,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The identity of Luke’s
Who
is Luke’s Theophilus
Edward
L. Bromfield
For example, if I
were to address a letter to “Mr. President,” the weight of its content
and some of its meaning would be determined by who my addressee happens to be.
If I
were to write: “Mr. President, pertaining to the affairs of which you have
been informed, I have decided that it would be in your interest to know how
these things developed from the beginning …”
Wouldn’t the contents
of my narrative be weighted by the identity of the person to whom I am writing?
Wouldn’t analogies or
indistinct parallels therein also take on a meaning according to the identity
of my addressee?
If my addressee were
the president of the Elks Club or the CEO of a large business or the President
of the United States, knowing his identity would determine how the letter
should be read. Isn’t this so?
Who is Theophilus?
Some believe the name is simply a title for all Christians.
The name,
“Theophilus” means lover or friend of God. I don’t know of any
real reason to believe this, except that the meaning of the name implies that
all Christians are friends of God.
While this is so for
a true Christian, why aren’t the other Gospel narratives addressed as such?
Why aren’t any of the
Epistles addressed so?
Why don’t we see any
of the letters of the early church fathers addressed in this manner?
This conclusion is
apparently based solely upon supposition and not related to anything within the
text itself or anything outside the text that could be tied to either Luke or
Acts.
Some have thought
Theophilus refers to Paul’s lawyer and Luke and Acts represent his defense.
However, in every
case listed in the NT where Paul stood before heads of state, he defended
himself.
The fact is that the
Scriptures tell us therein God would use us to testify for him (Mark 13:9-11) against our accusers and judges.
If Paul didn’t
consider his life dear to him (Acts 20:24), why would he entrust his testimony before
Nero to an unconverted lawyer who had to be informed about Paul’s faith?
Even if his lawyer
were a gentile Christian, why would Paul choose to let another testify of God
and Paul’s own innocence?
Paul knew the Jewish
traditions and the reason for the unwarranted accusations brought against him
better than any gentile lawyer in Rome — Christian or not.
Theophilus “the
lawyer” doesn’t make sense.
Others have concluded
that Theophilus was a Roman official to whom Luke writes in order to
familiarize him with the Christian origin and beliefs.
This arises out of
the fact that both Felix and Festus, two Roman governors of Judea, are
addressed as “most excellent” in the book of Acts (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25).
While this is so,
does this mean that only Roman officials were addressed in this manner or were
the high officials of other nations addressed similarly?
Moreover, why does
Luke address Theophilus as “most excellent” only in the Gospel
narrative? He doesn’t address him so in Acts 1:1.
Additionally, why
would Luke simply state Jewish matters without any explanation? For example, it
is clear that Luke refers to the twelve Apostles in Luke 1:2, but the indefinite pronoun “they” is used.
Why would a Roman
official be expected to know Luke is referring to the Twelve? This is inside knowledge.
Another example is
found in Luke 1:5 where Luke refers to the course of Abia and
that Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron.
Why would this be
important to a Roman official, and how could he possibly understand its
significance to Luke’s narrative without an explanation?
A final example is “the
time of incense” in the same verse. Why would a Roman official be expected
to understand that this refers to the time of prayer in the Temple at
Jerusalem?
There is absolutely
no evidence that Luke’s Theophilus should refer to a Roman official. Luke
expects his reader to know what he is talking about.
There are too many
things left unsaid, too many Jewish matters written without explanation etc.
for Theophilus to be a Roman official or even a gentile believer.
Luke’s object in
writing to Theophilus was to clarify matters, concerning which he had been
informed (Luke 1:4).
How can Luke clarify
anything for someone who is unfamiliar with Jewish traditions, when Luke offers
no explanation when mentioning Jewish matters?
Therefore, Luke’s
addressee must be Jewish. This is the only explanation that fits.
Who, then, is
Theophilus?
If Theophilus is a
Jew and “most excellent” is an indication that he is a high official,
then he could be none other than Theophilus, the son of Ananus, the high
priest.
Josephus mentions no
other high official named Theophilus who governed in the 1st century CE.
Theophilus held the
office of high priest from 36 to 41 CE, during a time when the Hellenist
Messianic Jews were persecuted by the Jerusalem Jewish government.
If Luke addresses him
as “most excellent,” it probably means he was holding the office of high
priest at the time of Luke’s writing.
Acts was written much
later when Paul was in prison at Rome, long after Theophilus held that office,
and this may be the reason why he is addressed there merely as “Oh
Theophilus.”
One reason why Luke
would address his Gospel to Theophilus, an unconverted and antagonistic
unbeliever, is because prophets under the Old Testament had often addressed the
king or sent letters to the king in the name of the Lord to testify against
them in order for them to consider what they are doing and repent.
If the above is the
case with Luke and Theophilus, Luke may have been warning the officiating high
priest, that if he doesn’t repent, God would judge Jerusalem prematurely in the
30s.
It was during
Theophilus’ tenure that Caligula became mad and attempted to place a statue of
himself in the Temple at Jerusalem. Rome and Jerusalem were on the brink of
war.
Should this occur,
Jerusalem and the Temple would have been destroyed about 30 years prior to when
they actually were.
Luke is the only
Synoptic Gospel that specifically states that armies would surround Jerusalem (Luke 21:21), implying it may have
been written in the 30s and for the specific purpose of warning Theophilus of
impending judgment upon his deeds.
Acts 9:31 may
indicate that Theophilus relaxed his position with regard to persecuting the
Hellenist Messianic believers.
There are many
similar reasons why Theophilus should be this Jewish high priest, but I offer
the above for the reader’s consideration.
[1] Awhile
back I became acquainted with the blogs of Lee T. Dahn (found HERE) and
Richard Anderson (found HERE). Although they do address other subjects, their blogs
seem to be dedicated to the works of Luke with the identification of
Theophilus, Luke’s addressee, as a key concern. It was through their blogs that
I began to consider the idea presented in this blog, and I am now convinced
that Theophilus is the Jewish high priest whose was the governor of the Jews
from 36 CE to 41 CE.
My name
is Edward L. Bromfield; Ed or Eddie to most folks; I’m really not a very
formal person. I am married to a wonderful woman for 40 years, have two
beautiful daughters and two wonderful grandchildren. Both my daughters are
married to wonderful husbands, and it pleases me to have lived long enough
to see both of them fulfilling their lifelong dreams while walking with
the Lord.
I enjoy
living in central, eastern Pennsylvania in an old farm house in the Blue
Mountains. Among my favorite past-times are enjoying my grandchildren,
discussing things about Jesus with folks who enjoy such discussions, and simply
enjoying my family and the times we are together.
I am the
administrator of Smoodock’s
Blog, and attend a Bible believing church. I’d rather not point out its
denomination, because it may not necessarily endorse all of what I claim here,
although we would agree upon all we are willing to die for. I am a Sunday
school teacher and really enjoy sharing Christ in this way.
I am
over 65 and getting older, but I’m fine with that; I have learned to appreciate
each stage of my life, from youth to the present. Looking back I am surprised
with the brevity, disappointed with how much I’ve really learned, amused with
how serious I have taken myself, and glad for Jesus in my life. I am a husband,
a father, a grandfather and a Christian, and I’m still learning how to to be
good at what I am. I like to read, but I appreciate most reading about things
that concern my faith. I suppose I am focused, but probably not as retentive as
I would like to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment