Luke wrote to Rome – a Suggestion 253 the divine plan to enter into the entire Mediterranean world (7). It is reasonable to assume that Luke intended all along to offer to Theophilus an explanation of how the saving word of God reached him (8). 3. In his first sentence Luke writes “in order that you, Theophilus, may comprehend how reliable are the things you have been taught” (9). Can we identify “these things” (10)? Certainly not with precision. Yet, with the Pauline Corpus, Mark’s Gospel and Q as parameters, we can estimate with confidence. The Pauline Corpus strongly indicates the struggle to understand Gentile Christians to be the equal of Jewish Christians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3, 18). One can assume that part of the teachings given to Theophilus is the demonstration of God’s saving intention (and plan) to reach Theophilus and his type. Acts clearly gives grounds for the teaching that Theophilus is fully a member of the Christian community of believers. Certainly, by the end of Acts, Theophilus can better understand himself and the religion he has embraced and his place in it (11). It seems right to say that Luke-Acts means to explain to Theophilus (12) how God wanted to reach him and his generation. It seems more reasonable to say that, given the Lucan desire to instruct Theophilus about his self-identity, the story which offers this instruction end at the place where Theophilus resides. In other words, Luke will be satisfied to demonstrate the movement of God’s salvation by bringing that movement to its logical goal, which most reasonably is where his reader, the object of all his intentions, resides. (7) The many teachings we can confidently ascribe to Theophilus’ Christian formation are important, but the overarching teaching, which necessitates not only the words, deeds, and life events of Jesus, but also the development from Jesus to the time of the Christian Theophilus, must be the description of the saving plan of God. While the preface to the Gospel serves as a general statement of intent to justify two volumes, one does not miss the fact that Acts carries through its role in the Lucan plan by virtue of ‘testimony’ to and from Jesus. (8) To say this is to reaffirm our belief that Theophilus and his community are Christian, and thus the Lucan document is aimed at support of Christians; not all agree, cf. the discussion of NOLLAND, Luke, xxxii-xxxiii. (9) Cf. C. TALBERT, Reading Luke (London 1982) 11: “It is worth testing…in one’s reading of Luke-Acts whether the narrative was written so someone might know the truth about Christian origins. Truth could, of course, be understood either in the sense of accurate information or in the sense of certainty about Christianity”. It seems better to think that Luke means to teach reliability, not about the accuracy of what he narrates, but the meaning of the saving plan of God for a Gentile who has accepted Jesus as his Savior; c.f. FITZMYER, Acts, 59: “th;n ajsfavleian…cannot be limited to “assurance” or historicity; it is also a doctrinal assurance, or better a pastoral assurance… ”. (10) The emphasis we give to the unifying concept of Luke-Acts, which is universal salvation, does not deny the sense of the plural in “teachings” given to Theophilus. But the singular importance of the teaching about the salvation that God offers to Jew and Gentile is most important in that other elements to be taught, e.g. the meaning of Jesus, are determined by the concept of salvation for all people, “first the Jew, then the Gentile”. (11) It should be clear that we do not agree with HAENCHEN, Apostelgeschichte, 105, n. 3, that “Dieses Proömium gilt nur dem 3. Ev (gegen Cadbury, Beg. II, 489-510)”. (12) Contra the implication of HAENCHEN, Apostelgeschichte, 105, n. 3, that “Ein antikes Buch ist nicht speziell für den Mann verfasst, dem es gewidmet ist”. We cannot simply dismiss the thought that Luke addresses his work to Theophilus (as well as others), on the basis of general practices in preface-writing — particularly when Theophilus is singled out by the second person singular, kathchvqh".