I’ve argued that the genre of Luke’s gospel is history (in contrast to the genre of Matthew, Mark, and John, which is biography). And I’ve discussed the commonly accepted likelihood that Luke’s primary recipient, Theophilus, was a Roman nobleman.
What more can we conclude regarding the occasion of Luke’s writing? In other words, why did Luke write this two-volume history to this Roman nobleman at this time?
Let me state this post’s thesis up front: In his excellent overview articles on Luke and Acts, Daniel Wallace argues that these books were composed as a trial-brief for the Apostle Paul’s first hearing in Rome.
Evidence from Acts
Wallace is not the only one to propose this thesis, but he articulates it clearly and concisely, especially in his introduction to Acts. Since Luke and Acts go together as two volumes, the occasion for Acts is highly relevant to the occasion for Luke.
Wallace brings 8 pieces of evidence to the argument (in his article, you’ll find these under point E: “Occasion and Purpose”):
- Not only is Theophilus called “most excellent” in Luke 1:3, but it occurs in the vocative case (direct address). This term in the vocative case can be found in ancient literature only in petitions.
- The unusual and extraordinarily anti-climactic ending to Acts strongly suggests that Luke is writing while Paul is still in custody awaiting trial. No other theory of dating or composition has satisfactorily accounted for the petering-out and inconclusive nature of Acts 28.
- The mention of Paul’s house arrest having lasted two years (Acts 28:30) suggests that his right to a “speedy trial” was soon to be fulfilled, and action must soon be taken on his behalf.
- The literary parallels between Peter and Paul, in the first and second halves of Acts, suggest an agenda to legitimize Paul’s professed apostleship by comparison with Peter’s already-acknowledged apostleship.
- Peter’s story ends with his release from prison (Acs 12:17), thus implying a petition for a similar end to Paul’s story.
- Acts 1-20 covers 24 years of history, but then Acts 21-28 slows down to cover only four years. In particular, the narrative crawls through Paul’s legal drama, clarifying the facts of Paul’s case through 5 detailed defenses (before the Jewish feasters, the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, and Herod Agrippa).
- The Greek word for “first” in Acts 1:1 cannot be used to support a theory that Luke intended to write a third volume, which was either never completed or simply lost to us.
- The shipwreck narrative of Acts 27 fits with an ancient pagan belief that survival in shipwreck implies innocence.
While point #8 fits with Luke’s narrative clues (Acts 28:4-6), Wallace confesses that Acts 27 “ostensibly does not fit with the trial-brief idea.” However, that shipwreck narrative goes out of its way to show Paul complying with the Roman authorities and not once entertaining either seditious or escapist motives. The one who had every reason to flee, and every opportunity to do so surreptitiously, chose quite the opposite. Only one who was confident in his innocence would behave in this way. This certainly fits with the trial-brief idea as Luke nears the conclusion of his history, in real time, with Paul still in custody.
Further Evidence Within Luke
In his Logos Bible Software course on The Gospel of Luke, Andrew Pitts, who argues the same thesis as Wallace, proposes one further significant piece of evidence: Luke’s positive portrayal of Roman officials.
When compared to the other three gospels, Luke has a surprisingly positive view of Roman officials.
- In Luke alone, there is no scene with Roman soldiers beating and mocking Jesus, putting a crown of thorns on his head, or asking him to prophesy about who is hitting him. There is a scene where Jesus’ Jewish captors mock him (Luke 22:63-65). And there is another scene with Herod’s soldiers mocking Jesus (Luke 23:11), but they would have been Jews or Idumeans, not Romans.
- In Luke alone, there is a scene where people ask Jesus about Pilate’s brutality toward the Jewish people (Luke 13:1-5). We’d expect at least a critical assessment of Pilate, if not a full-blown denunciation of such wickedness. But no. Instead of criticizing Pilate, Jesus responds with a dire warning for those present to repent of their own sin before they too suffer as their countrymen did.
- In both Matthew (Matt 8:5-13) and Luke (Luke 7:2-10), we’re told of Jesus marveling at the faith of a Roman centurion, which surpassed the faith of any in Israel. But Luke alone adds this fascinating characterization: Though the elders of Capernaum consider this military officer “worthy” of Jesus’ attention, the man himself has the humility to confess, “I am not worthy” (Luke 7:4-6).
- In Luke alone, Pilate does not look like a buffoon at Jesus’ trial. He labors to give Jesus justice for his evident innocence. He doesn’t lose his cool and relents only when the crowd is on the verge of all-out riot (Luke 23:15-25).
Acts continues this positive portrayal of Roman officials. Just read the book and count how many times a governor or judge in some town declares a Christian or group of Christians to be innocent of any wrongdoing. And notice how the first Gentile convert to Christ is another Roman centurion.
Conclusion
I confess that, since Luke doesn’t tell us his purpose, we cannot be certain. And because no early church fathers declared clearly that Luke wrote to help exonerate Paul, some Bible dictionaries say things like: “Still’s theory that Theophilus was Paul’s defense attorney during his audience with Caesar in Rome lacks evidence (Still, St. Paul on Trial, 84)” (Lexham).
I am making an inductive argument, which is an argument where the conclusion most likely follows from the premises. It’s not a deductive argument, where the reasoning is either valid or invalid, and where true premises make the conclusion certain.
But induction is what we use almost all the time when we piece together the historical circumstances of biblical books. It is not for us to be deductively certain regarding our theories of composition. The question is one of strength: How strong is the conclusion in light of the premises?
I won’t go as far as to say that Theophilus must have been Paul’s defense attorney. Perhaps he was a lower court judge, a clerk, an expert witness, or an investigator of some sort, connected to the courts. But regardless of Theophilus’s precise role, the evidence suggests that Luke wrote his two-volume history to Theophilus as a petition for Paul’s exoneration.
