CHRIST VERSUS THE APOSTLES
1. There is first, that, of which Richard Rothe is an example, which proceeds by attempting to establish a distinction between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of His apostles, and refusing the latter in favor of the former.
As we have already remarked, this distinction cannot be made good. Rothe’s attempt to establish it proceeds on the twofold ground, on the one hand, of an asserted absence from our Lord’s dealings with the Scriptures of those extreme facts of usage of it as the Word of God, and of those extreme statements concerning its divine character, on the ground of which in the apostles’ dealing with it we must recognize their high doctrine of Scripture; and on the other hand, of an asserted presence in Christ’s remarks concerning Scripture of hints that He did not share the conception of Scripture belonging to contemporary Judaism, which conception we know to have been the same high doctrine that was held by the apostles. He infers, therefore, that the apostles, in this matter, represent only the current Jewish thought in which they were bred, while Christ’s divine originality breaks away from this and commends to us a new and more liberal way.
But in order to make out the first member of the twofold ground on which he bases this conclusion, Rothe has to proceed by explaining away, by means of artificial exegetical expedients, a number of facts of usage and deliverances as to Scripture, in which our Lord’s dealings with Scripture culminate, and which are altogether similar in character and force to those on the basis of which he infers the apostles’ high doctrine. These are such passages as the quotation in Matt. xix. 4, 5, of Adam’s words as God’s Word, which Lechler appeals to as de- Cisive just as Rothe appeals to similar passages in the epistles —hbut which Rothe sets aside in a footnote simply with the remark that it is not decisive here; the assertion in John x. 35, that the “Scripture cannot be broken,” which he sets aside as probably not a statement of Christ’s own opinion but an argumentum ad hominem, and as in any case not available here, since it does not explicitly assert that the authority it ascribes to Scripture is due “ to its origination by inspiration ” — but which, as Dr. Robert Watts has shown anew,” is conclusive for
according to the language employed by Him, was His estimate of the Old Testament Scripture? It will be observed that He does not single out the passage on which He bases His argument, and testify of it that it is unbreakable, making its infallibility depend on His authority. Stated formally, His argument is as follows: Major — The Scripture cannot be broken. Minor —‘I said ye are God’s,’ is written in your law, which is Scripture. Conclusion —‘I said ye are our Saviour’s view of the entire infallibility of the whole Old Testament; the assertion in Matt. v. 18 (and in Luke xvi. 17) that not “ one jot or one tittle (tara é& # uta xepaia) shall pass away from the law till all be fulfilled,” which he sets aside with the remark that it is not the law-codex, but the law itself, that is here spoken of, forgetful of the fact that it is the law itself as written that the Lord has in mind, in which form alone, moreover, do “ yodhs and horns” belong to it; the assertion in Matt. xxii. 48, that it was “in the Spirit” that David called the Messiah, “ Lord,” in the one hundredth and tenth Psalm, which he sets aside with the remark that this does prove that Jesus looked upon David as a prophet, but not necessarily that he considered the one hundred and tenth Psalm inspired, as indeed he does not say ypader but cadet — forgetful again that it is to the written David alone that Christ makes His appeal and on the very language written in the Psalm that He founds His argument.
No less, in order to make out the second member of the ground on which he bases his conclusion, does Rothe need to press passages which have as their whole intent and effect to rebuke the scribes for failure to understand and properly to use Scripture, into indications of rejection on Christ’s part of the authority of the Scriptures to which both He and the scribes appealed. Lest it should be thought incredible that such a conclusion should be drawn from such premises, we transcribe Rothe’s whole statement.
“On the other hand, we conclude with great probability that the Redeemer did not share the conception of His Israelitish contemporaries as to the inspiration of their Bible, as stated above, from the fact that He repeatedly expresses his dissatisfaction with the manner usual among them of looking upon and using the sacred books. He tells the scribes to their face that they do not understand the
God’s’ cannot be broken.... He argues the infallibility of the clause on which He founds His argument from the infallibility of the record in which it occurs. According to His infallible estimate, it was sufficient proof of the infallibility of any sentence or phrase of a clause, to show that it constituted a portion of ©
what the Jews called ‘ the Scripture’ (7 ypa¢7).”
Scriptures (Matt. xxii. 29; Mark xii. 24), and that it is delusion for them to think to possess eternal life in them, therefore in a book (John v. 39), even as He also (in the same place) seems to speak disapprovingly of their searching of the Scriptures, because it proceeds from such a perverted point of view.” 2°
Thus Jesus’ appeal to the Scriptures as testifying to Him, and His rebuke to the Jews for not following them while professing to honor them, are made to do duty as a proof that He did not ascribe plenary authority to them.”’
Furthermore, Rothe’s whole treatment of the matter omits altogether to make account of the great decisive consideration of the general tone and manner of Christ’s allusions and appeal to the Scriptures, which only culminate in such passages as he has attempted to explain away, and which not only are inconsistent with any other than the same high view of their authority, trustworthiness and inspiration, as that which Rothe infers from similar phenomena to have been the conception of the apostles, but also are necessarily founded on it as its natural expression. The distinction attempted to be drawn between Christ’s doctrine of Holy Scripture and that of His apostles is certainly inconsistent with the facts.
But we are more concerned at present to point out that the attempt to draw this distinction must result in undermining utterly all confidence in the New Testament writers as teachers of doctrine. So far as the apostles are concerned, indeed, it would be more correct to say that it is the outgrowth and manifestation of an already present distrust of them as teachers of doctrine. Its very principle is appeal from apostolic teaching to that of Christ, on the ground that the former is not authoritative. How far this rejection of apostolic authority goes is evidenced by the mode of treatment vouchsafed to it. Immediately on drawing out the apostles’ doctrine of inspiration, Rothe asks, “ But now what dogmatic value has this fact? ”’
27 Compare Meyer, in loc. (EH. T., i. p. 262, note): “ Even Rothe... takes doxetre in the sense of a delusion, namely, that they possessed eternal life in a ‘book. Such explanations are opposed to the high veneration manifested by Jesus towards the Holy Scriptures, especially apparent in John....”
And on the ground that “ by their fruits ye shall know them,” he proceeds to declare that the apostles’ doctrine of Scripture led them into such a general use and mode of interpretation of Scripture as Rothe deems wholly unendurable.** It is not, then, merely the teaching of the apostles as to what the Scriptures are, but their teaching as to what those Scriptures teach, in which Rothe finds them untrustworthy. It would be impossible but that the canker should eat still more deeply.
Nor is it possible to prevent it from spreading to the undermining of the trustworthiness of even the Lord’s teaching itself, for the magnifying of which the distinction purports to be drawn. The artificial manner in which the testimony of the Lord to the authority of the Scriptures is explained away in the attempt to establish the distinction, might be pleaded indeed as an indication that trust in it was not very deeply rooted. And there are other indications that had the Lord been explained to be of the apostles’ mind as to Scripture, a way would have been found to free us from the duty of following His teaching.*® For even His exegesis is declared not to be authoritative, seeing that “ exegesis is essentially a scientific function, and conditioned on the existence of scientific means, which in relation to the Old Testament were completely at the command of Jesus as little as of His contemporaries”’; and the principle of partial limitation at least to the outlook of His day which is involved in such a statement is fully accepted by Rothe.*® All this may, however, be thought more or less per-
30 Even on an extreme Kenotic view, it is, however, not so certain that error should be attributed to the God-man. Prof. Gretillat, of Neuchatel, a Kenotist of the type of Gess and his own colleague Godet, is able to teach that “by reason of the relation which unites the intelligence with the will,” our Lord must needs be free not only from sin, but also from all error (Exposé de Theol. Syst., iv. 288). Tholuck occupied a position similar to Rothe’s; yet he reminds us that: ‘‘ Proofs might be brought to show that, even in questions pertaining to learned exegesis ”” — which are such as our Lord needed to learn as a man—‘“‘such as those concerning the historical connection of a passage, the author and age of a book, an original spiritual discernment without the culture of the schools may often divine the truth” (‘“ Citations of the Old Testament in the New,” tr. in Bibliotheca Sacra, xi. p. 615).
sonal to Rothe’s own mental attitude, whereas the ultimate undermining of our Lord’s authority as teacher of doctrine, as well as that of His apostles, is logically essential to the position assumed.
This may be made plain at once by the very obvious remark — that we have no Christ except the one whom the apostles have given to us. Jesus Himself left no treatises on doctrine. He left no written dialogues. We are dependent on the apostles for our whole knowledge of Him, and of what He taught. The portraiture of Jesus which has glorified the world’s literature as well as blessed all ages and races with the revelation of a Godman come down from heaven to save the world, is limned by his followers’ pencils alone. The record of that teaching which fell from His lips as living water, which if a man drink of he shall never thirst again, is a record by his followers’ pens alone. They have painted for us, of course, the Jesus that they knew,. and as they knew Him. They have recorded for us the teachings that they heard, and as they heard them. Whatever untrustworthiness attaches to them as deliverers of doctrine, must in some measure shake also our confidence in their report of what their Master was and taught.
But the logic cuts even deeper. For not only have we no Christ but Him whom we receive at the apostles’ hands, but this Christ is committed to the trustworthiness of the apostles as teachers. His credit is involved in their credit. He represents His words on earth as but the foundation of one great temple of doctrine, the edifice of which was to be built up by Him through their mouths, as they spoke moved by His Spirit; and thus He makes Himself an accomplice before the fact in all they taught. In proportion as they are discredited as doctrinal guides, in that proportion He is discredited with them. By the promise of the Spirit, He has forever bound His trustworthiness with indissoluble bands to the trustworthiness of His accredited agents in founding His Church, and especially by that great promise recorded for us in John xvi. 12-15: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of ~ mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.” Says Dr. C. W. Hodge: **
‘Tt is impossible to conceive how the authority of the Master could be conveyed to the teaching of the disciples more emphatically than is here done by Christ. He identifies His teaching and the teaching of the Spirit as parts of one whole; His teaching is carrying out My teaching, it is calling to remembrance what I have told you;
it is completing what I have begun. And to make the unity emphatic, He explains why He had reserved so much of His own teaching, and ’ committed the work of revelation to the Spirit. He, in His incarnation and life, comprised all saving truth. He was the revealer of God and the truth and the life. But while some things He had taught while yet with them, He had many things to say which must be postponed because they could not yet bear them.... If Christ has referred us to the apostles as teachers of the truths which He would have us know, certainly this primary truth of the authority of the Scriptures themselves can be no exception. All questions as to the extent of this inspiration, as to its exclusive authority, as to whether it extends to words as well as doctrines, as to whether it is infallible or inerrant, or not, are simply questions to be referred to the Word itself.”
In such circumstances the attempt to discriminate against the teaching of the apostles in favor of that of Christ, is to contradict the express teaching of Christ Himself, and thus to undermine our confidence in it. We cannot both believe Him and not believe Him. The ery, “ Back to Christ! ” away from all the imaginations of men’s hearts and the cobweb theories which they have spun, must be ever the ery of every Christian heart. But the ery, “ Back to Christ! ” away from the teachings of His apostles, whose teachings He Himself represents as His
81 Sermon on “ The Promise of the Spirit,” in the volume: “ Princeton Sermons.” By the Faculty of the Seminary. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1893. P. 33. The whole of this noble sermon should be read.
own, only delivered by His Spirit through their mouths, is an invitation to desert Christ Himself. It is an invitation to draw back from the Christ of the Bible to some Christ of our own fancy, from the only real to some imaginary Christ. It is to undermine the credit of the whole historical revelation in and through the Christ of God, and to cast us for the ascertainment and authentication of truth on the native powers of our own minds.