into the interpretation of the Bible, and I think that Paul did so, although this was not his immediate intention when he used the words. In this aspect of the subject we find the key to his meaning at the end of the second chapter of Romans: "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter." This certainly reminds one of allegorical interpretation; but it is allegory in its most sober and simple form. It is not an importation of philosophical ideas into a plain narrative, which at first sight seems to have nothing to do with such recondite thoughts, but an attempt to pass behind the superficial meaning of things into their permanent spiritual essence. The purest example of this is found in the teaching of Christ, as when he extends the prohibition against killing to the angry passions. But Paul goes beyond this, and admits the use of allegory,1 though we must say that he uses it with great caution and moderation when we compare his practice with that of Philo. He was not driven to it by his theory. Philo had to bring the infallible word, 1 1 Cor. ix. 9 sq., x. 1 sqq.; Gal. iv. 21 sqq. IMPERFECTION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77 however unworthy it appeared, into harmony with the highest wisdom; Paul saw in the Old Testament much that was temporary and imperfect, a preparatory discipline which was destined to pass away, and so, under the guidance of the Spirit, he could enter into its deeper portions, and see that Spirit striving to weave a heavenly pattern out of human infirmity and sin, while he could allow the childish notions of a barbarous age, or the ceremonial requirements of a rude people, to drop off, not as wholly undivine, but as temporary incidents in the education of the world. We conclude, then, that Paul followed the example of Christ, at once in his respect for the ancient Scriptures, as embodying words of God, and in his free dealing with them, as falling short of the absolute standard of right and truth. We may assume that in matters of history, which are tested by intellectual criticism, Christ and his Apostle accepted the opinion of their day; in matters of faith and practice, which are tested by spiritual criticism, they freely and trustfully followed the leading of the Spirit within them, which bore its own witness that it was from God.1 1 A correspondent has called my attention to the familiar text, 2 Tim. iii. 16: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching," &c. This is said in immediate connection with "the sacred writings," and there can be no doubt that the Old Testament is referred to, and treated as inspired. We must remark, however, that the genuineness of this Epistle has been widely doubted in modern times, so that we cannot appeal to it without hesitation as representing Paul's opinion. But the verse contains in fact nothing inconsistent with the exposition given above. That Paul believed that the Old Testament was ОEÓTVEVσTOS I see no reason to doubt: the question is whether he regarded inspiration as carrying with it a universal and literal infallibility, and on this point the text is absolutely silent. A similar remark will apply to the words of another writer, the author of the second Epistle ascribed to Peter: "No prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (i. 21). We must learn to recognize the presence and operation of God in that which is imperfect; and much needless scepticism would be prevented if we habitually distinguished the "inspired" and the "infallible." |