S. Michael Houdmann Supporter Got Questions Ministries

The fact is that we really do not know who Theophilus was, which is why there are several different theories as to who he might be. No matter how much evidence there may or may not be for each theo...

Login or Sign Up to view the rest of this answer.

July 01 2013 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

John Appelt

Bible scholars have wondered who Theophilus was that Luke addressed in his gospel and in the book of Acts. Although unknown, there are clues that may identify him.

In Luke 1:3, Theophilus has an honorary title, “most excellent,” equivalent to “Your Excellency,” used for Roman officials, Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25, and those of high rank, office, or distinguished position. But although a well-known name among Romans and not much among the Jews, about this time, there was one prominent Jew, Theophilus, also known as John, who was a former high priest who served from 37 to 41, one of the five sons and a son-in-law of Annas, who all, over time, served as high priest, Acts 4:6. Some believe Acts 9:31 alludes to the time Theophilus was high priest.

Acts 6:7 mentions that “a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.” Perhaps Theophilus was one of them. If he were, Luke might have wanted him to know more about the background of his faith, Luke 1:4, and for him to be true to his name, “Theophilus,” which means, “Friend of God.” Luke’s purpose in writing was to give Theophilus the complete and accurate treatise about what he had been told or taught. 

When Herod Agrippa I (41-44) became king over Judea in 41, he, for some unknown reason, deposed Theophilus. As Herod had something against the believers who were gathering, Acts 12:1-3, perhaps, he had something against Theophilus, especially if he had expressed his faith in the Lord. 

Within the writings of Luke, there are many hints that this Theophilus may have been the recipient. There are many allusions to the temple, priests, prayer, and the treatment of the poor by giving alms, all things of which a Jewish priest would have interest. Only Luke mentions the purification of Mary, the priest Zacharias being of the course of Abijah, his wife Elizabeth being a descendant of Aaron, and the presentation of Jesus. All these things would be familiar to a priest like Theophilus. Luke did not have to explain these things that a priest understood.

Only Luke, the physician, mentions the restoration of the High Priest’s servant’s ear, Luke 22:50-51, something of interest to the circle of priests. 

The account of Jesus at twelve years old, Luke 2:40-52, solely given by Luke, would have been something Theophilus would have been aware of, which happened when his father Annas was high priest. The scene of a young boy in the midst of teachers would certainly have been a topic of discussion among priests. It might have reminded them of another lad in their history, Samuel who worked in the temple among a mostly corrupt priesthood, I Samuel 1-3.

Some suggest Theophilus was a Sadducee and hence Luke’s emphasis on the Lord’s arguments which addressed their not believing in angels, spirits, or the resurrection.

The focus on the temple and priestly matters in Luke’s writings seem to point to Theophilus, who Luke addressed, as being the former high priest.

December 19 2023 • 0 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report