Hi, mike.
ISeeYou and I know each other from other forums, so she wasn't actually referring to something that I've addressed on this forum, but instead to that which I've addressed elsewhere. Anyhow, this is what we're talking about:
II Timothy chapter 3
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Early on in my Christian walk, I believed, erroneously, that when Paul wrote to Timothy of how "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" that he was referring ONLY to the Old Testament scriptures, but I've long since changed my mind in relation to the same. Before I document why I've changed my mind, my original erroneous belief was based upon the fact that Paul mentioned "the holy scriptures" which Timothy knew from his childhood and that I had always been taught that ONLY the Old Testament scriptures were in circulation at the time that Paul wrote his SECOND epistle to Timothy. Why did I capitalize SECOND? Well, I capitalized it because of what is written in Paul's FIRST epistle to Timothy which became the catalyst for me changing my viewpoint as to when at least part of the New Testament was actually in circulation. We read:
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (I Timothy 5:17-18)
Here, Paul offered two "proof texts" FROM SCRIPTURE, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, to justify his claim that the elders who rule ought to be counted worthy of double honor. Of course, the first "proof text" is found here:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)
Paul elaborated on how this verse actually pertained to what he said to Timothy in his first epistle to the Corinthians. There, we read:
I Corinthians chapter 9
[1] Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
[2] If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
[3] Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
[4] Have we not power to eat and to drink?
[5] Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
[6] Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
[8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
[11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
[12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
Where, then, do we find the second SCRIPTURE which Paul cited as one of his "proof texts"? Well, we find it right here in the New Testament gospel of Luke:
"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house." (Luke 10:7)
Yes, this same Paul who wrote of "all scripture" in his SECOND epistle to Timothy had PREVIOUSLY deemed that which is contained in Luke's gospel as "scripture" in his FIRST epistle to the same. This reality has greatly aided me over the years when debating with atheists or scoffers who insist that the New Testament wasn't written until a hundred or more years after Christ's Incarnation/Ascension as the internal witness of scripture greatly refutes such a claim. Yes, seeing how we know that Paul's epistles were written no more than 30 something years after Christ's Incarnation/Ascension and seeing how Paul referred to that which is contained within Luke's gospel as "scripture", we can know, of a certainty, that at least Luke's gospel must have been in circulation at that point in time. I say "at least" because Luke himself began his gospel by saying the following:
Luke chapter 1
[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Who are these "many...which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" whose writings had PRECEDED Luke's gospel? Were any of these "many" Matthew or Mark? They very well may have been for Paul also wrote:
"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2)
Why would Paul, when writing to the saints at Corinth, mention a "faith that could remove mountains" and why would he expect them to understand the significance or relevancy of the same? Could it be because either or both of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were already in circulation at that time and that the saints at Corinth we're as equally familiar with the same as Paul was? In Matthew's and Mark's gospels we read:
"Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matthew 17:19-20)
"And when even was come, he went out of the city. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mark 11:19-23)
Are we to believe that Paul was himself present during the times when Jesus uttered these words which he (Paul) later alluded to? I mean, Matthew's account clearly indicates that "the disciples came to Jesus apart", so Paul obviously didn't directly hear that utterance. Similarly, if you read Mark's account in its fuller context, then it seems rather apparent that Christ was alone with His disciples when He made that utterance, too. How, then, did Paul know of the same? Did he obtain such knowledge by word of mouth or by direct revelation? He could have...BUT are we to believe that all of the saints in Corinth whom he wrote to about the same also received the same by either word of mouth or direct revelation? Again, it's possible, but not likely. What seems more likely to me is that either or both of Matthew's and Mark's gospels were already in circulation at that time and therefore Paul's allusion wasn't missed by anybody.
There are also those who believe that Paul, while writing to this same Timothy, alluded to a portion of "the Lord's Prayer" as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. If such is indeed the case, then this would be internal witness that the gospel of Matthew was already in circulation at that point in time, too. In relation to the same, we read:
"And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (II Timothy 4:18)
Now, compare the same with what we read in Matthew's gospel:
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13)
The similarities there are pretty striking, so Paul may have indeed been alluding to that which was already contained in Matthew's gospel when such words were penned.
Turning our focus back to Luke for a moment, if we look at the book of Acts which was also penned by Luke, then I believe that we have much more internal evidence for early authorships of both Luke's gospel and the book of Acts. For starters, the book of Acts begins in the following manner:
Acts chapter 1
[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
[2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
[4] And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
While writing to "Theophilus" (some believe that "Theophilus" was an individual whereas others, like myself, believe that Luke was actually addressing all who are a "lover of God" which is what "Theophilus" actually means), Luke made reference to "the FORMER treatise" which he had made or to the gospel of Luke where he FIRST addressed "Theophilus":
Luke chapter 1
[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Seeing how Luke's gospel truly was "the FORMER treatise", it had to have been written BEFORE the book of Acts was written and it was. What, then, can we learn about the timelines for both writings (Luke's gospel and the book of Acts) by studying the book of Acts? Well, I believe that we can learn at least the following:
1. Luke, who was a very diligent historian in his writings, made absolutely no mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, so this leads one to believe that the temple was still standing at the time of Luke's writing of the book of Acts. This would mean that the book of Acts would have had to have been written PRIOR TO 70 A.D and, again, the gospel of Luke was written BEFORE ("the FORMER treatise") the book of Acts was, so the timeline for Luke's writing of his gospel is even earlier than this.
2. Luke, who made mention of all sorts of persecutions in the book of Acts, made no mention whatsoever of the persecution of Christians at the hand of Nero and most historians believe that the same began in 64 A.D. As such, this would lead one to believe that Luke penned the book of Acts PRIOR TO 64 A.D. and, again, his gospel was written even earlier than this.
3. Luke, who mentioned the deaths of Stephen and James within the book of Acts, made no mention whatsoever of the death of Paul which would be pretty much impossible to believe if Paul was already dead at the time of his writing, especially in relation to the fact that Luke was a pretty regular travelling companion of Paul (the "we" verses which are strewn all throughout the book of Acts which would include Luke as part of the "we"). In fact, it seems rather obvious that Paul was yet alive when we consider how the book of Acts ends:
Acts chapter 28
[30] And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
[31] Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
Seeing how it seems that Paul was yet alive at the time of the writing of the book of Acts and seeing how historians place the time of Paul's death anywhere between 62 A.D. and 68 A.D., this would again indicate that the book of Acts was written somewhere around 62 A.D. or somewhere approximately around the end of the second year of what seems to be Paul's first imprisonment in Rome. If such is indeed the case and it certainly seems to be, then, again, Luke's gospel would have had to have been written even earlier than 62 A.D. because it was "the FORMER treatise".
More in line with what you're apparently looking to discuss here, there's also no lack of disputation about the following:
"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (I Corinthians 11:20-26)
When Paul "delivered" that which he had "received of the Lord" in relation to "the Lord's supper", was he speaking of a direct revelation in relation to the same which he had "received of the Lord" or did he receive the same indirectly via Luke's gospel account which basically mirrors what Paul wrote here?
"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." (Luke 22:18-21)
Again, the similarities between the two are certainly striking. Whose writing came first? Paul's or Luke's? The fact of the matter is that because both Paul's and Luke's accounts are so strikingly similar, there are many who believe that Luke got his gospel account from Paul's direct revelation and they therefore place the timing of the writing of Luke's gospel AFTER the timing of the writing of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (which may not have his "first epistle" to them, btw - I Corinthians 5:9), but this simply doesn't add up in light of other scripture. For example, Luke's gospel begins in the following manner:
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
Are we to believe that when Luke mentioned those who "FROM THE BEGINNING were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" that he was somehow referring to Paul? Was Paul an "eyewitness and minister of the word FROM THE BEGINNING"? Not according to either the gospel accounts or Paul's own testimony he wasn't. Paul said of himself:
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (I Corinthians 15:3-8)
Paul placed himself as "last of all" and "as of one born out of due time". Are we to equate the same with Luke's reference to those who "FROM THE BEGINNING were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word"? In my estimation, it would be ludicrous to do so. IOW, it's rather obvious to me that Luke didn't obtain his gospel account of "the Lord's supper" from Paul, but it may have actually been the other way around. Of course, it is possible that Paul's revelation was a direct revelation from the Lord Himself and not an indirect revelation which he received via Luke because Paul did say elsewhere:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)
Anyhow, my point is that New Testament scripture was in circulation a lot sooner than many people believe that it was and also that Paul deemed Luke's gospel which was already in circulation at the times when he penned both I Timothy and II Timothy to be SCRIPTURE.
Some things for everybody here to hopefully prayerfully/carefully ponder before the Lord.
