The Gospel of Luke-Part Two

The Gospels of John and Mark start quite appropriately with the “beginning”. Matthew provides his version of Jesus’ family tree. And Luke begins with four verses dedicated to a man called Theophilus. These four verses seem to suggest little beyond Luke’s basic purpose: to lay out an orderly account of the message of Jesus Christ.

Who was Theophilus? No one knows for certain. His name translates to “friend of God”. Many commentators will tell you that it was not uncommon in the era wherein Luke wrote to dedicate one’s work to a patron. I’ll let Alan Culpepper speak for a legion of scholars. “Luke’s prologue clearly reflects the conventional form of prologues found in contemporary historical and biographical works…It does not mention Jesus by name or title and it gives no indication of the subject matter of the work…The references to “us” and “the things about which you have been instructed” suggest that Theophilus was a believer, or God-fearer, but nothing else is known of him.”

Luke says he wants Theophilus to know the “truth” concerning the “things about which he has been instructed.” This is the suggestion made by Culpepper and countless others. The introduction is perfunctory. Luke wants to reassure Theophilus, based upon his eyewitness accounts and the fact that he has followed everything closely, that the “things” Theophilus knows are, in fact, “true”.

But what if Luke has another motive in mind? And what if Theophilus is not simply a figurehead, but a real person. And rather than simple reassurance, what if Luke has identified a problem that needs to be addressed?

What if the “truth” that Luke wants to share is, in fact, different from the “things about which Theophilus has been instructed? Maybe not categorically different, but what if there is an important distinction between the “truth” and the “things”? To answer that question, we must return to the Emmaus Road, which we shall do tomorrow.