Theologico-Political Treatise 1862/Chapter 11
DID THE APOSTLES WRITE THEIR EPISTLES IN THE CHARACTER OF APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, OR MERELY AS TEACHERS? OF THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES.
No one who reads the New Testament can doubt of the apostles having been prophets. But as the Old Testament prophets did not always speak from revelations made to them, but on the contrary did so very seldom, as has been shown at the close of Chap. I., we may be permitted to doubt whether the apostles wrote their Epistles as prophets, from revelation and by the express command of God, like Moses, Jeremiah, and the rest, or whether they wrote as private and learned persons merely. This inquiry is the more necessary, seeing that Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (xiv. 6) indicates two kinds of preaching, one from revelation, another from knowledge; wherefore I say it is doubtful whether in their Epistles the apostles prophesy or teach. Now when we look to the style of these writings we find it altogether foreign to that of prophecy. The prophets were in the constant habit of insisting that they spoke from the decrees of God: "Thus saith the Lord," "Thus saith the Lord of hosts," "The voice of the Lord came," &c., are phrases of incessant recurrence. Nor was this style adhered to only in the public assemblies; it was followed in the Epistles which contained revelations, as we see in the one of Elijah to Jehoram (vide 2 Chron. xxi. 12), where we have the words, "Thus saith the Lord God." But in the letters of the apostles we meet with nothing of the kind; on the contrary, Paul expressly declares to the Corinthians that he speaks according to his own opinion (1 Cor. vii. 12). It is certain, indeed, that in many places expressions which betray hesitation of mind, and a perplexed manner, are met with, as when he says, "Therefore we conclude "[1] (Rom. iii. 28); "For I reckon" (Ib. viii. 18), and many other passages of the same uncertain kind. Besides such phrases, other modes of expression, as remote as possible from the authoritative tone of prophecy, are encountered in the writings of Paul, as when he says, "But I speak this by permission, not of commandment," "I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (Ib. vii. 25), with many more. It is to be observed also that when he says in the chapter just quoted that he has, or has not, the command of God to say what he does, he does not mean a precept or command of God specially revealed to him, but only the doctrine which Christ taught to his disciples in his Sermon on the Mount. Further, if we pay attention to the manner, as well as the matter, in which the apostles deliver the evangelical doctrine in their Epistles, we shall see that it differs widely from that of the prophets. The apostles frequently reason, so that they appear to discuss and dispute rather than to prophesy. The prophets under the old law, on the contrary, never reason, their utterances are mere dogmas and decrees, because in them God is always introduced as the speaker, who reasons not, but by the absolute authority of his nature decrees. The calling of the prophets did not consist with reasoning; for whosoever attempts to confirm dogmatic decisions by reasoning, in so doing submits them to the arbitrament of every one. And this Paul by his reasonings does in fact; for he says to the Corinthians (2 x. 15), "I speak to you as men of understanding, judge ye what I say." The prophets, however, did not apprehend the things they revealed by their natural powers, that is to say, by the force of their understanding, as I have shown in Chapter I. And although in the Pentateuch we discover certain conclusions arrived at by inference, still, if due attention be given to the passages where these occur, it will be seen that they cannot in any way be taken as peremptory arguments. Thus, when Moses says to the Israelites (Deut. xxxi. 27), "If whilst I lived among you ye were rebellious against God, much more rebellious will ye be when I am dead." This is certainly not to be understood as if Moses by reasoning wished to satisfy the Jews that after his death they would necessarily depart from the worship of the true God: for the conclusion would be false, as may be shown from Scripture, the Israelites having continued faithful to Jehovah during the lives of Joshua and the Elders, and later, indeed, during the ages of Samuel, David, Solomon, &c. These words of Moses, consequently, are to be regarded as a mere moral locution, wherein he "foretells rhetorically, and in colours heightened by his imagination, the future lapse of the people from the worship of the Lord God. The reason, however, why I do not say that Moses spoke the words above quoted of himself, and to make his prediction look more probable, is this, that in the 21st verse of the chapter just cited we are informed that God himself communicated the fact to Moses in different words. But there was no need by special reasons to make the prediction and decree of God more certain to Moses, though there may have been a necessity why he should more vividly picture the event in his imagination; and this he could do in no better way than by throwing into the future the present rebellious spirit of the people, a spirit which he had so often experienced in times past. In this way, I apprehend, are all the arguments of Moses scattered through the Pentateuch to be understood; they are not derived from the sanctuary of reason, but are mere modes of expression, whereby he announced the decrees of God more pointedly, whilst he himself conceived them more vividly. I would not, however, be held to deny from revelation that the prophets could show themselves possessed of argumentative powers; I only affirm that the more logically they reason, the more closely does the matter they reveal assimilate with what is natural; and it is especially from the absolute dogmata, or decrees, or opinions they utter that the prophets are to be distinguished as having had supernatural knowledge. Therefore was it that Moses, the greatest of the prophets, never made use of legitimate reasoning; whilst the lengthy arguments and deductions of Paul, such as are found in the Epistle to the Romans, can in no way be conceived as coming from supernatural inspiration. The mode of address, as well as the style of discussion, employed by the apostles in their Epistles, therefore, clearly proves that these were not written from revelation and by divine command, but entirely from their own natural understanding and experience, and that they contain nothing more than fraternal admonitions mixed with certain politenesses or urbanities (which the old prophetic authority utterly repudiates), as where Paul applies a little of the unction of flattery to his correspondents: "And I myself," he says, "am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge," &c.; and then he goes on to excuse his own boldness in writing to them as he does: "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you, in some sort as putting you in mind," &c. (vide Epis. to Rom. xv. 14,15). We may besides infer so much, from this: that we nowhere read of the apostles being commanded to write, but only to preach wherever they went, and to confirm their sayings by signs; for the actual presence of the apostles and the exhibition of signs were absolutely necessary to convert the nations to the religion of Christ, and to confirm them in the faith, as Paul himself says expressly in the Epistle to the Romans (i. 11): "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established."
But here it may be objected, that in the same way we may conclude the apostles did not even preach as prophets; for when they went preaching here and there they did so, not like the prophets of old, by the express command of God. In the Old Testament we read of Jonah going to Nineveh to preach or prophesy, and at the same time of his having been sent expressly thither, when it would be revealed to him what he was to say. So also it is related at great length of Moses, how he went into Egypt as the messenger of God, and, at the same time, what he was to say to the people of Israel and to Pharaoh, and what signs and wonders he was to do, in order to win them to have faith in his mission. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, were all expressly ordered to preach to the Israelites. And none of the prophets ever preached anything which the Scripture does not declare to have been received from God. But it is only on very rare occasions that we read in the New Testament of anything of this sort, when the apostles went preaching in different places; on the contrary, indeed, we find express intimation of their having themselves selected one place or another as the scene of their labours. Paul and Barnabas went so far as to quarrel about their helpers, and to part company, taking different fields of operation from those originally intended. "Barnabas determined to take with them John, surnamed Mark, but Paul thought not good to take him with them; … and the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one from another" (Acts xv. 37, 38, 39). They sometimes also attempted in vain to go where they desired, as the same Paul testifies in the 13th verse of the 1st chapter to the Romans, where he says, "Oftentimes I was purposed to come to you, but was let hitherto;" and in the last chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians he expresses himself thus, "As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren, but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time." From such expressions, from the discussion between the apostles referred to, and from the fact that Scripture never testifies to any command of God that they should go and preach in this place or in that, as it does in the case of the old prophets, I must conclude that the apostles preached and taught, not as prophets, but simply as teachers.
But we readily solve this question when we attend to the different vocations of the prophets and the apostles. The former were not commanded to preach and prophesy to all nations alike, but only to some in particular, and required an especial mandate to each. But the apostles were called to preach to every people without exception, and to convert all to the faith. Wherever they went, therefore, they fulfilled the general command of Christ, nor was there any necessity that what they were to preach should be revealed to them before proceeding on' their mission; even when brought before the judgment-seat on account of their teaching they were admonished to take no thought of how or what they were to speak, "for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak" (vide Matt. x. 19). Let us conclude, therefore, that the apostles received those things only by special revelation which they preached at once viva voce and confirmed by miracles (see what has been said in the beginning of Chapter II.); but that what they taught in writing or by word of mouth without sign or miracle as witness to their mission, was taught of their own natural knowledge (vide 1 Cor. xiv. 6); nor do we hesitate at all in this conclusion; for all the Epistles begin with a testimony to the apostolate of the writer, and, as I shall immediately show, to the apostles was given, not only the power to prophesy, but also the authority to teach. For this reason let us admit that as apostles they wrote their Epistles, and therefore presented the credentials of their apostolate to those whom they addressed; perhaps, too, that they might the more readily conciliate the reader's favour, and arouse his attention, they desired above all things to testify that they were the same men who had made themselves known to the faithful by their preaching, and had shown by many a wonderful sign that they taught true piety and the way of eternal life. For whatever I find in these Epistles concerning the calling of the apostles, and the holy and divine spirit which animated them, I see refers to their discourses; with the exception always of those places in which the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are taken as synonymous with a mind at ease, happy, and dedicated to God (on which topics see what has been said in Chapter I.); for example, where Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (vii. 40) says, "But she is happier after my judgment, if she so abide, and I think also that I have the Spirit of God;" here the context plainly shows that the apostle by Spirit of God means his own mental state; as if he had said, "The widow who wills not to marry a second time is happy according to my view, who live a bachelor, and esteem myself happy." There are other passages of the same kind which I think it superfluous to cite in this place.
Since, then, we conclude that the Epistles were written with the aid of natural light alone, we have still to inquire how the apostles were in a condition to teach of natural knowledge things that transcend it. But if attention be paid to what is advanced in Chapter VII. of this work, we shall find no difficulty in settling this point. For although the things contained in Scripture often greatly exceed our power of comprehension, we can still securely speak concerning them, provided we admit no other principles of interpretation besides those which are derived from Scripture itself; and it was in this very way that the apostles were wont, from the things which they saw, heard, and received by revelation, to arrive at conclusions, which at fitting times they communicated to the people. Then, although religion, as it was preached by the apostles, in simple narratives of the history of Christ, does not fall under the domain of reason proper, its sum and substance consisting mainly in moral precepts, like the whole of the doctrine of Christ, it may nevertheless be readily apprehended by the natural powers. And, again, the apostles did not require supernatural light so to accommodate to vulgar capacity the religion they had already confirmed by miracles as to make it willingly received by all; nor did they require anything of the kind to enable them each in the way he judged best to admonish mankind of their duties, which indeed was the end and aim of the Epistles.
And here it is further to be noted that the apostles received not only the power of preaching the history of Christ as prophets, i.e. of confirming their teaching by miracles, but also authority to inculcate what they taught in such ways as to each seemed best, in order to confirm their converts in piety and virtue. Both of these gifts are clearly indicated by Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy (i. 11), when he says, "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles;" and again, in the First Epistle to the same (i. 7), "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." These passages, I say, clearly indicate both kinds of authority: that of the apostle and that of the teacher; and in the Epistle to Philemon (verse 8th) we have a further assurance of the authority he has to admonish whosoever and whensoever he pleases, for he says, "Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet for love's sake," &c. Here it is to be remarked, that had Paul received the command of God to proceed as prophet, and as prophet to teach, then would he not have felt himself at liberty to change God's commandments into entreaties. Wherefore it is necessary to understand that when he speaks of the liberty of admonishing he speaks as a teacher and not as a prophet.
Still it does not follow with sufficient clearness that the apostles were at liberty to choose the mode of teaching which each of them thought the best, but merely that they were not prophets only, but also teachers in virtue of their office of apostles, — unless, indeed, we call in reason to our aid, and declare that he who has the authority to teach has also the authority of choosing the manner of teaching he prefers. But it will be more satisfactory to explain the whole subject from Scripture, from which indeed it clearly appears that each of the apostles chose his own way of teaching. Thus Paul in his Epistle to the Romans says (xv. 20), "Anxiously striving to preach not where the name of Christ was invoked, lest I should build on a another's foundation (alienum fundamentum)."[2] Had all the apostles, however, followed the same manner of preaching, and built up the Christian religion on the same foundation, Paul would have had no reason to speak of the foundations of another apostle as strange or foreign (alienum), inasmuch as they would have been the same as his own. But as he uses the word strange we must needs conclude that each of the apostles raised his religious superstructure on a different foundation; and that they in their capacity of doctors or teachers were affected in the same way as doctors or teachers in the world at large, each of whom has his own method of teaching, which he always prefers when instructing the uneducated, or those who have not begun to study the arts and sciences (not even the mathematics, of the truth of which no one doubts) under any one else. And then, in perusing the Epistles with some attention, we see that the apostles agree sufficiently as to the substance of their religion, but differ considerably as to the fundamentals. For Paul, to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to show them that salvation depends on the grace of God alone, taught that no one could be glorified because of his works, that no one could be justified by his good deeds, but only because of his faith, (Epist. to Rom. iii. 27, 28). Still more in the same direction is implied in the whole of St Paul's doctrine of election or predestination. But James, on the other hand, teaches that justification is of good works, and not of faith alone (Epist. gen. of James ii. 24); and, casting aside all those reasonings and disputations of Paul, he declares that the whole of religion consists in a few simple elements. And there can be no question but that from this diversity of foundation selected by each of the apostles for his religious edifice, endless disputes and schisms arose, whereby the Church, even in the time of the apostles, was sorely shaken, and by which it will continue to be torn to the end of time, till such time, at all events, as religion, separated from theological and philosophical speculations, is reduced to the few simple doctrinal truths which Christ taught to his disciples. Such a thing, however, was impossible to the apostles, because the gospel was still unknown to the world;[3] and so, lest the novelty of their doctrines should shock the ears of the multitude too much, they did what they could to accommodate their teaching to the genius of their age, and built upon the foundations then best known and most commonly admitted (vide 1 Cor. ix. 19, 20). We therefore see none of the apostles philosophizing to the same extent as Paul, whose vocation it was to preach to such nations as the Greeks and Romans, who were more or less familiar with philosophy; whilst the other apostles, who preached to the Jews, contemners of philosophy, accommodated themselves to their state and temper, and taught religion stripped of all philosophical speculation (vide Epist. to Gal. ii. 11), &c. How happy would our own age be, could we see religion freed from every kind of superstition!
Notes[edit]
- ↑ The translators of Scripture render the Greek word logidsomai by I conclude, and insist that Paul takes this word in the same sense as sullogidsomai. But logidsomai has the same meaning in Greek as the Hebrew word which signifies I opine, I think, I judge, a sense which is in perfect accord with the Syriac version. The Syriac version, in fact (if indeed it be a version, which is extremely doubtful, for we neither know the time when it appeared nor the translator, and because Syriac was the common language of all the Apostles), — the Syriac version, I say, translates this text of Paul by a word which Tremellius explains very satisfactorily by the phrase, We think then. The word rahgion, in fact, which is formed from the cognate verb, signifies opinion, thought; and as rahgava is used for the will, it follows that the word in question, mitrhaginam, cannot signify anything but we will, we think, we are of opinion.
- ↑ The version of Spinoza is followed here. The English version could only by a kind of force be made to furnish a text to our author's immediate remarks. — Ed.
- ↑ The earliest in point of time of the New Testament writings are some of the Epistles. The Gospels are long posterior in date to these — 60, perhaps 100, years, or more; the three first probably different versions of one original, the fourth derived from other sources, and the composition of a Platonist. — Ed.