The Apostles’ Letters: Apostles and Prophets or Merely Teachers? Defining an Apostle

No reader of the New Testament can doubt that the Apostles were prophets; but as a prophet does not always speak by revelation, but only at rare intervals, as we showed at the end of Chap. I., we may fairly inquire whether the Apostles wrote their Epistles as prophets, by revelation and express mandate, as Moses, Jeremiah, and others did, or whether only as private individuals or teachers, especially as Paul, in Corinthians xiv:6, mentions two sorts of preaching.

No reader of the New Testament can doubt that the Apostles were prophets. But prophets do not always speak through revelation, only on rare occasions. We showed this at the end of Chapter I. So we may reasonably ask whether the Apostles wrote their Epistles as prophets, through revelation and by an explicit command. Moses, Jeremiah, and others wrote in this way. Or did the Apostles write only as private individuals or teachers? This question is especially relevant because Paul, in Corinthians xiv:6, mentions two kinds of preaching.

If we examine the style of the Epistles, we shall find it totally different from that employed by the prophets.

If we examine the style of the Epistles, we will find it completely different from the prophets’ style.

The prophets are continually asserting that they speak by the command of God: "Thus saith the Lord," "The Lord of hosts saith," "The command of the Lord," &c.; and this was their habit not only in assemblies of the prophets, but also in their epistles containing revelations, as appears from the epistle of Elijah to Jehoram, 2 Chron. xxi:12, which begins, "Thus saith the Lord."

The prophets continually declare that they speak at God's command: "Thus says the Lord," "The Lord of hosts says," "The Lord's command," and so on. This was their habit not only in gatherings of prophets, but also in letters containing revelations. Elijah's letter to Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:12 shows this practice. The letter begins, "Thus says the Lord."

In the Apostolic Epistles we find nothing of the sort. Contrariwise, in I Cor. vii:40 Paul speaks according to his own opinion and in many passages we come across doubtful and perplexed phrase; such as, "We think, therefore," Rom. iii:28; "Now I think,"²⁴, Rom. viii:18, and so on. Besides these, other expressions are met with very different from those used by the prophets. For instance, 1 Cor. vii:6, "But I speak this by permission, not by commandment;" "I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (1 Cor. vii:25), and so on in many other passages. We must also remark that in the aforesaid chapter the Apostle says that when he states that he has or has not the precept or commandment of God, he does not mean the precept or commandment of God revealed to himself, but only the words uttered by Christ in His Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore, if we examine the manner in which the Apostles give out evangelical doctrine, we shall see that it differs materially from the method adopted by the prophets. The Apostles everywhere reason as if they were arguing rather than prophesying; the prophecies, on the other hand, contain only dogmas and commands. God is therein introduced not as speaking to reason, but as issuing decrees by His absolute fiat. The authority of the prophets does not submit to discussion, for whosoever wishes to find rational ground for his arguments, by that very wish submits them to everyone's private judgment. This Paul, inasmuch as he uses reason, appears to have done, for he says in 1 Cor. x:15, "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say." The prophets, as we showed at the end of Chapter I., did not perceive what was revealed by virtue of their natural reason, and though there are certain passages in the Pentateuch which seem to be appeals to induction, they turn out, on nearer examination, to be nothing but peremptory commands. For instance, when Moses says, Deut. xxxi:27, "Behold, while I am yet alive with you, this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death," we must by no means conclude that Moses wished to convince the Israelites by reason that they would necessarily fall away from the worship of the Lord after his death; for the argument would have been false, as Scripture itself shows: the Israelites continued faithful during the lives of Joshua and the elders, and afterwards during the time of Samuel, David, and Solomon. Therefore the words of Moses are merely a moral injunction, in which he predicts rhetorically the future backsliding of the people so as to impress it vividly on their imagination. I say that Moses spoke of himself in order to lend likelihood to his prediction, and not as a prophet by revelation, because in verse 21 of the same chapter we are told that God revealed the same thing to Moses in different words, and there was no need to make Moses certain by argument of God's prediction and decree; it was only necessary that it should be vividly impressed on his imagination, and this could not be better accomplished than by imagining the existing contumacy of the people, of which he had had frequent experience, as likely to extend into the future.

In the Apostolic Epistles we find nothing of this kind. On the contrary, in 1 Cor. 7:40 Paul speaks according to his own opinion. In many passages, we find uncertain and hesitant language, such as "We think, therefore," Rom. 3:28, and "Now I think,"²⁴, Rom. 8:18, and so on. We also find other expressions very different from those used by the prophets. For example, 1 Cor. 7:6 says, "But I say this with permission, not as a command." Paul also says, "I give my judgment as someone whom the Lord, in his mercy, has made trustworthy" (1 Cor. 7:25). There are many other such passages. We must also note what the Apostle means in that chapter by having or not having God's command. He does not mean a command God revealed to him personally. He means only the words Christ spoke in his Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore, if we examine how the Apostles present the Gospel's teaching, we will see a substantial difference from the prophets' method. The Apostles everywhere reason as if they were arguing rather than prophesying. The prophecies, by contrast, contain only doctrines and commands. God is presented not as appealing to reason, but as issuing decrees by his absolute will. The prophets' authority is not open to debate. For anyone who seeks a rational basis for an argument thereby submits that argument to everyone's individual judgment. By using reason, Paul appears to have done just this. He says in 1 Cor. 10:15, "I speak to you as wise people. Judge for yourselves what I say." As we showed at the end of Chapter I, the prophets did not understand their revelations through natural reason. Some passages in the Pentateuch seem to appeal to reasoning from experience. Yet closer examination shows that these passages are nothing but commands that allow no question. For example, Moses says in Deut. 31:27, "Look, even today, while I am still alive among you, you have rebelled against the Lord. How much more will you rebel after my death?" We must by no means conclude that Moses intended to convince the Israelites through reason. He was not arguing that they would necessarily abandon the Lord's worship after his death. Such an argument would have been false, as Scripture itself shows. The Israelites remained faithful throughout the lives of Joshua and the elders. They also remained faithful later, during the time of Samuel, David, and Solomon. Moses' words are therefore simply a moral warning. He rhetorically predicts the people's future backsliding to impress it vividly on their imagination. I say that Moses spoke on his own authority to make his prediction seem likely, not as a prophet through revelation. My reason is that verse 21 of the same chapter tells us God revealed the same thing to Moses in different words. There was no need to convince Moses through argument that God's prediction and decree were certain. The prediction only needed to be impressed vividly on his imagination. Nothing could do this better than imagining the people's present defiance continuing into the future. Moses had frequently experienced that defiance himself.

All the arguments employed by Moses in the five books are to be understood in a similar manner; they are not drawn from the armoury of reason, but are merely modes of expression calculated to instil with efficacy, and present vividly to the imagination the commands of God. However, I do not wish absolutely to deny that the prophets ever argued from revelation; I only maintain that the prophets made more legitimate use of argument in proportion as their knowledge approached more nearly to ordinary knowledge, and by this we know that they possessed a knowledge above the ordinary, inasmuch as they proclaimed absolute dogmas, decrees, or judgments. Thus Moses, the chief of the prophets, never used legitimate argument, and, on the other hand, the long deductions and arguments of Paul, such as we find in the Epistle to the Romans, are in nowise written from supernatural revelation.

All the arguments Moses used in the five books should be understood in the same way. They are not based on reason. They are merely ways of speaking designed to impress God’s commands effectively and vividly on the imagination. However, I do not wish to deny altogether that the prophets ever argued on the basis of revelation. I maintain only that the closer their knowledge came to ordinary knowledge, the more soundly the prophets used argument. And we know that their knowledge went beyond ordinary knowledge because they proclaimed absolute doctrines, decrees, or judgments. Thus Moses, the chief of the prophets, never used sound reasoning. On the other hand, Paul’s lengthy deductions and arguments, such as those in the Epistle to the Romans, were in no way written from supernatural revelation.

The modes of expression and discourse adopted by the Apostles in the Epistles, show very clearly that the latter were not written by revelation and Divine command, but merely by the natural powers and judgment of the authors. They consist in brotherly admonitions and courteous expressions such as would never be employed in prophecy, as for instance, Paul's excuse in Romans xv:15, "I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, my brethren."

The Apostles’ language and style in the Epistles clearly show that these letters were not written through revelation or divine command. Instead, the letters came only from the authors’ natural abilities and judgment. They contain brotherly advice and polite expressions that would never be used in prophecy. One example is Paul's apology in Romans xv:15: "I have written to you rather boldly in some respects, my brothers."

We may arrive at the same conclusion from observing that we never read that the Apostles were commanded to write, but only that they went everywhere preaching, and confirmed their words with signs. Their personal presence and signs were absolutely necessary for the conversion and establishment in religion of the Gentiles; as Paul himself expressly states in Rom. i:11, "But I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end that ye may be established."

We may reach the same conclusion by noting that we never read that the Apostles were commanded to write. We read only that the Apostles went everywhere preaching and confirmed their words with signs. Their personal presence and signs were absolutely necessary to convert the Gentiles and establish them in the faith. Paul himself explicitly states this in Rom. 1:11: "But I long to see you so that I may give you some spiritual gift to strengthen your faith."

It may be objected that we might prove in similar fashion that the Apostles did not preach as prophets, for they did not go to particular places, as the prophets did, by the command of God. We read in the Old Testament that Jonah went to Nineveh to preach, and at the same time that he was expressly sent there, and told that he most preach. So also it is related, at great length, of Moses that he went to Egypt as the messenger of God, and was told at the same time what he should say to the children of Israel and to king Pharaoh, and what wonders he should work before them to give credit to his words. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were expressly commanded to preach to the Israelites. Lastly, the prophets only preached what we are assured by Scripture they had received from God, whereas this is hardly ever said of the Apostles in the New Testament, when they went about to preach. On the contrary, we find passages expressly implying that the Apostles chose the places where they should preach on their own responsibility, for there was a difference amounting to a quarrel between Paul and Barnabas on the subject (Acts xv:37, 38). Often they wished to go to a place, but were prevented, as Paul writes, Rom. i:13, "Oftentimes I purposed to come to you, but was let hitherto;" and in I Cor. xvi:12, "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."

Someone may object that the same reasoning could prove that the Apostles did not preach as prophets. Unlike the prophets, the Apostles did not go to particular places at God’s command. In the Old Testament, we read that Jonah went to Nineveh to preach. We also read that God specifically sent Jonah there and told him to preach. Similarly, we are told at great length that Moses went to Egypt as God’s messenger. God also told Moses what to say to the children of Israel and to king Pharaoh. God told him what wonders to perform before them so that they would believe his words. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were specifically commanded to preach to the Israelites. Finally, the prophets preached only what Scripture assures us they had received from God. But the New Testament hardly ever says this about the Apostles when they went out to preach. On the contrary, some passages clearly imply that the Apostles chose where to preach on their own authority. Paul and Barnabas disagreed over the matter so strongly that they quarreled (Acts 15:37, 38). Often the Apostles wanted to go somewhere but were prevented from going. As Paul writes in Romans 1:13, "I often planned to come to you, but so far I have been prevented." And in 1 Corinthians 16:12, he writes, "As for our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the brothers. But he was not at all willing to come at this time. He will come when he has the opportunity."

From these expressions and differences of opinion among the Apostles, and also from the fact that Scripture nowhere testifies of them, as of the ancient prophets, that they went by the command of God, one might conclude that they preached as well as wrote in their capacity of teachers, and not as prophets: but the question is easily solved if we observe the difference between the mission of an Apostle and that of an Old Testament prophet. The latter were not called to preach and prophesy to all nations, but to certain specified ones, and therefore an express and peculiar mandate was required for each of them; the Apostles, on the other hand, were called to preach to all men absolutely, and to turn all men to religion. Therefore, whithersoever they went, they were fulfilling Christ's commandment; there was no need to reveal to them beforehand what they should preach, for they were the disciples of Christ to whom their Master Himself said (Matt. X:19, 20): "But, when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak." We therefore conclude that the Apostles were only indebted to special revelation in what they orally preached and confirmed by signs (see the beginning of Chap. 11.); that which they taught in speaking or writing without any confirmatory signs and wonders they taught from their natural knowledge. (See I Cor. xiv:6.) We need not be deterred by the fact that all the Epistles begin by citing the imprimatur of the Apostleship, for the Apostles, as I will shortly show, were granted, not only the faculty of prophecy, but also the authority to teach. We may therefore admit that they wrote their Epistles as Apostles, and for this cause every one of them began by citing the Apostolic imprimatur, possibly with a view to the attention of the reader by asserting that they were the persons who had made such mark among the faithful by their preaching, and had shown by many marvelous works that they were teaching true religion and the way of salvation. I observe that what is said in the Epistles with regard to the Apostolic vocation and the Holy Spirit of God which inspired them, has reference to their former preaching, except in those passages where the expressions of the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are used to signify a mind pure, upright, and devoted to God. For instance, in 1 Cor. vii:40, Paul says: But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment, and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." By the Spirit of God the Apostle here refers to his mind, as we may see from the context: his meaning is as follows: "I account blessed a widow who does not wish to marry a second husband; such is my opinion, for I have settled to live unmarried, and I think that I am blessed." There are other similar passages which I need not now quote.

These statements and disagreements among the Apostles might lead us to a conclusion about their preaching and writing. Scripture never says that they went out at God’s command, as it does of the ancient prophets. So we might conclude that the Apostles preached and wrote as teachers, not as prophets. But the question is easily resolved by distinguishing an Apostle’s mission from that of an Old Testament prophet. Those prophets were not called to preach and prophesy to all nations, but only to certain specified nations. Each prophet therefore needed an explicit, individual command. The Apostles, however, were called to preach to all people without exception and to turn everyone to religion. So wherever they went, they were carrying out Christ’s command. There was no need to reveal beforehand what they should preach. They were Christ’s disciples, and their Master himself told them (Matt. X:19, 20): "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to speak or what to say. What you should say will be given to you at that very hour." We therefore conclude that the Apostles depended on special revelation only for their oral preaching confirmed by signs. (See the beginning of Chap. 11.) Whatever they taught in speech or writing without confirming signs and wonders came from their natural knowledge. (See I Cor. xiv:6.) We need not be troubled that all the Epistles begin by invoking the authority of the Apostleship. As I will shortly show, the Apostles received both the gift of prophecy and the authority to teach. We may therefore accept that they wrote their Epistles as Apostles. For this reason, each began by invoking Apostolic authority, possibly to gain the reader’s attention. They asserted that their preaching had made a great impression among the faithful. They had also shown through many marvelous works that they taught true religion and the way of salvation. I note that the Epistles speak of the Apostles’ calling and the Holy Spirit of God that inspired them. These statements refer to their earlier preaching. The exceptions are passages where “Spirit of God” and “Holy Spirit” mean a pure, upright mind devoted to God. For example, Paul says in 1 Cor. vii:40: "But she is happier if she remains as she is, in my judgment. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." Here, by the Spirit of God, the Apostle means his own mind, as the context shows. His meaning is: "I consider a widow blessed if she does not wish to marry a second husband. That is my opinion, for I have decided to remain unmarried, and I think that I am blessed." There are other similar passages that I need not quote here.

As we have seen that the Apostles wrote their Epistles solely by the light of natural reason, we must inquire how they were enabled to teach by natural knowledge matters outside its scope. However, if we bear in mind what we said in Chap. VII. of this treatise our difficulty will vanish: for although the contents of the Bible entirely surpass our understanding, we may safely discourse of them, provided we assume nothing not told us in Scripture: by the same method the Apostles, from what they saw and heard, and from what was revealed to them, were enabled to form and elicit many conclusions which they would have been able to teach to men had it been permissible.

As we have seen, the Apostles wrote their Epistles guided solely by natural reason. We must therefore ask how natural knowledge enabled them to teach matters beyond its scope. However, if we remember what we said in Chapter VII of this treatise, the difficulty disappears. Although the Bible’s contents are entirely beyond our understanding, we may safely discuss them. But we must assume nothing that Scripture does not tell us. The Apostles used the same method to draw many conclusions from what they saw, heard, and had revealed to them. They would have been able to teach these conclusions to others if doing so had been permitted.

Further, although religion, as preached by the Apostles, does not come within the sphere of reason, in so far as it consists in the narration of the life of Christ, yet its essence, which is chiefly moral, like the whole of Christ's doctrine, can readily be apprehended by the natural faculties of all.

Further, religion as preached by the Apostles falls outside reason insofar as it recounts the life of Christ. Yet its core is mainly moral, like the whole of Christ's teaching. Everyone can readily grasp this core through their natural abilities.

Lastly, the Apostles had no lack of supernatural illumination for the purpose of adapting the religion they had attested by signs to the understanding of everyone so that it might be readily received; nor for exhortations on the subject: in fact, the object of the Epistles is to teach and exhort men to lead that manner of life which each of the Apostles judged best for confirming them in religion. We may here repeat our former remark, that the Apostles had received not only the faculty of preaching the history, of Christ as prophets, and confirming it with signs, but also authority for teaching and exhorting according as each thought best. Paul (2 Tim. i:11), "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles;" and again (I Tim. ii: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, show clearly the stamp both of the apostleship and the teachership: the authority for admonishing whomsoever and wheresoever he pleased is asserted by Paul in the Epistle to Philemon, v:8: "Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet," &c., where we may remark that if Paul had received from God as a prophet what he wished to enjoin Philemon, and had been bound to speak in his prophetic capacity, he would not have been able to change the command of God into entreaties. We must therefore understand him to refer to the permission to admonish which he had received as a teacher, and not as a prophet. We have not yet made it quite clear that the Apostles might each choose his own way of teaching, but only that by virtue of their Apostleship they were teachers as well as prophets; however, if we call reason to our aid we shall clearly see that an authority to teach implies authority to choose the method. It will nevertheless be, perhaps, more satisfactory to draw all our proofs from Scripture; we are there plainly told that each Apostle chose his particular method (Rom. xv: 20): "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." If all the Apostles had adopted the same method of teaching, and had all built up the Christian religion on the same foundation, Paul would have had no reason to call the work of a fellow-Apostle "another man's foundation," inasmuch as it would have been identical with his own: his calling it another man's proved that each Apostle built up his religious instruction on different foundations, thus resembling other teachers who have each their own method, and prefer instructing quite ignorant people who have never learnt under another master, whether the subject be science, languages, or even the indisputable truths of mathematics. Furthermore, if we go through the Epistles at all attentively, we shall see that the Apostles, while agreeing about religion itself, are at variance as to the foundations it rests on. Paul, in order to strengthen men's religion, and show them that salvation depends solely on the grace of God, teaches that no one can boast of works, but only of faith, and that no one can be justified by works (Rom. iii:27,28); in fact, he preaches the complete doctrine of predestination. James, on the other hand, states that man is justified by works, and not by faith only (see his Epistle, ii:24), and omitting all the disputations of Paul, confines religion to a very few elements.

Finally, the Apostles had all the supernatural insight they needed to make their religion understandable and readily acceptable to everyone. They had already supported that religion with miraculous signs. They also had the insight needed to urge people to follow it. Indeed, the Epistles aim to teach and encourage people to live as each Apostle thought best for strengthening their religious commitment. Here we may repeat an earlier point. The Apostles had received the ability, as prophets, to preach the history of Christ and confirm it with signs. They had also received authority to teach and encourage people as each thought best. Paul says (2 Tim. 1:11), "For this I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." Again, he says (1 Tim. 2:7), "For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle. I speak the truth in Christ and do not lie. I am a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." These passages, I say, clearly show the distinct roles of apostle and teacher. Paul asserts his authority to give guidance to anyone, anywhere, in his Epistle to Philemon, verse 8: "Therefore, although in Christ I could boldly command you to do what is right, yet," and so on. Here we may note a distinction. Suppose Paul had received from God, as a prophet, the command he wished to give Philemon. If Paul had also been required to speak as a prophet, he could not have turned God's command into requests. We must therefore understand Paul as referring to his authority to give guidance as a teacher, not as a prophet. We have not yet fully established that each Apostle could choose his own way of teaching. We have established only that their position as Apostles made them teachers as well as prophets. But reason clearly shows us that authority to teach includes authority to choose a method. Still, perhaps it will be more satisfactory to draw all our proofs from Scripture. Scripture plainly tells us that each Apostle chose his own method (Rom. 15:20): "Indeed, I have made it my aim to preach the gospel where Christ was not known. Otherwise, I would be building on another man's foundation." Suppose all the Apostles had adopted the same teaching method and built the Christian religion on the same foundation. Paul would then have had no reason to call a fellow Apostle's work "another man's foundation." That foundation would have been identical to his own. By calling it another man's foundation, Paul proved that each Apostle based his religious teaching on different foundations. In this respect, the Apostles resembled other teachers, each with his own method. Such teachers prefer teaching complete beginners who have never studied under another teacher. This preference holds whether the subject is science, languages, or even the indisputable truths of mathematics. Furthermore, if we read the Epistles at all carefully, we shall see that the Apostles agree about religion itself. Yet they disagree about the foundations of religion. Paul seeks to strengthen people's religious commitment and show that salvation depends solely on God's grace. For this purpose, he teaches that no one can boast of works, but only of faith. He also teaches that no one can be justified by works (Rom. 3:27,28). In fact, he teaches the full doctrine of predestination. James, on the other hand, states that a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24). Leaving out all Paul's arguments, James limits religion to a very few elements.

Lastly, it is indisputable that from these different grounds for religion selected by the Apostles, many quarrels and schisms distracted the Church, even in the earliest times, and doubtless they will continue so to distract it for ever, or at least till religion is separated from philosophical speculations, and reduced to the few simple doctrines taught by Christ to His disciples; such a task was impossible for the Apostles, because the Gospel was then unknown to mankind, and lest its novelty should offend men's ears it had to be adapted to the disposition of contemporaries (2 Cor. ix:19, 20), and built up on the groundwork most familiar and accepted at the time. Thus none of the Apostles philosophized more than did Paul, who was called to preach to the Gentiles; other Apostles preaching to the Jews, who despised philosophy, similarly, adapted themselves to the temper of their hearers (see Gal. ii. 11), and preached a religion free from all philosophical speculations. How blest would our age be if it could witness a religion freed also from all the trammels of superstition!

Finally, the Apostles based religion on different foundations. These differences unquestionably caused many quarrels and divisions that troubled the Church, even in its earliest days. These conflicts will doubtless trouble the Church forever, or at least until religion is separated from philosophical speculation. Religion must be reduced to the few simple teachings Christ gave his disciples. The Apostles could not do this, because the Gospel was then unknown to humanity. To avoid offending people with its novelty, the Gospel had to be adapted to the outlook of their contemporaries (2 Cor. ix:19, 20). It also had to be built on the foundations most familiar and widely accepted at the time. Thus, none of the Apostles engaged in more philosophy than Paul, who was called to preach to the Gentiles. Other Apostles preached to the Jews, who despised philosophy. These Apostles likewise adapted themselves to their listeners' outlook (see Gal. ii. 11), preaching a religion free from all philosophical speculation. How blessed our age would be if it could witness a religion freed also from all the constraints of superstition!