What a relief! I ended my last post with “I’ll be back soon.” I had thought I said, “I’ll be back tomorrow.” Which would have been a lie, since it has been countless tomorrows since my last post. “Soon,” on the other hand, leaves me lots of wiggle room. And in a busy world, with so many responsibilities pressing in, couldn’t we all use a bit more wiggle room? I’m just saying.

Your attention, please, to Luke 1:1-4 from the NIV:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

It would make a better story if I could say “every time” but I can only say this: A lot of the time people ask me about Theophilus. With some frequency, after hearing someone read these four verses out loud, and asking them, “what’s did you notice that you are curious about?” the response is, “who’s Theophilus?”

Which is an excellent question.

The short answer is he is a “householder.” Now for the longer answer:

First of all, his name is either a cool coincidence, or a pseudonym. It means “friend of God.” And that’s just mighty convenient, don’t you think? Again, I’m just saying.

Secondly, to understand how important Theophilus was in first-century Greco-Roman culture (antiquity), you first have to get your mind around the (arguably unfortunate) uniqueness of our own culture. The West, you see, is the first non-collectivist culture in recorded human history. We are an “individualistic society.” Which is to say we think very, very highly of ourselves. To wit.

If you live in a collectivist culture, you believe intrinsically that the group you belong to—usually your family—is the smallest unity of reality. Your loyalty is to that group. If I were to ask you, “who are you?” you could answer with your group identity. If asked about your goals, you would state the goals of your group. If asked about your possessions or resources, you would indicate the assets of the group—usually your family.

If you live in an individualistic culture, you believe that you as an individual—and everyone else, as individuals—are the smallest unit of reality. In answer to the same questions, you would tell me your personal name, your personal goals, and your personal stuff. And you would think that completely normal, right? ‘Course you would; so do I. I live here too.

The Bible is written thousands of years ago to collectivist cultures. Understanding that fact helps me understand the Bible better. Certainly it will help you get to know Theophilus and Luke.

The fact that Luke addresses Theophilus as “most excellent” offers a pretty good clue that Theophilus is a Householder and that Luke is perhaps not.

In antiquity, householders held all the cards. They were the voice of culture. Everyone else—very few exceptions to this rule—lived in a household. A household generally consisted of about 30-50 people. Might’ve looked something like…

• Householder
• Householder’s wife (later in Greco-Roman history, some women became householders. Pretty much freaked everybody out.)
• Householder’s children
• Householder’s wife’s widowed sister and her children
• Householder’s aging uncle/auntie who’s kids are either all women or not longer living
• Householder’s slaves (literally bondservants)
• Householder’s “freedmen” (literally freed-servants, applies to both genders)

Maybe your next question is, what is the difference between a bondservant and a freed-servant? Answer is, not much. Their status in the household was ‘bout the same. Only difference is, one was owned—literally—by the householder, and the other (freed-servants) had the, well, freedom to quit the job at one household and go work for another. Basically. But, again, that did not mean a freed-servant had the better jobs. An educated slave could be the children’s tutor, while a freed-servant could be charged with cleaning the latrine.

So two conclusions thus far:

1. Pretty high likelihood that Theophilus is a householder.
2. Pretty good chance Luke is a slave or freed-servant. (Not for sure, but pretty good chance.)

The next two things that I assume about the Book of Luke:

1. Wherever these two guys lived in the vast Empire, they were probably not in Palestine. Why not, you ask? Because that is where all the eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life, goings-on, death, and resurrection were concentrated. Theophilus would not have needed Luke to write this if he lived in Palestine.
2. Luke wrote his book about thirty years after Jesus left the earth.

Which brings me to the four key-words/phrases I identify in these first four verses. I will highlight them for your eyeballs:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Like a good researcher, Luke gives us his bias (“have been fulfilled”), his method (careful investigation of eyewitness accounts), and his purpose (so Theophilus can know the truth with certainty).

Which brings me to my own loose paraphrase of Luke 1:1-4

Dear Important Guy. Thanks for paying for my research! Listen, Important Guy, I know you have heard a lot of wild stories about Jesus. I also know that you live too far away to run into any eyewitnesses. I also know that some of those eyewitnesses are still alive. So no time like the present to go and chat it up with those eyewitnesses. So this is what I have done for you: I have tracked down every eyewitness I could find who knew anything about Jesus firsthand. I have carefully investigated what they told me. I threw out anything I could not verify. So what you have here in your hot little hand is the stories I could verify, based on carefully investigated eyewitness testimony. I did it so you would know what to believe about Jesus.

So now we come to you and me. You are different from Theophilus, but perhaps also a lot like him. Different, in that it has been thousands of years for you to Theo’s thirty. Perhaps like him, in that Luke did what he did for you too. While the eyewitnesses were still alive and kicking, Luke went and asked them, carefully verified their stories, and wrote it all down. He did it so “friends of God” from any day and time might know the certainty of what they are being taught.

Still a leap of faith for you? ‘Course it is. But, as Arlie J. Hoover once opined, it’s not a blind leap. It’s an educated leap.

Happy leaping!

How We Roll

This blog is devoted to studying the book of Luke. But first, some ground rules:

Rule #1 If you don’t know anything about the Bible, yer not stupid; yer normal.

Before I became a “Church Planter” I was a college minister for 12½ years. I made a promise from the word “go” when I took the job in January of 1995—a promise which led to a disturbing discovery about the plight of college students (and the rest of the adult population) when it comes to the Christian Bible.

The promise was, “if any of you want an hour/week of my time to study the Bible, I’ll make it happen. And yes, I said any of you. Whether you have gone to church all your life, or have never been to church before in your life, I will make the time for you.”

The discovery resulted from these Bible study interactions with several, but it is very well illustrated by telling you about Laurie.

Laurie arrived first for the Tuesday evening Bible study in the cafeteria of the College Inn. We were sitting at the table, chatting, waiting for everyone else to arrive, when I noticed Laurie’s Bible. It looked brand new. “Nice Bible. Did you just get it?”

“Thanks,” she said. “Actually, I got it at my Confirmation.” I did the math. I am not from a tradition which practices Confirmation, but I am pretty sure it happens several years before college….

“So…have you read it much?”

Her reply floored me. “To tell you truth, I’m kind of afraid to open it.”

And she wasn’t the only one. My big discovery was that just about every college student who held me to my promise was in the same boat. Whether religion was a new pursuit, or they had been in an “awesome” church youth group in high school (and even including most of those who had attended a Christian school) the vast majority knew so little about the Bible that they found it kind of intimidating.

As disturbing as that is, those college students are not alone. Same thing can be said for most church-going people in America today.

So—to repeat—if you are a person who knows so little about what’s inside the Bible that you are kind of afraid to even open it? Welcome to the club. That’s most people—even the Christians. Which leads to Ground Rule #2.

Rule #2 If I don’t explain it to you, that’s my bad; not yours. Ask. I will apologize, and I will ‘splain.

Ever try to learn something about computers from a Computer Engineer? Sometimes it goes pretty well—I happen to know a Computer Engineer who speaks plain English. However, sometimes—maybe most times—they start talking in computerese, and you are lost from the moment they open their mouths.

By the same token, ever tried to learn something about Christianity from a guy with a Masters in Ministry? I picked on the computer guys to make my point, but the same goes for just about any specialty. Accountants speak Accountantlish…truck-drivers speak Truckian. Pastors with letters attached to their names tend to speak Bible-ish or Christianese.

I don’t want to do that to you. So if I forget to explain anything, or speak Churchlish, please call me on it, and I will go back and ‘splain myself. Deal?

Rule #3 You don’t have to agree with me.

When I was a kid, Bible studies with people who didn’t yet believe the Bible were based on “agreement.” A Christian would sit down with a non-Christian and go through “Lesson 1.” At the end of Lesson 1, the “student” would have to agree to some conclusion. Lesson 2 was building upon that conclusion. So—if you follow—if the “student” didn’t accept or agree with the “conclusion,” the “teacher” could not move on the Lesson 2. Next week would be a repeat/enhancement of Lesson 1, as was the next session and the next until agreement happened on the premise from Lesson 1. All the lessons were the same, building agreement upon agreement until logic sort of…dictated that the “student” become a Christian.

Trouble with that kind of Bible study is that it often makes the “student” feel like they are being led down the proverbial garden path—even manipulated.

So—just in case you are a person who at present would not be accurately described as a “devoted follower of Christ,” please know that I am not going to do that to you. This study of Luke is not based upon agreement—as in you agreeing with me. The only person I am going to ask you to agree with is Luke, and only on one point. And, if you don’t want to agree to that? We can still roll. Agreed? (sorry; bad joke.)

K. Those are the ground rules. If you think of any more let me know. I’ll be back soon to get started.