YOU MAY HAVE HEARD the joke: when he was born, the boy’s mother named him “Theophilus” because he was the awfulest-looking baby she’d ever seen. You have to feel bad for the kid. But actually, though it may sound foreign to our ears, the name “Theophilus” is rich with meaning: it can be translated as “lover of God” or “friend of God.”

Because of this, some readers, when they come across the name at the beginning of both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, take it as more of a description than the name of an actual person. They see Luke as writing to Christians in general, encouraging his readers to think of themselves as friends of God.

It would be odd, though, to use the name this way with the description “most excellent,” an honorific used in the empire for people of high status. The consensus opinion, therefore, is that Luke was addressing both volumes of his work to an individual named Theophilus; the name was common enough. What can we say about him? Unfortunately, not much. We meet him only in the opening words of each volume of Luke’s two-volume work. Here again is the introduction to the third gospel:

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. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4, NIV)

And here’s the parallel opening of the book of Acts:

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. (Acts 1:1-2)

In writing this way, Luke is following precedents already set in the secular literature of his day. For example, consider the words of the historian Josephus, a Pharisee and military leader who defected to Rome after the fall of Jerusalem. Josephus defended Judaism against an author named Apion in a two-part work entitled Contra Apionem (or in English, Against Apion). Book 1 begins this way, with a reference to Josephus’ earlier work, Antiquities of the Jews :

In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I think, made sufficiently clear to any who may peruse that work the extreme antiquity of our Jewish race…

And Book 2 begins with these words:

In the first volume of this work, my most esteemed Epaphroditus, I demonstrated the antiquity of our race… I shall now proceed to refute the rest of the authors who have attacked us.

Moreover, in the preface to his Antiquities, Josephus mentions Epaphroditus again. He begins the book by stating the different reasons for writing historical works, and the particularly enormous challenge of writing a history of the Jewish people. But he credits Epaphroditus for encouraging him to do so:

[S]ome persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and above all the rest, Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kinds of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history… I yielded to this man’s persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavors with his… I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully.

There is a man named Epaphroditus mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, but it’s unlikely that this would be the same person. Historians take Josephus’ Epaphroditus to have been his patron, possibly a Roman of high rank and status who had the means to support Josephus as he did his work. Artistic patronage was well-known in the empire; for example, it was through the support of his patrons that Virgil was able to write the Aeneid.

Similarly, then, many bible scholars generally take Theophilus to have been Luke’s literary patron, providing whatever support was needed for Luke to complete his research and writing. Patronage wasn’t just a generous gift; it was a two-way relationship of loyalty. The client—the one receiving the patron’s support—was expected to support the patron in return, in ways that strengthened the patron’s social standing.

Luke’s words suggest that Theophilus was already a believer—or at the very least, someone who had inquired into Christianity—but needed additional instruction. Remember that the earliest gospel, the gospel of Mark, wasn’t written until a good three decades after the resurrection of Jesus, and probably primarily for the edification of the church. It’s impossible to know if Theophilus had seen or read Mark’s gospel; most of what he knew about Jesus was probably told to him, not read from a book. It seems, then, that Luke wanted to write an account of Jesus that would be historically reliable and get a wider reading both inside and outside the church. Theophilus, I imagine, was in full support of that goal, and not for selfish reasons.

I have little doubt that given his experiences working alongside the apostle Paul, Luke wanted his writing project to contribute to the Gentile mission. Mark’s gospel is the first and most basic account of the life and ministry of Jesus, a document much needed in the still fledgling church. Matthew’s adaptation seems to have been written for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians. And Luke’s version was written in a way that educated Romans like Theophilus would have appreciated. If he was Luke’s patron, it would have been his job to help see that the gospel not only got written, but got the reading it deserved.

I don’t know about you, but I find it encouraging that there were folks like Theophilus around to support the mission through their generosity. The church has always needed such friends of God.