AoC-5-Chapter V

Chapter V
Alleged Imperfections In The Teaching And Example Of The Apostles

IT will be seen that practically the question is, Can we accept the New Testament as a Book by Apostles and other inspired men, revealing to us the Christ of God and His way of Salvation and Life, and as our rule of Faith and Practice?

Some have raised the question as to the form of the Revelation. The books and epistles all seem to have been written to answer a need of the writer’s day, rather than to stand as apart of a Divine Law-book for successive generations of believers. But the same form of Revelation is found in the Old Testament. The Psalms and the Prophets were accepted as a Divine Guide in the time of our Lord and by our Lord Himself, yet much there was evidently written for a particular, local, and passing occasion. The fact is that this form of Revelation distinguishes the Bible throughout, and is much in favor of its Divine Origin. For, on the one hand, it is not such a form as would have occurred to man; but, on the other hand, once it is made in that form, man finds by experience that it has an interest and suitability for him that a more formal Revelation could not have possessed.

Some have found difficulty in the supposed fact that Paul disclaims inspiration for parts of his teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 : As for instance in verse 25: "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." And again in verse 40: "But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of Christ." If it were true that Paul were here excepting a few remarks of his as not inspired, his doing so would give strong emphasis to the rest as being inspired. It does not appear, however, that the contrast in verses 10 and 12 is between Paul’s inspired and uninspired teaching, but is between what had been said by the Lord (See Matthew 19:3-12), and what Paul was now saying by way of covering features of the case at Corinth not covered by what the Lord had said. And as to verse 40, note the words I also, "and I think that I also have the Spirit of Christ," and recall the fact that Paul throughout these Corinthian Epistles had in mind certain opponents of his who made great claims.

It is therefore an ironical allusion to their claims that Paul is here making. So understood, it expresses Paul’s certainty that he had the Spirit. The Corinthians would grasp the allusion and understand him to mean that while these arrogant teachers thought themselves highly gifted he claimed to have the Spirit of God. When one considers the incidents in the Gospels in which our Lord has to correct the thought of His Disciples, it is a remarkable thing that in their teaching in Acts and in the Epistles, dealing with some of the most delicate, social, moral and religious questions, there is nothing which can be said to have been proved mistaken. Exceptions have been taken here and there, as when Dr. Horton refers to Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16 based on the singular number of the word seed in Genesis: "He (God) saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The objection that the word seed in Genesis does not refer to a single person, only shows the objector does not grasp Paul’s meaning. His argument requires that by the word Christ he here means not simply the Lord Jesus, but also those united to Him. Paul, in effect, says that the word seed, not seeds, agrees finely with the fact that the promises are realized by those in union with Christ, one organic whole. In similar fashion it will be found that objections taken to the teaching of the Apostles are based on the words being looked at from some other view-point than that from which the writer is treating the subject. And we submit it as remarkable, and indicative of inspiration, that there should not be anything of this kind which is not seen to be just and right, when a due effort is made to catch the Apostle’s precise meaning.

Perhaps Galatians 2:11-16, where we find one Apostle rebuking another, is oftenest referred to as a difficulty. It is thought that if an Apostle could thus act wrongly, the fact makes their example unreliable. But this is not so. It must be noted that there was no difference between Paul and Peter as to the truth. It was Peter’s inconsistency with his own teaching that laid him open to Paul’s rebuke. The Apostles were not infallible in conduct, but were responsible like the rest of Christians for their actions. But neither here nor anywhere else does the wrong or doubtful action of an Apostle obscure the truth they taught on behalf of Christ. Here that truth is evidently thrown into bold relief. While this one wrong action of Peter’s after Pentecost shows us he is still the "consistently inconsistent" Peter of the Gospels, surely the general contrast between his life before and after Pentecost suggests that he truly possessed illumination and guidance of the Spirit which the Acts of Apostles claims for him. Similarly the dispute between Paul and Barnabas is another case where no difference of teaching or practice of Christianity is involved. If it could be shown that both acted wrongly it would but prove their fallibility in conduct - the infallibility of their teaching would remain unaffected.

There are a few other actions recorded in Acts as Paul circumcising Timothy (16: 1-3), Paul’s vow (18: 8), Paul and the Nazarites (21: 17-26), and Paul and the High Priest (23: 1-10). In reference to the last of these any commentary will be found to contain one or more suggestions exonerating Paul from all blame, and any action which is thus capable of explanation can never be rightly regarded as an objection to the perfection of an Apostle’s example. The others belong to a series of decisions to which the Apostles came, which prove to a remarkable extent the un-human character of their teaching. The treatment of politics, of slavery, of Jewish ritual, of differences on minor matters, were all questions where a wrong step might have (humanly speaking) wrecked the prospects of Christianity in the world. The keenest and freest of minds have examined these actions of Paul, and have found them all in harmony with his principle of treating such matters so as to give least offence, except when the truth of Christianity would be compromised thereby.

Strange that what is a difficulty with some is an aid to faith with others! Henry Rogers, beside whom for power of discernment not one of our modern critics is, in my opinion, fit to stand, found in actions and decisions of the Apostles regarding such matters, indications of a moderation and wisdom more than human. Anyone who reads his chapter in his book on the Superhuman Origin of the Bible, discussing these matters will see how completely they are shown to be wise and moderate, while yet free from unmanly casuistry; and will agree that he is entitled to ask at the close triumphantly as follows:- "May we not ask, as the Jews did, concerning their Master Himself, ’Whence had these men this wisdom?’ How is it that while they introduce a system which operated a greater revolution in the world than had ever before been effected, they yet avoided those excesses into which the passions of men in general, with far less enthusiasm than theirs, and under far less wrongs and oppressions are so easily provoked? How is it that while they made greater progress than Puritans and Huguenots, the Apostles exercised a self-control, a sobriety, a moderation, which the most ardent admirers of those reformers and confessors of subsequent times will hardly claim for them."