Volume III Part 21 (1/2)
”And G.o.d set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that powers [------], after that gifts of healings [------], helpings [------], governings [------], kinds of tongues [------]. 29. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all powers [------]? 30. have all gifts of healings [------]? do all speak with tongues [------]? do all interpret [------]?”
Before we commence an examination of this interesting and important pa.s.sage, it is essential that we should endeavour to disabuse our minds of preconceived ideas. Commentators are too p.r.o.ne to apply to the Apostle's remarks a system of interpretation based upon statements made by later and less informed writers, and warped by belief in the reality of a miraculous element pervading all apostolic times, which have been derived mainly from post-apostolic narratives. What do we really know of the phenomena supposed to have characterized the Apostolic age, and which were later, and are now, described as miraculous? With the exception of what we glean from the writings of Paul, we know absolutely nothing from any contemporary writer and eye-witness. In the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, we have detailed accounts of many miracles said
{346}
to have been performed by the Apostles and others; but these narratives were all written at a much later period, and by persons who are unknown, and most of whom are not even affirmed to have been eye-witnesses.(1) In the Acts of the Apostles, we have an account of some of the very Charismata referred to by Paul in the pa.s.sage above quoted, and we shall thus have the advantage of presently comparing the two accounts. We must, however, altogether resist any attempt to insert between the lines of the apostle's writing ideas and explanations derived from the Author of the Acts and from patristic literature, and endeavour to understand what it is he himself says and intends to say. It must not be supposed that we in the slightest degree question the fact that the Apostle Paul believed in the reality of supernatural intervention in mundane affairs, or that he a.s.serted the actual occurrence of certain miracles. Our desire is as far as possible to ascertain what Paul himself has to say upon specific phenomena, now generally explained as miraculous, and thus, descending from vague generalities to more distinct statements, to ascertain the value of his opinion regarding the character of such phenomena. It cannot fail to be instructive to determine something of the nature of Charismata from an eye-witness who believed them to have been supernatural. His account, as we have seen, is the most precious evidence of the Church to the reality of the miraculous.
The first point which must be observed in connection with the Charismata referred to by Paul in the pa.s.sage before us is that, whilst there are diversities amongst them, all the phenomena described are ascribed to
1 It is suggestive that the curious pa.s.sage Mk. xvi. 17--18 is not even by the author of the second Gospel, but a later addition.
{347}
”one and the same Spirit dividing to each severally as he wills;” and, consequently, that, although there may be differences in their form and value, a supernatural origin is equally a.s.signed to all the ”gifts”
enumerated. What then are these Charismata? ”A word of wisdom,” ”a word of knowledge,” and ”faith” are the first three mentioned. What the precise difference was, in Paul's meaning, between the utterance of wisdom [------] and of knowledge [------] it is impossible now with certainty to say, nor is it very essential for us to inquire. The two words are combined in Rom. xi. 33: ”O the depths of the riches and wisdom [------] and knowledge [------] of G.o.d!” and in this very epistle some varying use is made of both words. Paul tells the Corinthians (1, i. 17) that Christ did not send him ”in wisdom of word ”[------] or utterance: and (ii. 1) ”not with excellency of word or wisdom” [------], cf. ii. 4); and further on he says (i. 30) that Christ Jesus ”was made unto us wisdom [------] from G.o.d.” The most suggestive expressions,(1) however, are the following, we think: 1 Cor. ii. 6. ”But we speak wisdom [------] among the perfect, yet not the wisdom [------] of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, that come to nought, 7. but we speak G.o.d's wisdom [------] in mystery, the hidden wisdom, which G.o.d ordained before the ages unto our glory, 8. which none of the rulers of this age has known, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. 9. But as it is written, 'What eye saw not/ &c. &c. 10. But unto us G.o.d revealed them through the Spirit....... 11....
{348}
even so also the things of G.o.d knoweth no one but the Spirit of G.o.d. 12.
But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from G.o.d, that we might know the things that are freely given us by G.o.d; 13. which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to the spiritual”(1) [------]. It is quite clear from all the antecedent context that Paul's preaching was specially the Messiah crucified, ”Christ the power of G.o.d and the wisdom [------] of G.o.d,” and we may conclude reasonably that the [------] of our pa.s.sage was simply the eloquent utterance of this doctrine. In like manner, we may get some insight into the meaning which Paul attached to the word ”knowledge”
[------]. It will be remembered that at the very opening of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Paul expresses his thankfulness that in everything they were enriched in Christ Jesus: i. 5. ”in all utterance [------] and in all knowledge [------], 6. even as the testimony of the Christ was confirmed in you;” that is to say, according to commentators, by these very Charismata. Later, speaking of ”tongues,” he says (1 Cor. xiv. 6): ”... What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either in revelation or in knowledge [------], or in prophecy, or in teaching?” We obtain a clearer insight into his meaning in the second Epistle, in the pa.s.sage 2 Cor. ii. 14-16, and still more in iv. 3-6 and x. 5, where he describes metaphorically his weapons as not carnal, but strong through G.o.d, ”casting down reasonings and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of G.o.d, and bringing into
{349}
_captivity_ every thought to the obedience of the Christ;” and if we ventured to offer an opinion, it would be that Paul means by [------] simply Christian theology. We merely offer this as a pa.s.sing suggestion.
Little need be said with regard to the gift of ”faith” (marts), which is perfectly intelligible.
Apologists argue that by these three gifts” some supernatural form of wisdom, knowledge, and faith is expressed, and we shall have something more to say on the point presently; but here we merely point out that there is no ground whatever for such an a.s.sertion except the fact that the Apostle ascribes to them a supernatural origin, or, in fact, believes in the inspiration of such qualities. All that can be maintained is that Paul accounts for the possession of characteristics which we now know to be natural, by a.s.serting that they are the direct gift of the Holy Spirit. There is not the faintest evidence to show that these natural capabilities did not antecedently exist in the Corinthians, and were not merely stimulated into action in Christian channels by the religious enthusiasm and zeal accompanying their conversion; but, on the contrary, every reason to believe this to be the case, as we shall further see.(1) In fact, according to the Apostolic Church, every quality was a supernatural gift, and all ability or excellence in practical life directly emanated from the action of the Holy Spirit. We may now proceed to ”gifts of healings” [------](2) which it will be noted are doubly in the plural,
{350}
indicating, as is supposed, a variety of special gifts, each having reference probably to special diseases. What is there to show that there was anything more miraculous in ”gifts of healings” than in the possession of an utterance of wisdom, an utterance of knowledge, or faith? Nothing whatever. On the contrary, everything, from the unvarying experience of the world, to the inferences which we shall be able to draw from the whole of this information regarding the Charismata, shows that there was no miraculous power of healing either possessed or exercised. Reference is frequently made to the pa.s.sage in the so-called Epistle of James as an ill.u.s.tration of this, v. 14: ”Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, having anointed him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15. And the prayer of faith shall save the afflicted, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.” The context, however, not only shows that in this there is no allusion to any gift of healing or miraculous power, but seems to ignore the existence of any such gift. The epistle continues: v. 16. ”Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray for one another that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much when it is working.” And then the successful instance of the prayer of Elijah that it might not rain and again that it might rain is given. The pa.s.sage is merely an a.s.sertion of the efficacy of prayer, and if, as is not unfrequently done, it be argued that the gifts of healings were probably applied by means of earnest prayer for the sick, it may be said that this is the only ”gift” which is supposed to have descended to our times. It does not require much argument, however, to show that the reality of a miraculous gift cannot be demonstrated
{351}
by appealing to the objective efficacy of prayer. We may, in pa.s.sing, refer apologists who hold the authenticity of the Epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy to indications which do not quite confirm the supposition that a power of miraculous healing actually existed in the apostolic Church. In the Epistle to the Philippians, ii. 25 ff., Paul is represented as sending Epaphroditus to them (v. 26) ”Since he was longing after you all and was distressed because ye heard that he was sick. 27. For, indeed, he was sick nigh unto death; but G.o.d had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow. I sent him, therefore, the more anxiously, that, when ye see him, ye may rejoice again, and that I may be the less sorrowful.”
The anxiety felt by the Philippians, and the whole language of the writer, in this pa.s.sage, are rather inconsistent with the knowledge that miraculous power of healing was possessed by the Church, and of course by Paul, which would naturally have been exerted for one in whom so many were keenly interested. Then, in 2 Tim. iv. 20, the writer says: ”Trophimus I left at Miletus sick.” If miraculous powers of healing existed, why were they not exerted in this case? If they were exerted and failed for special reasons, why are these not mentioned? It is unfortunate that there is so little evidence of the application of these gifts. On the other hand, we may suggest that medical art scarcely existed at that period in such communities, and that the remedies practised admirably lent themselves to the theory of ”gifts” of healings, rather than to any recognition of the fact that the accurate diagnosis of disease and successful treatment of it can only be the result of special study and experience. The next gift mentioned is (v.
10) ”workings of powers”
{352}
[------] very unwarrantably rendered in our ”authorized” version ”the working of miracles.” We have already said enough regarding Paul's use of [------]. The phrase before us would be even better rendered in-or inward-workings of powers(1) and the use made of [------] by Paul throughout his epistles would confirm this. It may be pointed out that as the gifts just referred to are for ”healings” it is difficult to imagine any cla.s.s of ”miracles” which could well be cla.s.sed under a separate head as the special ”working of miracles” contemplated by apologists. Infinitely the greater number of miracles related in the Gospels and Acts are ”healings” of disease. Is it possible to suppose that Paul really indicated by this expression a distinct order of ”miracles” properly so called? Certainly not Neither the words themselves used by Paul, properly understood, nor the context permit us to suppose that he referred to the working of miracles at all. We have no intention of conjecturing what these ”powers” were supposed to be; it is sufficient that we show they cannot rightly be exaggerated into an a.s.sertion of the power of working miracles. It is much more probable that, in the expression, no external working by the gifted person is implied at all, and that the gift referred to ”in-workings of powers”
within his own mind, producing the ecstatic state, with its usual manifestations, or those visions and supposed revelations to which Paul himself was subject. Demonaics, or persons supposed to be possessed of evil spirits, were called [------] and it is easy to conceive how anyone under strong religious
{353}
impressions, at that epoch of most intense religious emotion, might, when convulsed by nervous or mental excitement, be supposed the subject of inward workings of powers supernaturally imparted. Every period of religious zeal has been marked by such phenomena.(1) These conclusions are further corroborated by the next gifts enumerated. The first of these is ”prophecy” [------], by which is not intended the mere foretelling of events, but speaking ”unto men edification and exhortation and comfort,” as the Apostle himself says (xiv. 3); and an ill.u.s.tration of this may be pointed out in Acts iv. 36 where the name Barnabas = ”Son of prophecy,” being interpreted is said to be ”Son of Exhortation” [------].
To this follows the ”discerning (or judging) of spirits” [------], a gift which, if we are to judge by Paul's expressions elsewhere, was simply the exercise of natural intelligence and discernment. In an earlier part of the first Epistle, rebuking the Corinthians for carrying their disputes before legal tribunals, he says, vi. 5: ”Is it so that there is not even one wise man among you who shall be able to discern [------] between his brethren?” Again, in xi. 31, ”But if we discerned [------] we should not be judged [------]” (cf vv. 28, 29), and in xiv. 29, ”Let Prophets speak two or three, and let the others discern”