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!”
Eddie,
I did not take your comments as offensive. No apologies necessary. And I did not mean offense in my comments. Please excuse me if I did offend.
A few more words on Joanna:
I did not mean to say that the mention of her was an editorial note later added, but that the detail that she was “the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward” could be understood as an editorial comment not meant to be referring to her state in that chronological moment in Jesus ministry. Think about John’s writing, where he throws in comments like “he who was to betray him” regarding Judas in Jn12.4. If we might understand the comment regarding Joanna’s marriage in that light, then we don’t necessarily have to see her as married during the events of Lk8.1ff. It could be understood as an identification marker for Luke’s reader, indicating to which Joanna he was referring. But, I also said that I am not sold on the idea yet. It’s just something to consider.
As for Joanna’s placement in an “embarrassing situation”, I do not see this as working against Luke’s goal. Theo would not have taken offense to such a detail, especially if it were true. And I would think that her eyewitness testimony to Jesus’ resurrection (Lk24.10) would be much more embarrassing for Theo. But I think Luke is appealing to testimony from one very close to Theo. And I believe this is why Luke places her in the place of prominence in the chiastic structure. Speaking of the structure, I did not address your comment about the names being lumped together: Mary, Joanna, Mary. This may be the case, but John Nolland (in footnote only) and Richard Bauckham (published twice), both following L. Dussaut, make the case that Joanna has the place of prominence, though they offer no significant explanation. I know of no one arguing (in print) for a collective midpoint to the chiasm.
As for Herod and the priesthood, I was not meaning to imply that there was enmity, but simply distance between them. Herod highly esteemed the priesthood, but Pilate was governing over Judea and mishandling the Temple funds and killing Galileans – two counts of offense against Herod. The priesthood would have wanted Herod to know that they appreciated him, and were not in collusion with Pilate. They would have wanted to visibly align themselves with Herod over Pilate.
As for Jonathan, I do not believe there was any enmity between Theo and Jonathan. Jonathan was offered the priesthood a second time, and deferred it to his brother Matthias for reasons of “unworthiness”. This is commendable. It is not necessarily indicative of brotherly love between Theo and he, but neither is it hostility in any way. His deferring and nominating of Matthias demonstrates his fondness of at least one brother, and his interest in keeping his family in the priesthood. I have read somewhere that Jonathan may have converted to the faith, and thus did not feel “worthy” to take up the priesthood again. But, Josephus’ telling of the episode does not work well with the notion.
On Stephen’s stoning, most scholars place it in 34-35CE. I agree that this is the consensus. However, I wonder why Luke did not name Caiaphas as the culprit. He shows no hesitation to do so elsewhere. My suspicion is that Luke was concealing the HPs identity for Theo’s sake, to avoid the risk of publicly condemning the HP, though the act was indeed condemnable. And if the act was condemnable, then why keep the HP nameless? If it was for Luke’s sake, to keep him safe from the authorities, then this is further evidence that Luke wrote when such an accusation would have meant certain death – meaning, very early.
As for why Luke wrote Acts, Paul was under house arrest for two years. He had appealed to Caesar. Claudius had enforced a law that anyone appealing to Caesar had two years to appear in Rome with his accusers, or else all were found guilty. If this is the case regarding Paul, and if Felix knew that Paul’s appeal to Caesar demanded his appearance in Rome, it is quit possible that Felix was not interested in carrying out the appeal. We know from Josephus that both Felix and Ananias (the HP alongside Felix) were guilty of offenses which required their presence in Rome via appeal. It is quite possible that they, having known first-hand the appeals processes, did not consider the appeal to be that critical, and instead would have wanted Paul to remain away from Rome, and thus be found guilty be default. Also, by this time, Claudius’ law may have faded in its real effect, meaning that Paul was appealing to a law that was no longer strictly enforced. And Ananias and Felix were possibly willing to run the risk of Rome not caring too much about it. With this in view, it is plausible that Luke his hoping that Theo step in on Paul’s behalf. Theo was a Roman appointed official. He had rights and liberty to engage in Roman affairs in Palestine. Acts ends with Paul in custody for two years.
But, in large part, I believe Luke wrote in hopes to convince Theo that the Jesus movement was legitimate against the mainstream Jewish leadership. Think about how Luke presents each episode in Acts. It’s very politically arranged, yet very kingdom-minded, as though God was working through these peasants and rebels, and not through the Temple establishment. By the time Luke gets to Paul’s final arrest, the Temple is no longer in view. And so an appeal to Theo to step in makes good sense. He has given a detailed account of the movement’s legitimacy. If it was convincing, perhaps Theo would take it to heart to the degree that he decided to defend Paul.
As for the legwork in research, it is an uphill battle from here. I have seen breakthroughs with the Theophilus Proposal. Some scholars have bought it, but are unwilling at this point to publish or go public with it. But more and more is coming to light. And I am certain that Joanna’s identity will be revealed as Theo’s granddaughter. I can smell it. And if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. There are some links to Clopas and the unnamed disciple on the road to Emmaus and a host of other players and elements that need to be further explored. Particularly, codex Beza contains some details which are very important to the Proposal. I’m working on these now. But we’ll see where it all leads.
If Josephus were found to be the grandson of Theo, and if it can be proven that Luke began writing in 37CE, then it demonstrates that Luke did NOT depend on Josephus, which is a HUGE step in scholarship. I see no ties between Luke and Josephus. If Josephus was familiar with Luke, then there are some problems. Richard Anderson, my colleague, has done an enormous amount of work demonstrating that Josephus rewrote Luke (and all of Jewish history), standing against Luke.
I believe Josephus was highly regarded by the Romans for his histories. His work was appreciated. And thus, he gained favors. And I doubt that Luke-Acts would have been included under the rubric of “holy books” in the first century. But I could be wrong.
Lee
Hi Lee,
Well, it is a relief for me to know that you don’t see my disagreement with you as offensive. When you signed off your previous post to me as “for what it is worth” I thought I may have offended you. I used to frequent “Christian” discussion boards, and I had to learn that writing things on the internet to people who are unable to hear deflections of one’s voice or the expression on one’s face, it is very easy to offend people without one’s realizing. You have not offended me, so don’t let yourself think about that anymore.
John 12:4 is an obvious editorial. I think we need to proceed with great care when thinking Luke is offering a similar editorial without any indication that he is so doing. Once we allow ourselves to read into his statements things which he never intended to say, it becomes easier to do elsewhere too. This is not to say you ARE wrong; I believe you are wrong, but I would hope you are correct. Nevertheless, care for the truth must be foremost in our minds, which I have no doubt is in your heart, but I offer the brotherly advise to proceed with caution.
Concerning Joanna’s “embarrassing situation” in Luke 8:3, again I believe you are speaking from your heart. You would not be offended, if a loved one was healed, and it became known to the world. Theophilus, on the other hand was an important person in Jewish society. There were many things done in secret that the Annas family did not wish to be public knowledge. They were sensitive to a public image. Often we find when Jesus spoke to such people, the truth offended them. Joanna, if she had an evil spirit and was Theophilus’ granddaughter, may have represented the proverbial “skeleton” in his closet. Perhaps it is I who is being too sensitive here, but this is how I see the possibility.
Concerning published authors who support your opinion, I am not a well read man. I read, but not like many others I meet on the internet. I am a bit cautious about depending too much on their opinions, especially when they are speaking on subject matter that I have no proficiency in or little understanding (I have in mind here Christian apologetics in the field of science). I have had to eat my words more than once, because I depended too much upon what others “saw” and I couldn’t see. I dislike allowing others to be my “eyes” so to speak. I much prefer authors to bring my attention to something I missed, but I am able to “see” just as well as they are able.
We agree that Pilate mishandled his office over Judea. Herod may or may not have been better at governing Jerusalem, but we agree that the High Priesthood there would have preferred Herod over Rome.
Concerning Jonathan, you may be correct. However, I don’t see him as a gregarious and generous person, choosing others before himself, but I see him as one who loves to exercise his power behind those in the public eye. I see him excelling in the secret councils and meetings held with very powerful people. I think he rejoiced in the ability to manipulate power to his liking without ever having to answer publicly for doing so. I believe the Gospel writers, and especially Luke, present their readers with the Annas family as a model of a very powerful but corrupted priesthood. There isn’t much good we can speak of on their behalf. They represent evil, just has Herod and his family do.
Concerning Stephen’s death and Luke’s mentioning Caiaphas by name earlier in Acts, in Acts 4 there is nothing really condemning about what Caiaphas had done. First of all, he names Annas as the “High Priest” though Caiaphas was sitting in that office. And, secondly, the outcome was to set the apostles free. Nothing was done to them. However when we come to Acts 7 we find that either the High Priest condemned Stephen to die or he allowed “mob rule” to do so. It really isn’t clear. However, whatever occurred would have been seen as wrong—as testified by every gentile court that Paul was ever brought before. In the case of the Philippian court, he wasn’t tried, but when the officers later found out Paul was a Roman, they were afraid about what could happen to them, if the Romans found out.
Concerning Paul’s predicament in Rome, your understanding of the situation is different from mine. I presume your understanding comes from Richard Anderson’s blog, as does mine. How I read his statements is: Paul’s accusers were in jeopardy, if they accused Paul under false pretense and further could be held liable, if they did not appear before Nero’s court, but Paul—if no one appeared—would have been set free. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is how I understand Richard’s statements. What do you think?
Concerning Theophilus’ possible involvement in the judicial proceedings, that would depend upon his family’s alliance with the other High Priesthood families at Jerusalem. Ananias, the presiding High Priest when Paul was taken into custody was in danger of prosecution, as was Felix. Other High Priests that would be implicated would be Ishmael, son of Phiabi, and Joseph Kabi. The Annas family on this point was looking pretty. They are not involved, according to the then current Roman law. If, on the other hand, Theophilus did not have good relations with these families, why would he intervene, for he certainly had no love for Paul? However, Luke could have hoped, but the main thrust of Acts and his Gospel was repentance and to believe Jesus is the Messiah.
Concerning “breakthroughs,” I am unaware of anything on this subject save what I read in yours and Richard’s blogs. If you could direct me to what you point to concerning Clopas and the unnamed disciple on the road to Emmaus, the “details” in the Beza codex and the “host of other players and elements” I would appreciate it.
Concerning Luke and Josephus, I am having a little difficulty understanding what you mean. Are you saying neither Josephus nor Luke were aware of the other’s works? Most scholarship that believes there is a connection see Luke rewriting Josephus. I take the position that Josephus rewrote Luke. I believe Richard Anderson’s blog takes this same position. I read an excellent article he wrote that pointed to a document written by Gary Goldberg (found HERE)
Concerning Luke’s possible use of editorial comments, I am not suggesting that Luke does it in the same way as John. But I am suggesting that maybe (though, remember, I’m not yet sold on the idea 100%) that Luke is simply attempting to identify to which Joanna he is referring, and not necessarily giving a real-time detail. I was not drawing a strong parallel between Luke and John. Just a similarity.
As for Joanna’s placement in an embarrassing situation, I was not speaking from personal perspective. If Joanna was indeed a follower of Jesus, then Luke could easily use her testimony in his story as leverage, so to speak. Luke is not afraid to demonstrate the priesthood’s failures in contrast to Jesus. To mention Joanna is not necessarily offensive, especially if true.
I am not relying on Nolland, Bauckham, et al, on my conclusions. I actually discovered the chiasm before Bauckham published either source, and before I read it in Nolland. Bauckham cites both Dussaut and Nolland, meaning his recognition of it possibly relied on theirs. Mine was wholly independent. So, on this, I am not working from another’s “eyes”. Chiasms are funny things. They are meant to highlight a specific element in the story/teaching. Often they are employed as mnemonic devices (cf. Matt’s Sermon on the Mount). But in Lk24, it is fairly certain that a chiasm exists. That it is not arranged as a mnemonic device, and that it has a midpoint rather than a simple pattern of AB…B’A’, indicates that Luke is highlighting something – namely, either Mary, Joanna, Mary collectively, or Joanna specifically. Richard Fellows, a friend of mine who specializes in onomastics and name-change, agrees that one of the two is correct, but also concludes that if the collective idea is correct, then Joanna must be understood as more notable than Mary the mother of James, for she precedes her. But, given the data, I doubt that this is the case. In what was is Joanna more significant a figure than Mary the mother of James? And why would Luke give Joanna precedence over Mary? You can imagine where I’m going – Joanna is significant because of Luke’s recipient. So whether one accepts the collective idea or the specific idea, the chiasm was important for Theo (or Luke) for some reason.
Concerning why Luke does not name Caiaphas if he were responsible for Stephen’s death, in Acts 4.6, we find Caiaphas and Annas explicitly named. Yet, there are two names there who belong the the priestly family which appear nowhere else in the historical records: Alexander and John. It could be said that these were insignificant members of the family, related in some fashion. But, I believe Luke is cryptically identifying Eleazar (in the Graecized “Alexander”) and Jonathan, both of which were Theo’s brothers. If Luke is cryptic about these namings, then why not be about Caiaphas and Annas? Because Luke would be implicating them directly and publicly. So, if he is not hesitant to publicly implicate Caiaphas, then why not name him as the HP responsible for Stephen’s death?
I have read Sherwin-White’s material. And, while I believe Richard A. rightly interprets the data, I do believe Paul was in jeopardy under the law. Citing Richard, “The point of Sherwin-White’s detailed discussion was to establish that this procedure implemented by Claudius provided no relief for persons awaiting trial, as Roman law did not recognize any right of speedy trial until the fourth century or later.” I will need to go back and reread Sherwin-White on the matter. But I do believe that Paul was not simply going to be set free because of a failure to prosecute. It was a little more complicated than that. And the data Richard provides does not stem from Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Sherwin-White makes much of Paul’s appeal as the grounds for his demise, if the trial were to be delayed. I’ll have to hunt that down for you.
As a Roman appointed official, Theo could have intervened on Paul’s behalf. If Theo was won over to the faith, he could have been expected to do so. It’s a hope on Luke’s part, I believe – a kind of desperation. And I’m curious as to how you see Annas’ family “looking pretty”. Several HPs from Annas’ family were deposed because of horrendous crimes. I don’t see Rome as all that excited about Annas’ family. I can see many Jewish individuals appreciating him (e.g., Josephus). Annas was honored by being buried in the wall surrounding Jerusalem. I think Josephus notes that this section of the wall did not fall during Rome’s siege. So, there was some respect for Annas. But I don’t know that it was shared by the Romans. Eleazar, Caiaphas, Matthias, and Annas/Ananus the younger were known to be crooked. And perhaps Jonathan, as you suggest. That leaves only Annas and Theo as potentially respectable.
As for the breakthroughs in Lukan research, I have been dialoguing with Jenny Read-Heimerdinger on the significance of codex Beza on the Theophilus Proposal. She seems to believe Luke wrote to the HP and that Beza supports this claim. I have written briefly on the Emmaus pericope, in which I cite her work. There are many conclusions from that line of reasoning which I’m still working through. But, I believe Nathanael was the unnamed disciple, and Cleopas/Clopas was his father. I believe Nathanael was James the son of Alphaeus. Richard Fellows makes this case somewhat convincingly. Luke protected James’/Nathanael’s identity for obvious reasons. Though this may not appear significant for the Proposal, it is because Theo would have recognized its significance. I will post more on this fairly soon.
On Bezan Luke, I’m still working on it. There is a wealth of data to sift through.
On the other players, I’m looking into Jairus, the women with an issue of blood, the Beelzebul pericope in GLuke, the seven sons of Sceva, the sayings from Jesus about “five” family members, the parable of the unjust/unfaithful steward, the prodigal son, etc. There are just too many pericopae unique to Luke which indicate that Theo is the HP. I refrain from giving details here, as space does not allow.
On Luke and Josephus, I am saying that if one knew the other, then Josephus knew Luke. Richard A. has done some work on this, as I mentioned before. I am not sold on every instance which he presents, but I do like the idea. That said, such a notion runs against the flow of modern scholarship. It would indeed be a breakthrough to prove the point that Josephus knew of Luke, and rewrote Luke. But there has not been enough substantial data put forth to convince anyone.
This forum is restricting for dialoguing in detail. If you wish, you can email me at lee _ dahn [at] yahoo [dot] com.
Lee