Who was Theophilus at the beginning of Luke and Acts?

For this reason I believe it is that Luke alone opens his Gospel with an address to a particular man. You could not have Matthew, consistently with the purpose and character of his Gospel, addressing it to a man; nor is it conceivable of Mark or of John. Luke so writes with the most admirable propriety. "Whereas many have undertaken to arrange a declaration concerning the matters fully believed in among us, even as they, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having thorough acquaintance from the outset with all things accurately, to write to thee in regular order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest truly know the certainty of accounts [or things] in which thou hast been instructed." Thus Luke was led of God as one who had a thirst and loving desire for the good of Theophilus, and fitly addresses this Gospel to him: and this we shall find in harmony with its character throughout. It was not for him only, of course, but for the permanent instruction of the Church; yet none the less was it written to him. Theophilus was laid on the heart of that godly man to be instructed in the things of God, and this draws out the workings of the Spirit of God in him to expound the way of God as shown in Christ more perfectly.

Theophilus appears to have been a man of rank, probably a Roman governor. This seems the reason why he is called here "Most Excellent," or, as we might say, His Excellency. It relates to official position, and not to his character morally as a man.3 It is evident he was a believer, but only partially instructed. The object of the Evangelist here was to give him a fuller understanding of "the way."4 Cf. Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3, Acts 26:25.

LUKE'S GOSPEL WRITTEN FOR A GENTILE RULER (vs.1-4)

Luke's introduction shows that, though he was concerned about giving exact information in this letter to Theophilus, he had not thought of being an instrument directly inspired by God. Theophilus was evidently a Gentile authority of whom nothing more is said in scripture, except in Acts 1:1, where only his name is mentioned. Many others had been energized to write an orderly history of those things concerning the Lord Jesus, and Luke was persuaded there was room for his letter also, having received accurate information from those who were eyewitnesses and servants of God in ministering His Word (v.3). But God had ordered that Luke was to write scripture and laid hold of him for this purpose, without Luke realizing that he was inspired by God. Therefore we may expect depths and beauties in this book that Luke himself had not designed.

Theophilus was manifestly in governmental authority (compare v.3 with Acts 26:25), and Luke desired that he should have accurate knowledge and certainty of those things in which he had already had some instruction. The human element in Luke's words is beautifully transparent, as intended by God.

One, doubtless a Christian, to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. The word translated 'most excellent' is κράτιστος, the same that is applied to governors of provinces, as to Felix and Festus as 'most noble.' Nothing further is known of Theophilus. Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1; cf. Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25.

Of the four evangelists, Matthew and Mark tell us of whom they write (Matt. 1:1; Mark 1:1); Luke and John, on the other hand, put on record why they write (Luke 1:1-4; John 20:31). John wrote for the instruction of people in general, viz., that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through His name. Luke wrote primarily for the instruction of one Theophilus, who was already a Christian, and therefore had life through Christ's name, and what he desired by his gospel to effect, he told Theophilus in his remarks introductory to the Acts. In his eyes it was a "treatise of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments to the Apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:1-2). But who Theophilus was, in common with much of our evangelist's own history, is now enshrouded in darkness. From the appellation "most excellent" (Luke 1:3), he was probably a man of rank, or one at the time, like Felix (Acts 23:26), filling some high post. Certainly he was a convert to Christianity. This is all we know of him, and indeed his biography would doubtless have been of little or no service to any of us. But the biography of the Lord Jesus Christ, as Luke sketched it out for that man's instruction, is of priceless value to the Christian, and most attractive to hearts which have not yet found rest in the bosom of their Saviour, "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick ” (Luke 5:31). Was not our evangelist, in writing his gospel, acting the part of a physician indeed, answering to his secular calling, by pointing his readers to Him whom sinners need, and introducing to their notice healing water for the soul?

The last of the three synoptic gospels does not bear any direct indication as to its author. The name of the recipient though is mentioned straight at the beginning: it is an otherwise unknown well-to-do man called Theophilus. To this very Theophilus the Acts of the Apostles are dedicated as well. Already in the 2nd century, both these Bible books were ascribed to Luke.

3 Theophilus ("Friend of God"), whose name (Origen: "a man whom God loves") may have been given to him at his baptism, and used only among Christians, seems to have been of equestrian rank, and saluted as "most excellent" (κράτιστε, cf. our "Right Honourable"), from being a ἡγεμών, like Felix (Acts 23:26) and Festus (Acts 26:25). He can have been no such fictitious person as Origen supposed, by reason of this very designation. With the Expositor's remarks on the social position of this friend of the Evangelist, compare note on Luke 6:20.

It would seem that Theophilus had either ceased to hold a governorship (or whatever other public position of a magisterial kind the inspired historian implies by the title 'most excellent'; cf. Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25, with Luke 1:3), or had become so matured in faith and spirituality as to value title as little as position, though one could scarce conceive a faithful man abiding in it. Further, they are not to be heard of in old or modern times, who imagine the name to be a fictitious designation of any one who loves God. Not only does the comparison of the Gospel with the Acts point to a living Christian to whom the writer inscribes both, but the form of the word would in that case have been φιλόθεος, (as in Timotheus or the like), and not θεόφιλος.

Hence at the start our Evangelist shows his heart drawn out to one begotten of God that needed the truth fully, a Gentile of rank if not actually a governor, with "his excellency" dropped in Acts 1:1, as no doubt he would prefer when more matured. This marked personal dealing would appeal all the more to other hearts, Jews as well as Gentiles. "Whereas many undertook to draw up a narrative concerning the matters fully assured among us, even as they that from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having closely followed up from the outset all things accurately, to write to thee in regular order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest fully know the certainty concerning accounts (words, or things), wherein thou wast instructed." These words distinguish the statements of many, though founded on what eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to us. For instead of referring Theophilus to what they had drawn up, he tells us that it seemed good to him also, as having followed closely all things from the very first (ἅνωθεν) and thus having thorough acquaintance of all, to write accurately to him in regular order, that he might fully know the certainty concerning accounts in which he was instructed. He does not, like a literary man, explain his sources or authorities. Far from saying that he compiled his Gospel from eye-witnesses as others had done, he simply avers his own careful perfect acquaintance with all from the outset, and his writing accurately and in order, that the one addressed might fully know the certainty respecting the accounts wherein he was instructed. The narratives he refers to might be correct and interesting. But they could not give God's mind and specially as his who was inspired. Only instead of asserting inspiration, he like the other three leaves this to prove itself by its character. But unlike them he adds the loving desire of his heart to help his brother young in the truth in accordance with the spirit of his Gospel pre-eminently.

Again, Luke writes as a man to a man, unfolding the goodness of God in man — the Man Christ Jesus. Hence all that would exemplify humanity, as in Christ and also in us before God, is brought out in the most instructive manner. He writes for the help of his Excellency, Theophilus, that he might truly know (ἐπιγνῳς)13 the certainty14 of those things15 wherein he had been instructed.16 God thus takes care of those who know Him, though it may be imperfectly, and He would lead them more deeply into the understanding and enjoyment of what He is now communicating to man by His grace. "To him that has shall be given." It is the way of God. Theophilus had been enabled to receive Christ and to confess Him. Hence, though Luke sets forth with particular care how truly the Gospel was preached to the poor (see chapters 4, 6, 7.), yet his Gospel as a whole is addressed to this man of rank, now a disciple. Circumstantially, there is no man so much to be pitied as to the truth of God, or who so needs the grace of God, as one who is great in this world, because he is peculiarly open to snares, temptations, and cares of the world, which war against the soul and threaten to choke up the seed of the Word. Therefore we have the gracious care of Him Who knows so well what the heart of man needs, and Who, despising not any, deigns to provide for the great man now made low, and assuredly feeling his poverty, in spite of rank or riches.

Many had undertaken to give an account of that which was historically received among Christians, as related to them by the companions of Jesus; and Luke thought it well — having followed these things from the beginning, and thus obtained exact knowledge respecting them — to write methodically to Theophilus, in order that he might have the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed. It is thus that God has provided for the instruction of the whole church, in the doctrine contained in the picture of the Lord's life furnished by this man of God; who, personally moved by christian motives, was directed and inspired by the Holy Ghost for the good of all believers.