There are some striking similarities in the first three chapters of 1Samuel that point to the birth and childhood of Jesus. Lee Dahn has written about Jesus’ experience at age 12 in the Temple at Jerusalem and how that is prefigured in the childhood of Samuel (Lee’s blog is HERE). I would like to add my two cents about this idea as well.
Luke begins his narrative of Jesus’ boyhood experience at Luke 2:40 with “…the child grew and waxed strong is spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon him.” And, Luke ends his excerpt from Jesus’ childhood in Luke 2:52 with: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” And between these two “bookends” as Mr. Dahn refers to the Scriptures, we find Jesus in the Temple at Jerusalem listening to the “doctors” of the Law and asking them questions. The Scripture says “All who heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.”
What would this mean to someone like Theophilus, to whom Luke addresses his work? Well, for one thing, if Theophilus’ son, Matthias, is indeed Josephus’ father as I suggested in a previous blog, then Theophilus may have been one of those priests listening to Jesus. At age 12 Jesus would have been sitting among these doctors of the Law, while Theophilus’ father, Annas, was the sitting high priest. Theophilus would have remembered the incident. But, is this all? Is Luke merely recalling to Theophilus something that had occurred when he was a young priest? No, because Luke’s first two chapters would have been enough to show how all of Jesus’ early life had been prefigured long ago in the early life of Samuel the prophet. Recall that it was during Samuel’s boyhood—Josephus says when he was 12 years old [Antiquities of the Jews; book 5, chapter 10, paragraph 4], that we are told Eli’s sons (the high priesthood family) were corrupt. The implication against the present high priesthood could not have been overlooked by Theophilus.
Remember, it is not Luke’s intention to bring railing accusations against the priesthood, especially the high priest, who at the time of Luke’s writing was Theophilus. To do so would have been against the Law, for the Scripture says: “you shall not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people” (Exodus 22:28). Luke is not like today’s media reporters who think nothing of exposing secrets and failures of our leaders, today. Today’s media believes it has the right and responsibility to act as it does. Perhaps this is so, but not in Luke’s day. Luke had no such “right” that today’s media embrace. To expose the sins of one’s rulers without cursing them was a very delicate matter. Luke had to be very careful with what he said. Otherwise, he would have been an offender himself. Nevertheless, Luke also wished to leave room for repentance, because if the leader of his people would confess Christ, so would the nation.
What Luke did by narrating Jesus’ birth and boyhood was point Theophilus to Samuel. Both his mother and Jesus’ mother had similar birth experiences. Both mothers praise the Lord in song over what the Lord had done to them, concerning giving birth. Both Luke and the writer of 1Samuel emphasized the youths growing in wisdom and favor with God and men (Compare Luke 2:40 & Luke 2:52 with 1Samuel 2:21; 1Samuel 2:26 and 1Samuel 3:19-21). Jesus presence in the Temple and the events surrounding his birth would have pointed Theophilus first to his own memory of seeing Jesus at age 12, and then to Samuel at age 12, and the comparison between the priesthood in Samuel’s day and that during Jesus’ day would have been clearly identifiable. The conviction of corruption would have come from Theophilus’ own heart and not from the pen of Luke.
Smoodock's Blog 
13 responses to “Samuel’s Childhood—A Type of Christ!”
I have read your argument regarding Josephus’ place in Annas’ family. In my previous studies and interactions, I have been unconvinced of that argument. That said, all of the points of contact between 1Sam and GLuke, and the probability that Theophilus himself was present at the Temple when Jesus visited, and the striking detail found in Josephus suggesting that Samuel was 12 years old when he was called by God, are not related to Josephus’ inclusion into the family of Annas. While my argument regarding Theophilus (and Joanna) stretches the limits, having Josephus as the grandson of Theophilus seems to confound it more so. Perhaps I am wrong.
Nonetheless, it is exciting to find others intrigued by the general Proposal. Thanks again for the mention.
Lee
Hi Lee,
Have you looked into the idea of Josephus being the grandson of Theophilus? If so, what keeps you from accepting this proposal? I’m curious.
I agree that “…the points of contact between 1Sam and GLuke, and the probability that Theophilus himself was present at the Temple when Jesus visited, and the striking detail found in Josephus suggesting that Samuel was 12 years old when he was called by God…” don’t have to be related to whether Josephus can be placed in the family of Annas. Your argument would be true, as far as I am concerned, even if my thoughts about Josephus are wrong.
Concerning Joanna, I’m still thinking about it. If Josephus’ father, Matthias, is Theophilus’ son, he would be too young to have a daughter in 31 CE to witness the resurrection. On the other hand, if Josephus’ father is not the Matthias who was the high priest just before the Jewish war, I would like to think that high priest’s daughter was the Joanna who witnessed Jesus resurrection, but I need to consider it further. I always thought the witness was the wife of Chuza, and no matter where you place Theophilus’ son being born, it seems Joanna would be too young to be married to Chuza at the time of the crucifixion. I suppose there could be more than one Joanna, but it seems odd to place her as a witness, but never offer a hint as to her identity.
God bless,
Eddie
Eddie,
As regards Joanna, she could easily have married as young as thirteen. There is evidence for such young marriages in those days. Further, Herod was fond of Nabateans for accounting purposes, despite the fact that he conquered them. Chuza is a Nabatean name. And that he is a member of Herod’s court is thus not unusual. Having said that, Herod ties to Jerusalem were very strong. Chuza’s marriage to Joanna could have been a political move between the priestly family and Herod. He had lost some respect in Judea, especially when Pilate slaughtered some Galileans and Samaritans, as well as robbed from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct. Enmity existed between Pilate and Herod (until Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, as per GLuke) and the priesthood would have been very interested in retaining favor with Herod. Thus, Joanna’s marriage to Chuza would make sense in my schema, however strained the age-issue might seem at first glance.
As you note, it would be ironic if there was a different eyewitness named Joanna only found in Luke’s Gospel if Luke was writing to Theophilus the HP. On top of this, there is evidence in an ossuary that Theophilus the HP had a granddaughter named Joanna. That’s a hard fact. The irony is simply too great if Luke’s Joanna is not Theophilus’ granddaughter (given that Luke wrote to the HP). The odds are greatly in favor of my schema once Theophilus the HP is considered as Luke’s recipient.
As regards Josephus, the evidence is far too thin, and relies primarily on the coincidence of names. The same accusation has been made of my own position. However, accusers generally yield once the full weight of Luke’s argument is considered. But I just do not see anything in Luke’s argument, nor in any other evidence, which suggests that Josephus’ identity as Theophilus’ grandson does not rest merely on the coincidence of names.
Lee
Hi Lee,
Concerning Joanna, I am aware that political marriages were arranged often in the nobility of all, if not practically all peoples. So, I would not be surprised if this were the case for Joanna, and if it could be reasonably shown that Chuza’s wife was Theophilus’ granddaughter. However, if we agree that Joanna was 13 at the time she was married, and we know Luke speaks of her in Luke 8, which I place in Jesus’ 2nd year (28-29 CE) of his public ministry, and if we further suppose this was the 1st year of Joanna’s marriage, then she would have been about 15 or 16 when she witnessed Jesus alive in 31 CE. Pilate’s slaughter of the Jews at the Passover, would have been Jesus’ third Passover season (30 CE), one year before his death, so I don’t see this as a factor for Joanna’s marriage. However, this does put Joanna’s birth at about the year 15 CE. This would put Theophilus at least in his 40s at this time and age at least 62 when he became High Priest in 37 CE. He would have to be at least 87 when Luke presented Acts to him or older, if Luke wrote Acts and presented the book to him later than 62 CE.
Concerning Josephus as Theophilus’s grandson, Josephus says his father, Matthias was born in Archelaus’ 10th year ruling the Jews. This puts Matthias’ birth in 6 CE. If we assume Matthias is Theophilus’ first born and that Theophilus was 20 at the time (as I assumed in the case of Joanna above—Matthias 20 and Theophilus 40), then Theophilus would have been 51 when he became high priest. This would make him at least 76 if Luke presented him with the book of Acts in 62 CE.
Perhaps it is just me, and maybe I am inadvertently trying to force my own position, but I see a 76 year old Theophilus much stronger and much more influential than an 87 year old Theophilus. Perhaps 10 years in one’s 40s or 50s doesn’t seem like a great deal, but when you are this far up in years, it seems to me one has to be concerned with feebleness of both body and mind. 76 seems to me to be a better target for Acts than 87. What do you think?
God bless,
Eddie
Eddie,
A couple of things. I am not yet certain whether or not the note in Luke 8.3 regarding Joanna is meant to be taken as a real-time detail, meaning “the wife of Chuza” may be an editorial note which indicates to which Joanna Luke refers. John is notorious for this, but Luke is not. If this be the case, then we do not have to see Joanna as at least 13 in Luke 8.3. However, I am inclined to believe she was at least 13 by then. My point is that we just do not know, nor can. We can simply make educated judgments, and I’m inclined to believe that she was older than 13 in Luke 8.
Second, the probability that Theo was in his 70s rather than his 80s when Luke wrote Acts does nothing in favor of his being Josephus’ grandfather. If he were in his 70s as you suggest, the link to Josephus is still a great one. Said differently, the probability that he was Josephus’ grandfather is entirely irrelevant to his age at the time of Luke’s presentation of Acts. It still rests on the coincidence of the name of Matthias, which was very, very common in that period and region.
Third, as feeble as +/-87 may seem for anyone of that period, it is not unfathomable. However old he was, he would have been quite powerful ‘behind the throne’, so to speak, as his father and others had been before him. But the unlikelihood of his being worthy of receiving a letter form Luke at that age is not measurable. It still rests on assumption apart from evidence. So, in all honesty, I see no hard evidence in favor of 1) Josephus being Theo’s grandson and 2) Luke’s Joanna NOT being Theo’s granddaughter. As I argued in my previous response, the ‘likelihood’ factor tilts the scales much more in favor of Joanna’s being Luke’s Theo’s granddaughter, once Luke’s Theo is considered as the HP.
Fourth, here is a possible age scenario:
30CE: Theo = 45, Joanna = 13, Matthias = 20s (Jesus begins ministering)
40CE: Theo = 55, Joanna = 23, Matthias = 30s (Theo serving as HP)
60CE: Theo = 75, Joanna = 43, Matthias = 50s
65CE: Theo = 80, Joanna = 48, Matthias = 55+ (Matthias serving as HP)
From the ossuary, we know that Joanna’s father was John, Theo’s son. If we put him 17 years younger than Theo, he was 16-17 years older than his daughter. The fact that Theo had multiple children (how many we do not know) and multiple brothers make early marriages and births somewhat more likely than not. So it is quite plausible that this scheme is close to reality. Does it not work for you?
Lee