In Luke's first narrative on the account of Jesus, the book is written to Theophilus as well. He is addressed, "Most excellent Theophilus." This was a proper address to a high ranking official.
So, why would Luke use such a common address in his second letter to this mysterious man?
The reason is, it implies a change. Somewhere between the address in Luke and the address in Acts, Theophilus changed. A change in address implied a change in status.
We could say that somewhere along the way, Theophilus not only became convinced of Luke's testimony of Jesus, but that Theophilus was moved to do something about it. But, he didn't exactly know how to go about this "doing." So, Luke wrote the book of Acts.
Luke's testimony was so convincing to Theophilus that he dropped his "excellent" status and joined the ranks of the commoner.
Almost two milleniums later, I wonder what it would have been like to be so convinced of this man Jesus. Removed from the scriptures, I have no testimony. I can listen to sermons, watch people who claim they believe, but when it comes to the inner response that Theophilus must have experienced, it's hard to come by. I don't know of anyone who's encountered on a tangible basis the resurrected Jesus, besides the narrators and characters in the gospel accounts.
I'm on a search for truth. I want to tap into the power that must have been running through the veins of Theophilus as he waited on instruction from Luke. I'm tired of trying to manufacture what can't be created by my power. I'm tired of jumping on the latest religious bandwagons in an effort to recapture what must have been the most exciting time for the Church, recorded in the book of Acts.
I simply want to be so convinced in the account of Jesus, that I'm moved by a power that I can't create. Theophilus and Luke didn't create or manufacture what they were experiencing. They were receivers of it. They were merely responding to what they were seeing and hearing, experiencing tangibly.
It seems like the more we move away from those early times, the less we have to work with. The less proof we have of that resurrected Christ; the less desperation we have to follow what was taught those early disciples; the less motivation we have to give all to the movement of the Christ. The power of the gospel, at best, compels us to gather once a week and if we're not too busy, twice. It compels us to sing, teach, take notes, and hope we do a better job this week before we enter the building next.
Who can blame us though? Our experience with Jesus, and God for that matter, is nowhere close to what it was like for both Theophilus and Luke. If the scriptures are true, they encountered something that overcame them. They were moved beyond the forces of creating the next best church gathering, into a movement that was out of their hands. Yet, they were so in tune with it that it led them to change.
Maybe Theophilus quit his job with the Roman government. Maybe he got fired. Anyhow, something profound happened in his heart, and he was desperate to do something about it.
The questions that I've been asking myself lately are: Do I believe that they believed? Do I believe that they encountered the risen Christ? Do I believe that what they encountered prompted them to give up everything for the sake of Christ?
No comments:
Post a Comment