earl40
Puritan Board Professor
There are commands which are to be followed. Our faith is built on a foundation of the prophets and apostles. Which Luke is not.
Human Author of Hebrews
- Thread starter Kinghezy
- Start date
- Status
There are commands which are to be followed. Our faith is built on a foundation of the prophets and apostles. Which Luke is not.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In that case it was rather presumptuous of him to take upon himself to write an orderly account of Jesus' life. What was wrong with the other ones?
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first for you, most excellent
EDIT: Didn't copy/paste right.
So strictly speaking, according to your logic, Luke isn't good enough to give commands but he is good enough to write a gospel. So can I say that my faith is built on the Gospel, at least?
Last edited:
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
Should we disregard the theology extracted from Acts? God entrusted Luke, through the Holy Spirit's guidance, to give us the history-altering account of Pentecost. There are some important verses in Acts that build upon our understanding of Baptism, Covenantal familial blessings, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit. I would have to disagree with your line of thinking.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
A historical account of what happened, and the telling of such, conveys an account of the work of the apostles.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
What is your foundation built upon?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Hopefully the same one as Luke's. No one is disputing that the foundation is built on the prophets and apostles. What we are disputing is the overly strict schema you've constructed, which if followed consistently, would leave Luke out
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And to say that non-apostles/prophets can't give commands ignores the Reformed teaching of Good and Necessary Consequence.
For example, I have every right tell a believer that he is bound to confess God as 3 Persons/1 nature, yet no apostle ever said those words.
And to make matters much, much worse (and this is the ultimate clincher), assuming that "prophets" = NT prophets, and that prophets could give commands, this means Phillip's daughters could give commands.
So now we have the weird situation where Phillip's daughters could give theological commands to the church, whereas Luke couldn't!
For example, I have every right tell a believer that he is bound to confess God as 3 Persons/1 nature, yet no apostle ever said those words.
And to make matters much, much worse (and this is the ultimate clincher), assuming that "prophets" = NT prophets, and that prophets could give commands, this means Phillip's daughters could give commands.
So now we have the weird situation where Phillip's daughters could give theological commands to the church, whereas Luke couldn't!
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
The "good and necessary" flows from the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles which is inscripturated.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
You assume the the daughters were doing the same thing as the prophets and apostles.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Earl,
It may be wise to slow down a little. Were Luke's biblical writings (Luke, Acts) inspired? Paul infers at least that the book of Luke is inspired (1 Tim. 5:18). If inspired, they were also prophetic. You are creating a false dichotomy.
Last edited:
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Jacob,
You now have the best avatar you ever have had since my time on PB. I hope this one stays longer.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In that case, you would have to make another subdistinction (which the text never does). This is ad hoc reasoning.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Is Luke Scripture?
I went with Paul for the reasons stated by John Owen. Beyond that, I wouldn't fight over it.
Whenever I read Hebrews I think of Luke 24:27. We get something like the Emmaus disciples got; it is a real blessing.
Whenever I read Hebrews I think of Luke 24:27. We get something like the Emmaus disciples got; it is a real blessing.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Of course it is. What we have is Luke telling us what happened and in it he does not instruct like Jesus and the apostles, or James (an early TE) did.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That only punts the problem when we get to Hebrews. We know it wasn't written by an apostle because he "heard the message delivered." Yet this guy presumes to instruct us.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Which verse are you referring to?
Timotheos
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a classic view. That Hebrews is a sermon is partly attested by the fact that it refers to itself as a "word of encouragement" (Heb 13:22) much in the same way that a sermon in Acts was called (Acts 13:15). Often, people cite Origen on the authorship issue of Hebrews essentially saying "who knows?" However, David Alan Black believes he was referring to the guy who penned it but not the speaker. In other words,, Black thinks Origen was saying it was likely Paul who preached it and whether it was Luke or someone else who wrote it down, "In truth, God knows." See here: https://www.daveblackonline.com/origen_on_the_authorship_of_hebr.htm
So White was presenting a popular and classic view.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Hebrews 2:3 - The Holy Bible: King James Version.
This guy is a second-hand source, not an apostle. Apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ. The author of Hebrews isn't.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
This could be Paul.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Jacob,
Could not an apostle truthfully make that same claim? Was not the gospel further confirmed by the miracles of the apostolic gifts? Even an apostle could have said that the apostolic ministry was a secondary confirming.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No, it couldn't have. Paul's main argument in Galatians is that he received his message directly from Christ.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
An apostle *saw* Christ and *got his ministry* directly from Christ. The author of Hebrews certainly did not.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I understand your point, but Paul's direct instruction was not exactly equivalent to that of the other Apostles. Even so, the writer to the Hebrews does not say "confirmed unto me" but "confirmed unto us." It is easy to think he was speaking corporately and for the majority. Similarly, as a teacher, I might begin a summary by saying, "today we learned..." yet if I taught I necessarily exclude myself since I had to already know in order to teach.
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I rest my case.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Which is also something Paul would never have said. Had he said something like that in Jerusalem and Galatia, he would have been seen as a second-class apostle.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
(is this a confused emoji?)
Not following...
Galatians 1-2 is Paul's arguing that he received his gospel straight from Christ himself, which makes him an apostle. The author of hebrews is saying that he didn't get it straight from Christ himself.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Not sure if you understand my point in post #55. Where does the writer to the Hebrews specifically state that he did not receive instruction from Christ individually? Heb. 2:3 doesn't seem to make clear what you propose.
In my best Inigo Montoya voice (*throat clear*) "I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Status
Similar threads
