Theophilus "Friend of God"
- Liz Bowers
- Nov 4
- 9 min read
Today's Reading: Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 (esv)
Dear Christian,
We have finished our study of the Gospel of Matthew and contemplated a few more questions about what it means to live our everyday lives as Christians. Now we return to our study of the Gospels by diving into the Gospel of Luke. In Matthew we studied chapter by chapter, in this study we'll go a bit deeper by studying pericope by pericope.
What is a pericope?
You can think of a pericope as a complete thought or section. For example, today we're starting with the introduction to Luke, known as its dedication. Some pericopes will be longer than others but it will allow us to keep the context of what we're studying while diving just a little bit deeper. I'm also going to try to be a bit more organized with sections in an individual study so that your experience will have more clarity.
Main Idea
We can have certainty about the Gospel we have been taught from God's Word.
The Authorship of Luke
Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?
The authorship of the Gospel of Luke has been held traditionally and unanimously since our earliest records of this letter as the beloved Luke the physician mentioned in Colossians 4:14.
However, Luke himself does not sign this letter or give any personal indication that he is the author in the actual text itself. One thing to note is that this would not have been unusual for someone writing as a historian at the time, in fact, it gave more credibility to a historical account when the author did not assign credit to himself.
The authorship of Luke was not brought into question even by scholars until the 19th century, meaning that from the earliest readers of Luke, it was understood that he was the author.
What then do we know about Luke?
He was a second-generation Christian and one of the Gospel writers who was not himself an eyewitness, unlike Matthew and John.
He was likely from the Church of Antioch.
He was a well-loved doctor and companion of Paul.
It is speculated from the context of Colossians 4 that he was also a Gentile.
Luke is only mentioned three times in the New Testament.
Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas. Colossians 4:14 (esv)
Do your best to come to me soon. For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. 2 Timothy 4:9-11 (esv)
Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. Philemon 1:23-24 (esv)
The Authority of Luke
Luke himself says at the beginning of his letter that many have tried to put together an account of the things that had happened concerning Jesus, why then do we trust the account of Luke and have held onto it as God's inspired Word all this time?
First, Luke is given apostolic authority through his close relationship with Paul who more than likely contributed greatly to both Luke's work on his Gospel account and on his recording of the Acts of the Church.
Second, Luke also describes to us the manner by which he gathered his information and the credibility of his sources in this introduction. He doesn't ascribe the authority of his account to himself but to the sources which he investigated who were eyewitnesses of the events that took place.
Third, it has been held as a trustworthy accounting of the life of Christ since the early church when many of the witnesses were still alive to affirm or confront the different accounts as they arose.
The Intended Audience of Luke
In his introduction, Luke addresses this letter to someone named Theophilus. Who this Theophilus might be has garnered much speculation over the years. Since Luke addresses him as "most excellent" it is possible that he was sending the letter to a specific person who held high rank/wealth in their society but whose identity needed to be protected. However, Luke does not use this title when he addresses Theophilus at the beginning of his record of the Acts of the Early Church. It may also interest us to know that Theophilus literally translated means, "friend of God." As Christians, we are now able to be called friends of God and sometimes I do wonder if that is what Luke intended. Instead of writing to a specific person, I wonder if he was addressing his account this way so that the Christians who encountered it would know that it is for them, for their clarity and confidence in the Gospel that they had been given.
What we can know with greater certainty is that whoever Theophilus might be, they were likely a Gentile just like Luke. This makes it unique among the Gospels which were initially written for a Jewish audience.
It is also likely that Luke knew his account would be passed on beyond its original receiver to at least their home church and probably beyond as Paul's letters similarly were passed from one church to another.
Background Information
Lastly, what we need to know about Luke is when and where the account was written. Scholars have narrowed the timeframe of its compilation to the early 60s a.d. It was likely written in Rome and would be written around the same time as Acts which doesn't mention Nero's extreme persecution. Therefore, we know it must have been written before 65 a.d. They also think that Luke most likely used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources and it was completed by the mid to late 50s a.d.
The reason that some place the date of its compilation as later is because of the detailed prophecy given of the destruction of the Temple which did not occur until 70 a.d. Their reasoning is that they do not believe in prophecy, therefore, for Luke to know these details he must have been aware of the destruction having already occurred.
I do believe in prophecy, so I will hold to the earlier date for the remainder of this study. I believe it is only a confirmation of the truth of God's Word that everything happened just as He declared in advance that it would.
Greek Words to Know
paradidōmi - authoritative handing down
hypēretēs - an under rower, a servant usually of a king, also could refer to the soldiers of a king
parakoloutheō - to walk alongside, to investigate --> shows the careful minute detail with which someone looked into a matter (often used in a medical sense to find a diagnosis)
katēcheō - to teach orally or instruct, to be informed (we get our word Catechism from it)
Verse by Verse Study
Vs. 1
Whenever something noteworthy happens today, it goes viral almost instantly on one social media platform or another. Everyone gets to give their opinion of the events and if they witnessed it then give their point of view. In the days, of the early church word about Jesus' ministry, His death, and His resurrection would have been "trending" if they had such a thing. Even as Christians faced persecution the Gospel they shared spread like wildfire across the known world. Unlike the social media platforms of today, the average person couldn't go back to find the original post or watch videos of the events as they occurred. They had to rely upon the witness of others to know what happened. If you've ever played a game of telephone you can imagine what kind of confusion must have been happening. The story would have grown and changed with the memories of those sharing it.
Luke, a second-generation Christian, begins his account to his friend Theophilus by explaining his reason for adding his own record of events.
Vs. 2
Knowing that many had set out to put together a record of these things, Luke sought out high-quality sources to find out what was true and what was not. He seeks to give his friend Theophilus assurance that the credibility of what he has compiled is authoritative.
Now, this might have some of us wondering about how Luke could be considered the inspired Word of God when it claims itself to be a secondhand compilation of other sources. To that, I would say it depends on how you believe the inspiration of Scripture works. I don't see why God could not have inspired the circumstances to bring Luke's sources together or to give him an understanding of the consistencies/inconsistencies of the accounts he was hearing and even inspired in the end the way in which Luke decided to put together his account. One thing is for certain, Luke's own introduction provides great evidence against the Mechanical Inspiration Theory which assumes God used the authors like robots to put down the exact words of Scripture. One other reason we can be assured of the Gospel of Luke as Scripture is that there is a strong case Paul quoted from it, calling it Scripture in 1 Timothy 5.
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 1 Timothy 5:18 (esv, emphasis my own)
And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. Luke 10:7 (esv, emphasis my own)
Also in 1 Corinthians about Jesus' Last Supper and the institution of Communion.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (esv)
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Luke 22:19-20 (esv)
However the process of inspiration works, we can trust that for those who received this Gospel originally and for us today it is the Word of God.
Let's continue in verse 2, he speaks of those who were eyewitnesses of the events and not only that but servants of the word. We learned the word used for servants above (hypēretēs) these were those sent out by the King to deliver the good news to all (paradidōmi ). They weren't simply bystanders, they were walking in the events as they happened.
When Luke refers to them being witnesses of the events from the beginning, most scholars agree that this is referring to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. However, he would have had to collect similar first-hand information to give us the detailed advent account we find in the first few chapters of his Gospel.
Vs. 3
Luke himself has dug deeply into these things to analyze the accounts he has been made aware of. Therefore, having this expert-level knowledge of the events he is setting out to provide a chronologically ordered account of them. Knowing this helps us to read Luke's account in its historical context whereas some of the other Gospel accounts focused more heavily on events/themes without as much concern for chronological order.
Not only that but he expresses his reason for doing so as being directly for this most excellent/most honorable Theophilus. The more I read through this short beginning to Luke, the more it reminds me of how one former skeptic might begin to persuade another. Luke had been hearing all the many accounts that Theophilus himself was hearing and began a thorough investigation. Now he has completed his research and these are his conclusions.
Vs. 4
Based upon the authority of his sources and thoroughness of his investigation, Luke wants to give clarity and confidence to Theophilus that whatever else they might have heard, this is the true Gospel. They have not been led astray by what they have been taught and because of this they can have confidence in believing that it is true, Christ came and lived a perfect life, He died in their place for the sins of the world, and He rose again conquering death so that we might live through Him. Therefore, we can understand the purpose of the Gospel of Luke to be primarily evangelism but also apologetics.
Conclusion
What I love about this introduction is how clear it makes it that we don't have to check our brains at the door of Christianity. Certainly, we must have faith to be saved, but digging deeper into these things and knowing the truth about what we have been taught is important. We should all be healthy skeptics of the doctrines we're taught from the pulpit on Sunday morning and from other Christians who have mentored us. We should look into them for ourselves and be encouraged that those who have investigated before us have found reasons to be strengthened in their faith rather than reasons to walk away.
We can have certainty about what we believe just as Luke had certainty and desired Theophilus the "friend of God" to have the same.
Comments