and brought dread to all. Except in this story: Not this Julius and not this criminal Paul. To Paul Julius was nearly deferential. He was kind, attentive, and protective (Acts 27:3; 27:31; 27:43).

While I was interested in his reaction to Paul, I was especially curious about Paul’s companion. Was this man merely a footman to Paul? An obsequious attendant? Or were their interchanges competitive, Luke not about to yield ground? Was there a never-ending contest as to who was dominant?

To which Julius gave these observations. “There was no self-effacing modesty in that man. He did not shrink from asserting his views and opinions. And no sign of false humility either. He did not belittle himself and then show a bit of strut. Nor in any way did he try to outshine his well-known criminal friend, nor did he stay three steps behind.

As to the positive, I say he was secure in the comfort of who he was. He was friend to the man on whom all attention centered, and he was pleased to be that. He listened with respect, both as a friend and as student. Friend, support, confidant, and listener. There was a well of confidence in him that removed all need to put himself forth, just as there was no uneasiness with stepping forward. His humility abounded in strength, and his courage rested on honor. Truly, a man of gratitude, wisdom, and faith in that man Jesus whom they both loved and worshipped.” 

Epiphraditus - Signs of a good church

 

The references:          Philippians 2:25          I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. 

                                    Philippiians 4:25        I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 

 

The story that emerges:

It was Samuel Johnson who wrote, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Paul could have written, “When a man knows he is in prison, it concentrates his mind wonderfully on things of real value.” Paul tells us of those values in his correspondence with the Philippian church

For Paul it all revolved around the companionship with Epaphroditus and the sweet encouragement that brought him. 

Epaphroditus was from the church in Philippi. Clearly, Paul had made a strong impression upon Epaphroditus when Paul was there. When he learned that Paul was in jail in Rome, he went to be with his mentor. For Paul, this gesture and their time together was the most precious, most highly valued beam of light to penetrate the walls of his cell.

Here are some of the words Paul used in reference to Epaphroditus. “He is my brother,my coworker, my fellow soldier.” The triad of those words present a close friend, one who shares the call of their Lord, one not embarrassed by Paul’s witness, and one who has not shrunk from joining Paul in the trenches.

He moves to expressions of feelings, mentioning his longing for him, of the distress of his absence, the sorrow upon sorrow if Epaphroditus had died, and of rejoicing at the Philippians seeing him again. Those are terms of endearment, of a companion who shares the deepest love that Paul knows. No high-tech words, no task-oriented references, no dry terms just so he can move to more important things. Paul felt deeply for his friend and could only talk of him with terms of intimacy, of heart language, and the bonds of affection. 

As Paul looked ahead at Epaphroditus’ return to Philippi, the context he envisioned was not that of new blood for ministry or additional help for programs. Instead he writes of the joy and honor that the people back in Philippi will have when their friend returns. They had heard that he had been near death. So now they will rejoice over him as a dearly loved brother who has returned home.

The letter closes with another reference to Epaphroditus and the gift he brought from this church that loved Paul so. But again, the value is not in the listing of the items that would make Paul’s life easier. To Paul, the gift is more of a “fragrant offering” of their affection for him. That meant more to him than the contents. Along with all that he unwrapped, he received “an acceptable sacrifice pleasing to him and to God.” 

The values Paul the prisoner held to be so wonderful? Not the tangibles, not the statistics of ministry and growth, not the reports of attendance and programs. No, rather the intangibles of hearing news of the brothers and sisters, of how they continue in partnership with Paul, how “they share in his troubles,” and how they are pursuing “the fruits of righteousness that come from their faith in Jesus Christ.” 

That is what lifts Paul’s heart about the relationship with the Philippians, or the Colossians, or the Thessalonians. News. Affirmation of abounding in knowledge and grace, defending the gospel, sharing in God’s grace with him. For him the delights of his appetite, this was feasting. He did more than survive on this companionship; the time with Epaphroditus fed him and deeply satisfied his longing.

The food that is served for Paul’s feast is known by the vitality of spiritual hunger, by the signs of true fellowship, by loving other congregations, by the sending out of key and prominent leaders, by the challenges the church faces, and by dealing with opponents with love and patience.

Above all the one and most pure value--rejoicing in God. Doesn’t Paul say that twice in the last chapter?

 

 

When we found our bench, I was tempted to ask Epaphroditus if he did not have a nickname. I mean, “Epaphraditus”? Surely…. As for myself, I got lucky. Who wouldn’t trade “Tad” for “Ernest”? But I thought that maybe, just maybe, “Epaphroditus” meant a lot to them then. Chalk that up to cultural sensitivity. :-)

I did ask about “risking his neck” for the gospel. No details come from Paul. Epaphroditus did not add any. In fact, best left that way. Otherwise we in the safe zones of the world would make a hero of him for what he would consider --- no big deal. 

We did reflect on what Paul would want for a church’s feast. We agreed that this seems to be learned behavior.  Unless we learn otherwise, what might we expect to hear? “How was your Christmas service?” “Did you meet your goal of the campaign?” “Tell me about your program for after Easter.”  “Is your average attendance going up?”  

What we hear from Paul in prison does want evaluation by corporate measures. Consider the church today. The Christians in Idlid Province of Syria have no building but depend upon the church’s prayers for food and safety. The refugee Christians in Moria Camp on Lesvos Island, Greece, have no church “service” but hunker down around radio programs. The Christians in Kathmandu are under suspicion but are intent on helping fellow believers to find sanctuary in Canada. 

For us in the safe zones, they are on the front lines where the battles are engaged. From them we learn the values to absorb that they and Paul embody.