Mark and Luke, a very good question

  • Thread starter Thread starter thessalonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thessalonian

Guest
I am interested in you protestants views on this as well. It came up in another thread and I wanted to explore it directly.

Both Luke and Mark were not Apostles nor do I see anyone claiming them to be prophets. Yet the scriptures tell us that the mystery of Christ was given to the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS by the spirit.

Eph 3

4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

So how did Mark and Luke get it?
I’ll let others reply before I post what I think.

Blessings

Let’s add this from Jude in to the fray.

3]
Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

4] For admission has been secretly gained by some who ong ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5]
Now I desire to remind you, though** you were once for all fully informed,** that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Do you think Jude was having a dictation from the Holy Spirit here or merely writing down what was commonly believed?

Blessings
 
40.png
thessalonian:
I am interested in you protestants views on this as well. It came up in another thread and I wanted to explore it directly.

Both Luke and Mark were not Apostles nor do I see anyone claiming them to be prophets. Yet the scriptures tell us that the mystery of Christ was given to the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS by the spirit.

Eph 3

4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

So how did Mark and Luke get it?
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading The History of the Church by Eusebius and have just learned this very thing. Mark was Peter’s interpreter and ministry companion in Rome. The Roman Church was so enthusiastic about Peter’s account of the Gospel that they requested a written account. So Mark put it to writing for the Church in Rome. But it had the authority of Peter’s apostleship.

Likewise, Luke was a ministry companion of Paul. The Gospel of Luke brings with it apostolic tradition via Paul.

Regarding the inspiration of Jude, since it is accepted into the canon of scriptures, we can assume he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure, though, if the writers of the New Testament scriptures were always aware that they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I think they probably assumed they were just faithfully recording what they had learned from Christ or, in the case of Mark and Luke, their mentors who were apostles.
 
Petra - "So Mark put it to writing for the Church in Rome. But it had the authority of Peter’s apostleship.

“Likewise, Luke was a ministry companion of Paul. The Gospel of Luke brings with it apostolic tradition via Paul.”

So, therefore, one might interprate that the authority of Peter and Paul was “passed on” to the Evangalists in writting of their Gospels, which sounds like Apostalic Succession to me. 👍
 
But for Grace:
Petra - "So Mark put it to writing for the Church in Rome. But it had the authority of Peter’s apostleship.

“Likewise, Luke was a ministry companion of Paul. The Gospel of Luke brings with it apostolic tradition via Paul.”

So, therefore, one might interprate that the authority of Peter and Paul was “passed on” to the Evangalists in writting of their Gospels, which sounds like Apostalic Succession to me. 👍
Click to expand...
Yep! That’s my take on it! 👍
 
I agree about Jude. The question is as it is with Matthew and John for that matter is was he recieving the “revelation” the moment he penned it or much later. Was it revelation only to him? It seems to me that the real bulk of revelation was going on when Jesus was walking and talking with the Apostles. That the Holy Spirit later assisted them in recording what God wanted written but it was not neccessarily a dictation to them by the Holy Spirit.

I’m just trying to provoke thought.
 
40.png
thessalonian:
I agree about Jude. The question is as it is with Matthew and John for that matter is was he recieving the “revelation” the moment he penned it or much later. Was it revelation only to him? It seems to me that the real bulk of revelation was going on when Jesus was walking and talking with the Apostles. That the Holy Spirit later assisted them in recording what God wanted written but it was not neccessarily a dictation to them by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with that. “The Word,” or revelation, in its fullest sense was Jesus. Nothing new or novel was later added to what He conveyed to His apostles. So the later writings are simply documenation of what Jesus taught, and the Holy Spirit ensured that they were faithful and accurate in recording it. That’s my view anyway.
 
Your point about Luke not being a Bishop is well taken. Seems more like an example of following a Tradition of the Church rather than Apostolic succession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top