The figure of Theophilus appears only briefly in the New Testament, yet he occupies a significant role as the addressee of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Despite his importance as the literary recipient of these foundational texts, we know relatively little about him. This essay will explore what the Bible tells us about Theophilus, analyze historical interpretations of his identity, and examine the theological and rhetorical significance of addressing the two longest books in the New Testament to this individual.
Biblical Mentions of Theophilus
The name Theophilus (Greek: Θεόφιλος) appears at the beginning of both Luke and Acts:
Luke 1:3 (KJV) – “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.” Acts 1:1 (KJV) – “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach.”
These two verses constitute the only explicit mentions of Theophilus in the entire Bible. Both are located in the prologues of Luke’s works and establish him as the immediate literary recipient of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke, the evangelist addresses him as “most excellent” (Greek: κράτιστε), a term that appears elsewhere in Acts as a title of honor for Roman officials such as Felix and Festus (Acts 23:26, 24:3, 26:25). This has led many scholars to infer that Theophilus was likely a Roman official or a person of high social rank.
Historical and Scholarly Interpretations
Given the scant biblical data, speculation about Theophilus has been extensive, ranging from plausible historical figures to theological allegory.
1. A Real Roman Official
The dominant traditional view is that Theophilus was a real person—likely a high-ranking Roman or Hellenized Jew. The use of “most excellent” (κράτιστε) suggests an official capacity, and the detailed structure and apologetic tone of Luke-Acts support the theory that the author was presenting Christianity in a favorable light to a Roman audience. Luke’s emphasis on order, eyewitness testimony, and fulfillment of Jewish prophecy may have been intended to defend Christianity as a legitimate and peaceful movement in the face of Roman scrutiny. Theophilus may have been a patron who funded the production or dissemination of these writings.
2. A Wealthy Christian Patron
Another common theory holds that Theophilus was a wealthy Christian convert who had commissioned Luke to write an orderly and accurate account of the life of Jesus and the early church. In this interpretation, Luke’s goal was catechetical—to strengthen Theophilus’s faith by offering a coherent narrative of salvation history. The phrase in Luke 1:4, “that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed,” supports the idea that Theophilus had already been taught Christian doctrine but needed reassurance or clarification.
3. A Literary or Symbolic Construct
Some scholars argue that Theophilus may be a symbolic or honorary title rather than an actual person. The name itself means “lover of God” or “friend of God” (from theos, meaning God, and philos, meaning friend or lover). This has led some to interpret Luke’s dedication as directed to any devout reader rather than a single historical figure. While possible, this view is often criticized for over-allegorizing what appears to be a conventional dedication to a known patron, consistent with ancient literary practice.
Theological Significance
Regardless of his exact identity, Theophilus plays a critical role in the structure and purpose of Luke-Acts. His presence as the recipient ties the two volumes together as a unified literary work. Theophilus thus becomes the thread connecting the life of Jesus with the birth and spread of the early church. Through Theophilus, Luke addresses broader questions about the continuity between the Old Covenant and the New, the legitimacy of the Gentile mission, and the legal standing of Christianity within the Roman Empire.
If Theophilus was indeed a Roman official or a cultured Gentile, the rhetorical strategy of Luke-Acts is well-suited to its audience: emphasizing Jesus’ innocence before Roman law, highlighting Paul’s civil obedience, and showcasing the ethical and spiritual integrity of Christian communities. These features would have served to present Christianity as both rational and non-subversive—countering charges of sedition or religious novelty.
Patristic and Later Christian Reflections
Early church fathers do not elaborate much on Theophilus, suggesting either that they did not possess more information or that his identity was not considered central to Christian teaching. However, some later traditions attempted to identify him with notable figures from church or Roman history, though these remain speculative and lack supporting evidence.
In time, as the canon solidified and the historical-critical method emerged, Theophilus attracted more attention as scholars sought to reconstruct the original context of Luke-Acts. The question of whether Theophilus represented a target audience, a single person, or an ideal reader has become a microcosm of broader debates over the nature of early Christian writings.
Conclusion
Theophilus remains an enigmatic figure, known only from two passing references but positioned at the threshold of two of the most significant books in the New Testament. Whether he was a Roman official, a Christian patron, or an allegorical everyman, his presence anchors the Gospel of Luke and Acts in a historical and rhetorical context. His role reminds us that even in sacred scripture, the transmission of divine truth often unfolds through human relationships, networks of patronage, and the careful crafting of words for specific readers. In this way, Theophilus—whose name means “lover of God”—continues to serve as a bridge between the historical witness of the apostles and the ongoing faith of the church.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Renember in trying to identify “Theophilus” that, as we have been discussing, Herbert Armstrong taught specifically and with severe importance that Acts is expressly not addressed to converted Christians, but rather to UNCONVERTED people— specifically, unconverted Thessalonians (“To the unconverted Thessalonians, the Bereans were complimented for checking up on Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11)” — April 1979 Good News magazine Personal: https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1374325663&GetMag=GN&byYear=1979&page=&return=magazines ).
LikeLike
This seems to be straining at gnats since it would appear from Acts that Paul did not have the time to preach at length in Thessaloniki and that Like himself praises the approach of the Bereans as being more noble than those in Thessaloniki. The brethren in Corinth are similarly frequently criticized for their lack of maturity and are similarly viewed as unconverted in the sense of being worldly and not yet sufficiently transformed through obedience. This is really grasping at straws to view this sort of interpretation as being such a serious matter.
LikeLike
I agree that Armstrong’s conclusion regarding the target audience of Acts is indeed a strain. But, it is nonetheless his teaching. That said, Armstrong does not talk about the Bereans being COMPARED to the “unconverted Thessalonians,” but rather being COMPLIMENTED to them — that is, theThessalonians were the target audience intended to hear the compliment. There is a crucial difference.
As for your seeming turn on the term “unconverted,” Luke’s description of Theophilus himself points to no categorical problems of his like those with the Corinthian church brethren. (Nor do the epistles to the “church of the Thessalonians” suggest such regarding them. They weren’t perfect, but none of us is.) Indeed, alluding to such matters at all would be completely out of context and even counterproductive. Armstrong made his statement to claim that the Berean example (cf 1 THESSALONIANS 5:19-21) does not apply to full-on “Spirit-begotten” Christians — i.e., members of his church. He was not discussing differences in character or quality of Christian performance, but rather status vis-à-vis such begettal/church membership. The Bereans in question did not hold such membership status, and it was “noble” for them to “check up” on Paul and Company; baptized followers of the Armstrong faith tradition do hold such status, and thus it would not be so noble for them to do so. Seeing Armstrong’s line as somehow a statement of comparison of nobility between people of the two communities actually debunks his assertion. If is “more noble” to check something than it is not to check something, then Christians, who obviously should be more noble than either group of unconverted, would obviously be called upon to check even more! That would completely destroy Armstrong’s crucial point, as well as not be what he actually wrote. But saying that nonmember people are the ones intended to hear the COMPLIMENT fits well with his point, in that if viewed in accord with his guidance, it would not encourage members to “check up” on him or his ministers.
Since you imply this whole matter is not a significant issue, I have to point out two very big significances: 1. Armstrong’s honesty with the Scriptures, and hence whether or not he was a false apostle as evaluated by his own stated standard — “if you ever find me dishonest with the Word of God, you reject me as God’s apostle” (01 DEC 1980, Tucson, Arizona); and ultimately 2. whether or not true (converted) Christians/church members have the prerogative to openly discuss and “prove (test) all things,” so to speak, taught and practiced in the Church of which they are members.
All that said, I will give you this: Regardless of his targeting there, Armstrong’s point is clear: “Don’t believe me; believe your Bible” does not apply to members of his church.
LikeLike
What you are arguing is something akin to “Don’t believe me, believe the Bible” as being marketing to outsiders, who are intended to believe him more blindly after they have done their initial research, rather than seeing is as a principle in how to deal with claims of authority in general. I take the latter as my general approach; ad I claim no insight into what exactly Mr. Armstrong was thinking during his last days and feel it improper to adopt a hermeneutical approach lacking in charity on such doubtful matters.
LikeLike
“These were more more noble than those in Thessalonica..” “More” is defined as a comparative adjective, being a superlative to the former; therefore, the statement can be defined as a comparison between the two populations. The quest for doctrinal purity in an ongoing process, and your statement that such is not a requirement within the church is inaccurate. There is an internal process for reviewing doctrinal issues and beliefs. We are not perfect but we are not static. The very fact that Mr. Armstrong was willing to change the enact DNR and correct the Pentecost issue despite, widespread opposition, ridicule and fallout, says a lot about his commitment to obey God. You call it his church. It’s God’s church. People forgot that, but he didn’t.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Ma’am, the problem is that Armstrong did not say that. That is not how he used it. I have laid out here why his statement is not a comparison. I’ve explained directly to your son what I believe his intention was there. I do not post it here due to blog rules.
LikeLike
That is exactly what it is, your belief versus the reality of what is. You are interpreting intent, which is tcore to misunderstanding.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
The important person in a discussion or a debate like this is the so-called, “third person in the fight.” That is, other parties looking in on the exchange. When I discussed things in public like this, my primary focus is on presenting third parties with information so that they can reach an educated conclusion. In other words, “think for themselves.” Other visitors to this blog can look at the discussion and evaluate for themselves who has the most likely or plausible position. I don’t need to persuade you. I simply need to present them with a different perspective.
LikeLike
I am aware that this is your intention, which is why I also point out your failure to adopt a hermeneutic of charity in interpreting the quotes you present.
LikeLike
You know, Nathan, if ACOG ministers and top minds were willing to actually engage in an uncensored discussion with a pledge to answer responsively all inquiries (as you to have, for the most part sought to do) people like me would be much more inclined toward a “charitable” take on at least some of this. Their unwillingness to do so, combined with defensiveness and the patent concealment of facts, kind of heads that off. We’ve discussed that before.
LikeLike
We have discussed that before indeed and I agree that free and fair communication would have positive consequences but they have to adopt that approach themselves.
LikeLike
You’re the one on the speaking schedule at services. You’re the one with contact info on people that matter in UCG. They block me.
LikeLike
That is true and sometimes they even read what goes on here, but there is little desire that they have in speaking with those they view as scoffers and open enemies, nor indeed do they want to open up forums of official communication to those viewed as presenting alternative doctrines or often even perspectives.
LikeLike
CGI actually used to run — and might still — a forum on their site for discussions. A lot of churches do that. Post-86 Armstrongist churches of any consequence don’t. And they block or hide dissenting voices. And you wonder why some of us or less than “charitable.”
See email I just sent you for an example of why people like me don’t take people like Armstrongist leaders at their word.
LikeLike
We have a pretty active Facebook forum but it’s not on our direct site, though I can’t see why that couldn’t be done.
LikeLike
All they have to do is stop blocking and hiding. LCG allows a lot of discussion on their Tomorrow’s World YT channel. They kind of have to because it’s supposed to be an outreach. They do though censor some. They seem to block the term “Armstrongism,” but do allow “Armstrong faith tradition.” I think they also deleted or hid a comment where I mentioned purely for reference the late Ron Dart. But it is not the Armstrong way. Again, see that email.
LikeLike
Just last week a pastor of mine who I happen to personally know called for more blocking on our Facebook forum so I doubt he at least has any enthusiasm for more discussion with people he views as hostile.
LikeLike
They must love Bluesky over TruthSocial!😁
LikeLike
Perhaps, or at least envious of their ability to maintain a tight echo chamber.
LikeLike
I apologize for the lack of editing…
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
It’s okay. It’s hard to edit these replies sometimes.
LikeLike
Regarding the “What you are arguing is…” reply, I have two points, which will be delivered momentarily via email.
LikeLike
Alrighty
LikeLike
I believe I can reply here to the “What you are arguing…” comment by simply quoting Herbert Armstrong:
“I have said through the years, over the air and in print and before audiences, ‘Don’t believe me because I say it — look in your own Bible and believe what you find there!’
”But I DO NOT — or, at least, SHOULD NOT HAVE ever said that to our own brethren!“
LikeLike
The issue with that supposed quote is that he indeed did say that to members who remember being told exactly that and who took it to heart.
LikeLike
“Supposed quote”? You know it’s legit. The guy who runs HWA Library ( https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1374325663&GetMag=GN&byYear=1979&page=&return=magazines ) is such an Armstrongist that he has blocked me on at least three social media platforms! Twitter (twice, I believe), TruthSocial, and Facebook. But then, at least one UCG-affiliated account has done so as well (UCG NWA on TruthSocial).
The issue with your response is that he explained that he SHOULD NOT HAVE said it to members. So if he did, he is saying that he was wrong to do so. THAT is far more telling.
LikeLike
He did say it to members and repeatedly. Looking at this use charitably, which you refuse to do, he was making it clear that he did not mean at all to encourage the same intense skepticism towards that which believers had already proven by the Bible, but you read it in the least charitable manner to paint Mr Armstrong as a hypocrite.
LikeLike
I read it with about the same charity that he read GTA’s statement.
But then, I do have to grant that HW was being protective not of (supposed) “biblical truths,” but of “deep-rooted church teachings.” Think about that.
One more point: Armstrong’s sentence starting with, “To the unconverted Thessalonians…” if it has started with the word “Comparing,” you might have a case. But it doesn’t. And the next sentence being “But none should be accepted IN THE CHURCH until…” points to a contrast between what happened before, and what he desires to be the case.
LikeLike
In writing about GTA as he did he was defending against attacks to the legitimacy of his authority and indeed of his life’s work. People are understandably touchy about such matters.
LikeLike
Yes, he was defending his supposed “authority,” which stems from the alleged “True Church” ordinational succession. Did you ever find the full connect-the-dots on that?
In all genuineness, he was indeed defensive, just as I have said in emails. I don’t believe you would allow the discussion here.
LikeLike
I don’t think that was the only or main basis he had for his authority. Of course GTAs authority was based in turn on his own supposed dynastic claims despite his own flawed character.
LikeLike
Give GTA this: He wasn’t a doctrinal or behavioral tyrant. If he had taken over WCG when he had a chance, “J7” would never have happened, and many of your beliefs and ideas (and mine, frankly) would have been instituted. Yes he had his problems. But so did… others.
LikeLike
Quite so. Unfortunately my own thoughts about him were deeply colored by the whole masseuse thing when I was a teen, though I have talked to several ministers who came from an ICG background who definitely mirrored his approach and with whom I generally got on very well. I suspect you are quite right in that thought experiment, but things did not work out that way.
LikeLike
Oh, and I believe UCG NWA hid my comments on their YouTube channel. Can’t remember for sure.
LikeLike
His regret had to do with people interpreting the bible instead of having it interpret itself. He treated the brethren like little children who needed to be told what to do and how to behave. The laity, for the most part, didn’t grow up spiritually. People weren’t reading the Bible with maturity. With the advent of easier reading translations, founded on faulty manuscripts and containing doctrinal error, people read their Bibles and found things that didn’t agree with what Mr. Armstrong said. This led to their “not speaking the same thing.” The earlier translations, based on the Byzantium manuscripts, were far more accurate than the more modern NIV and other ones, derived from the Alexandrian manuscripts, which had been infused with syncretic elements. Casual readers couldn’t discern the false elements because they hadn’t formed an independent love for the truth. There were times when God Himself regretted choosing Israel and sought to destroy the entire nation. Twice. Moses stood up for the people both times and God relented. Given the apparent result of church members checking for themselves, his “regret” is understandable. But most people didn’t check things out thoroughly at all; they didn’t really research like Mr. Armstrong did. They either did the surface work or simply went along with the leadership. That group was swayed by the subtlety of the newer subversive translations which promoted the idea that the law is done away with. And people followed like little lambs led to the slaughter.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ma’am, he contrasts what they were developing, not with “what the Bible teaches,” but rather with “deep-rooted church teachings.” That phrasing has always shocked me. Think about it.
LikeLike
Formatting point. I said email again to reply. “Seeing Armstrong’s line as somehow a statement of comparison of nobility…” should be the start of a new paragraph in the previous reply. My apologies.
LikeLike
Yes, the converted Corinthians exhibited very unconverted attitudes and behaviors that Paul had to severely rebuke in his first letter to them. It was a real scorcher, but it obviously did the trick.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
I read Mr. Armstrong’s article. He referenced the unconverted Thessalonians in Acts17:11 when comparing them to the Bereans because of how they reacted to the message he brought. Their receptiveness, without checking him or it out, left them wide open to being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, because they didn’t prove it for themselves. They were not noble-minded like their Berean counterparts. However, Luke writes the book of Acts to Theophilus, chronicling his and Paul’s travels, spreading the gospel message throughout Greece, Asia Minor, the Mediterranean islands and then Rome. It isn’t written solely for the Thessalonians. It references them, along with the peoples of Ephesus, Lystra, and many, many others. With regard to sharing this message to others, including unconverted people, Christ begins with telling us to be the “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16), warning us to season it and not hide ourselves away. We made that mistake in our infancy. This light, the “hope that lies within us” should draw people to ask us what makes us so different, positive in such a negative, unhappy world, and so hopeful? Peter states that we must then “be ready always to give an answer… with meekness and fear (awe and respect)” (I Peter 3:15). This again goes back to discernment, meeting people where they are, and responding directly and respectfully. It also requires a “discernment of spirit” as to whether they are truly interested or seeking to argue.
Blogs like this are part of Paul’s directive in Romans 10:14. We all are endowed with God-given talents and are expected to use them to give Him honor, glory and profitability.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike