A ancient Egyptian papyrus and a handful of other texts help us to better understand the significance of Luke's reference to the "most excellent Theophilus."
I'll have to see if I can find the storie. I was thinking Jesus was answering the fool according to his own folly. Prov 26:5. But, I had never found anything, except what Enoch described as the chambers in the earth where the righteous await the Lord and the unrighteous the judgement. Places in Sheol. Also, the other place, Tartarus, where the fallen angels await eternal damnation.
The parable is interesting since it is describing after death conditions of Sheol of people being conscious in different living conditions like the book of Enoch describes. Yet, the idea of the poor being rewarded and the rich suffering? Possibly this was the reasoning of this leadership. Jesus did accuse them of neglecting their personal responsibilities in this life. Also, weren't these high priests Sadducees? They didnt believe in resurrection from the dead.
Richard Bauckham says that different forms of this story existed before the time of Jesus. Thus, the interesting thing to notice is the way Jesus modifies things (which I discuss in my article). The fact that the chief priests were Sadducees makes Jesus' use of this story all the more striking (particularly if seen as a critique / warning).
I was thinking Theophilus had the resources to duplicate Luke's account and distribute it. That he was one of the converts and/or instrumental in the coversions of the priests as in Acts 6:7. Also, only Luke records the story of the rich man and Lazarus- Hebrew. Eleazar. There are 5 brethren. Josephus records that Ananias had 5 sons. The high priest wore purple.
If Theophilus was the high priest (or high priest emeritus), he was likely opposed to the message of Jesus. It's possible he was more tolerant than his brothers, since there does appear to be less Christian persecution during his reign, but I doubt he helped to fund the operation (we do know that Joanna helped in this regard, cf. Lk 8:3). I do agree with you about the relevance of the Parable of Lazarus. If this does relate to Caiaphas, Annas, and his five sons, one of those sons would be Theophilus. And since the point of the parable is that this family won't believe/repent even if Lazarus rises from the dead (compare with Jn 12:10), I think this could be seen as evidence that he wasn't included among the priests mentioned in Acts 6:7, etc. FYI, I've written about this parable here: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/whats-the-point-of-jesus-parable.
I see why you don't believe Theophilus was saved. However, during the 40 years after the Lords departure, many of that generation Including priests did get saved. I would argue that Luke would not have entrusted these accounts to an unbeliever. It was rather given to share with others to convince/convict as in Acts 6:7. Stephen moved by the Holy Spirit prayed Acts 7:60 asking the Lord to not lay this sin to their charge. And before this Luke 23:34. The nation as a whole was continued to be addressed as per the promises, until the destruction at the end of that age. I think the last address to the leadership is Acts 28:23ff. Paul was to preach until Isaiah 6:8-11 was fulfilled. Individuals out of that generation did get saved, but the turning of it (the nation) as a whole is yet to come-
I see Luke's narrative as an open letter submitted to the high priest, while also published widely. It's an attempt to set the record straight about Jesus—here's why he really was/is the Messiah, etc. Theophilus was perhaps the one high priest willing to receive Luke's affidavit into the public record, etc. He may have been more open because of Joanna, etc. There are many possibilities. I'm not arguing that he was not saved (only God knows). Perhaps Jesus' parable only relates to the events surrounding the resurrection of Lazarus (which did not cause the chief priests to repent at that time, etc.). Thus, Luke's use of this parable (unique to his Gospel alone) could be his way of publicly criticizing the family of Caiaphas and Annas, while also warning Theophilus not to be like his brothers in an ULTIMATE sense (i.e., it's a final stark warning).
I'll have to see if I can find the storie. I was thinking Jesus was answering the fool according to his own folly. Prov 26:5. But, I had never found anything, except what Enoch described as the chambers in the earth where the righteous await the Lord and the unrighteous the judgement. Places in Sheol. Also, the other place, Tartarus, where the fallen angels await eternal damnation.
The parable is interesting since it is describing after death conditions of Sheol of people being conscious in different living conditions like the book of Enoch describes. Yet, the idea of the poor being rewarded and the rich suffering? Possibly this was the reasoning of this leadership. Jesus did accuse them of neglecting their personal responsibilities in this life. Also, weren't these high priests Sadducees? They didnt believe in resurrection from the dead.
Richard Bauckham says that different forms of this story existed before the time of Jesus. Thus, the interesting thing to notice is the way Jesus modifies things (which I discuss in my article). The fact that the chief priests were Sadducees makes Jesus' use of this story all the more striking (particularly if seen as a critique / warning).
I was thinking Theophilus had the resources to duplicate Luke's account and distribute it. That he was one of the converts and/or instrumental in the coversions of the priests as in Acts 6:7. Also, only Luke records the story of the rich man and Lazarus- Hebrew. Eleazar. There are 5 brethren. Josephus records that Ananias had 5 sons. The high priest wore purple.
If Theophilus was the high priest (or high priest emeritus), he was likely opposed to the message of Jesus. It's possible he was more tolerant than his brothers, since there does appear to be less Christian persecution during his reign, but I doubt he helped to fund the operation (we do know that Joanna helped in this regard, cf. Lk 8:3). I do agree with you about the relevance of the Parable of Lazarus. If this does relate to Caiaphas, Annas, and his five sons, one of those sons would be Theophilus. And since the point of the parable is that this family won't believe/repent even if Lazarus rises from the dead (compare with Jn 12:10), I think this could be seen as evidence that he wasn't included among the priests mentioned in Acts 6:7, etc. FYI, I've written about this parable here: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/whats-the-point-of-jesus-parable.
I see why you don't believe Theophilus was saved. However, during the 40 years after the Lords departure, many of that generation Including priests did get saved. I would argue that Luke would not have entrusted these accounts to an unbeliever. It was rather given to share with others to convince/convict as in Acts 6:7. Stephen moved by the Holy Spirit prayed Acts 7:60 asking the Lord to not lay this sin to their charge. And before this Luke 23:34. The nation as a whole was continued to be addressed as per the promises, until the destruction at the end of that age. I think the last address to the leadership is Acts 28:23ff. Paul was to preach until Isaiah 6:8-11 was fulfilled. Individuals out of that generation did get saved, but the turning of it (the nation) as a whole is yet to come-
I'll check out the article.
Thanks.
I see Luke's narrative as an open letter submitted to the high priest, while also published widely. It's an attempt to set the record straight about Jesus—here's why he really was/is the Messiah, etc. Theophilus was perhaps the one high priest willing to receive Luke's affidavit into the public record, etc. He may have been more open because of Joanna, etc. There are many possibilities. I'm not arguing that he was not saved (only God knows). Perhaps Jesus' parable only relates to the events surrounding the resurrection of Lazarus (which did not cause the chief priests to repent at that time, etc.). Thus, Luke's use of this parable (unique to his Gospel alone) could be his way of publicly criticizing the family of Caiaphas and Annas, while also warning Theophilus not to be like his brothers in an ULTIMATE sense (i.e., it's a final stark warning).