The Apostles’ Teaching

Our mantra should always be “What do Jesus and the apostles have to say on the matter?”

As a Christadelphian, I want to get as close to the first-century ecclesia’s teaching as possible. When establishing first principle doctrines, we rightly assert that we should gain understanding from the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Both the Old and New Testaments are equally the Word of God. However, we make a mistake when we attempt to ascertain those fundamental teachings by starting in the Old Testament. Instead, we should default to the teaching of Jesus and his disciples, otherwise termed by Luke in Acts 2:42 as the apostles’ teaching.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the problem. In Genesis 14:17-24, we read about Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek. The only other Old Testament mention of Melchizedek by name is in Psalm 110:4. Imagine we didn’t have the book of Hebrews in our Bible, the only New Testament book that comments on the incident. Would any of us have figured out from reading Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 that Melchizedek represents Christ’s priesthood because his parents aren’t named, nor are the times of his birth and death? Perhaps one of us might have stumbled on these details and made a case in a magazine article that there’s something important about the lack of information, the meaning of his name, and that he was a priest of Salem. It would have made for interesting reading, but what if we proposed in the article that this interpretation was the foundation for our understanding of Christ’s priesthood? Would that assertion have been taken seriously, or would it have been dismissed and the writer accused of stretching the text?

The Epistle to the Hebrews explains the importance of Melchizedek. The difference between the exposition in Hebrews and our hypothetical article is one of inspiration. We can take the Apostle’s word for it in Hebrews because God inspired him. We cannot say the same for the hypothetical article.

Unfortunately, sometimes we forget this aspect and start our consideration of first principles from the Old Testament. A classic example among Christadelphians concerns the doctrine of the Atonement. The Law of Moses, with its rules and rituals, is an excellent study, but when we look at the offerings, for example, and then extract types that we say point forward to Christ’s death, we can run into problems. Perhaps we’ve been looking, for instance, at the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:15-16.

Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Thus, he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.¹

What does this passage mean? Aaron was to make atonement for the Holy Place, for example. In attempting to understand this passage, we can formulate a typological interpretation in which we propose that Christ’s atoning sacrifice was to atone for our nature.

That may, or may not, be a reasonable interpretation of the passage. So, how do we know? Let’s imagine a second hypothetical article in which the writer has made this point about atonement for human nature. It might make for an intriguing idea, but what if, as with the first article, the writer asserted that this was a first principle doctrine necessary to believe if one wants to be in fellowship with other Christadelphians?

The topic of prophecy is a case in point. Many of us enjoy delving into Daniel, for instance, and it is a book referred to many times in Revelation. However, in the gospel records, Acts, and Epistles, there are references and allusions to Daniel’s prophecies (for instance, the Olivet Prophecy) without there being a hard and fast apostolic interpretation for instance, of the metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s image. Therefore, we are obliged to say that our interpretation of prophecy cannot be ranked as a first principle topic.

We could go on ad infinitum looking at examples from the Law, Psalms, and Prophets. Thousands of articles have been written, and talks put together, by Christadelphians on passages from Genesis through Malachi. But here’s the bottom line: in attempting to understand first principle doctrines we always have to submit to the teaching of Christ and the apostles. This is more than a rule of thumb; it is fundamentally important because God inspired Jesus and the apostles to interpret Scripture, and He did not inspire us.

We know the Jews in Jesus’ time misunderstood many parts of the Old Testament. Who are we to say we are any more able to interpret the Old Testament than the Jews, people steeped in the Scriptures? Just like us, the Jews of Jesus’ day were avid Bible readers and students. And just like us, they were prone to misinterpreting Scripture.

Jesus and the apostles did not have that problem because they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). From the time Peter gave his first speech at Pentecost, the New Testament books were being formed not by errant Christians but by inerrant Holy Spirit-empowered men of God.

We have the New Testament to guide us in understanding the Old Testament’s meaning regarding the gospel. Jesus and the apostles consistently quoted from the Old Testament and explained what it taught. They brought out the types from passages like Genesis 14 and preached Christ. If we want to know what the truth is, we always have to default to the apostles’ teaching.

That is not to say we cannot use the apostles’ interpretation of the Old Testament as a guide for our own reading and study. Not every passage of the Old Testament finds an exposition in the New Testament, and it is a delight to study passages using the apostles’ hermeneutics. However, our interpretation can never be classified as the first principle doctrine or inspired by God.

When studying the Old Testament, we can follow these simple guidelines:

Do Jesus and/or the apostles comment on the passage? What is their interpretation? We always default to what they say.

If they do not comment on the section we are studying, we can use their way of reading Scripture as a guide to interpretation. Our interpretations should always align in accordance with what Jesus and the apostles taught.

Point 1 represents the only time we can say we have discovered a first principle doctrine. If we publish an article based on point 2, we have no authority to state we have discovered a first principle doctrine.

The New Testament contains a wealth of information, which God deemed vital for us to know and live by. When we go outside those bounds and assert a passage from the Law of Moses, for instance, teaches us something fundamental, we are in danger of contradicting inspired Scripture. Our mantra should always be “What do Jesus and the apostles have to say on the matter?” From then on, our Bible study in the Old Testament can use the lens of apostolic guidance. In other words, we have been given the importance and teaching in the New Testament, so now we can read the Old Testament to expand our understanding of doctrines, not to develop our understanding of what doctrine is.

Richard Morgan,
Simi Hills Ecclesia, CA

 

1. All Scriptural citations are taken from the English Standard Version.