The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I have a few questions I would like to see hashed out. Everyone here may agree on the answers but if you know any argument for another view then please make it known so I can see all sides and not be caught by surprise. I will start with:
Who was Theophilus?

from Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/bibles ... dy-1-4.pdf



at blueletterbible.org i found http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/luke.cfm



outside of this, I have never contemplated who he was except he was someone Luke wrote to. What is your thought on it? I am interested in hearing feedback from the community if they offer it. I am a learner...

Physicians in the ancient Roman Empire were typically slaves, and such slaves were very often freed after a number of years of faithful service. Since Luke was a physician and he apparently traveled freely about with Paul, it seems likely that he was a freed slave when he wrote his Gospel and Acts. When slaves were freed in the Roman Empire they remained obligated in some ways to their former masters who became their patrons. These realities, together with Luke's term of address indicating Theophilus' higher social station, suggest that he may have been Luke's patron and former master. It's also evident from Luke's introductory comments in his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) that Theophilus had been previously taught about Christ, and it seems likely that he was a believer or was at least eager to learn about Christ and the Christian faith.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Your theory is thought provoking but I don't think I have ever heard it put that way before now. However, it does have merit. I was reading in the "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" vol. 5, p. 2966 on Theophilus. His name means loved of God and it does say that he may have been a Roman official (a man of status) and that his name may have been used to represent all Christians but this theory has problems. The fact that he is called "most excellent" means that he was a real person and was held in high respect by Luke. There is a theory that Theophilus was a presbyter in the early church and was the one who sent a letter to Paul from Corinth. There is another theory that he was a magistrate according to the Gospel of St. James (an apocryphal letter).

Now in my copy of Eusebius' ecclesiastical history, on page 161, has stated that Theophilus was a bishop in the church of Antioch. Eusebius writes, "There are three books containing the elements of faith, addressed to Autolycus, which are ascribed to Theophilus, whom we have mentioned as bishop of Antioch."

I came across this entry in the book "Biblical Hermeneutics," by Milton S. Terry. He writes "In the writings of Theophilus of Antioch and Melito of Sardis we discover a more formal and systematic exegesis. Theophilus composed commentaries on the Gospels..." He goes on to say that Theophilus also had a ministry that was apologetic and he was skilled in the "sacred writings." p. 635

Theophilus of Antioch was a second century bishop who died some time around 185 AD, so he could not have been the individual to whom Luke addressed his compositions of the Gospel and Acts.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Thank you Gideon. I did not look up the year I simply assumed it was the same person. Thank you for clarifying the person and the year he lived.

So then, Theophilus is likely to be: Former slave owner of Luke and life long patron to him. In owning a slave such as Luke (an educated man) and being addressed as most excellent, it may be assumed that he was a person of stature and wealth.

I would assume that Luke, being indebted to Theophilus in some manner and likely having affection for him as a patron, would have a desire to proselytize him which would explain why Luke would be addressing to him this apologetic Luke-Acts.

But is there any indication as to who Theophilus may have been? Has there been any extrabiblical sources found to give insight on this question?

None that I know of.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I've womdered if Theophilus was a physician friend of Luke. In Luke's gospel there are quite a few medical terms to say nothing of his introduction to the gospel which seems to reads a lot like a doctor's examination and conclusion of a patient.

This kind of an opening statement might be quite significant to another doctor, moreso than to someone not a physician.

It appears that Theophilus had already been taught about Christ, by whom or to what extent we don't know. Luke is verifying for Theophilus the condition of the patient so to speak. See Luke 1:3.

My next question may cause some offense. It is not intended to do so. I simply want to explore the issues I see. Is Luke-Acts inspired? It seems that it is written not as God breathed, at least not in the same sense as Epistles or John or th OT prophets. It is written as an investigation into events. Luke is not an apostle (Mark neither). He is not a prophet. I would say he is writing as an investigative reporter and historian. Would we consider that inspired?

Yes, we do consider it inspired. The nature of his writing is not an indicator of whether it is inspired or not, nor is his being an apostle the issue. Inspiration is far more complex than either the issue of authorship or the history of the composition.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Paul quotes Luke in 1 Timothy. If Paul treats Luke's writing as scripture, it is good enough for me.

1 Tim 5:18 (NET)
18) For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.”

Luke 10:7 (NET)
7) Stay in that same house, eating and drinking what they give you, for the worker deserves his pay. Do not move around from house to house.

Whoever Theophilus is, I think he must be an intelligent, handsome and modest man.

Modest, especially!

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Paul being a student of the OT, it is likely that he would already know of the scripture in the OT that says this: Deuteronomy 24:15; 25:4. And then we have this same quote in Matthew 10:10.

And Paul also quotes from Greek poets, as reported in Acts 17:28. This of course does not mean that Aratus' writings were inspired.