---

History repeats itself. Modern heresies are only ancient errors. It is the fashion now, as it was at Corinth, to repudiate the apostle's authority and to claim the right to criticise his teaching. The cry then was, Not Paul, but Peter or Apollos; now it is not Paul, but Christ. Consider St. Paul's authority —

I. IN ITSELF.

1. Its nature. Nothing can be plainer than that the words, "The things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord," are a claim to Divine authority. His critics must therefore choose one of three theories.

(1) Imposture. But chap. 1 Corinthians 13. is sufficient to refute that.

(2) Madness. But this Epistle could not have been written by any other than a sane man — a man whose mind was as clear as his purpose was honest.

(3) Truth. No honest or intelligent man could have preferred the claim of our text had it not been true. If true, then St. Paul's words carry the same weight as the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount.

2. Its basis. He wrote the commandments of the Lord — i.e., those which came from the Lord by direct inspiration, for they are not quotations from previous revelations.-1John 14:25, 26 and John 15:12,13 are a declaration at once of the incompleteness of Christ's personal teaching and a promise of fuller instruction under the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The apostles were to know more than Christ had taught them after He had gone. To compare, therefore, the apostle's teaching with that of our Lord's to the disparagement of the former is simply to repudiate the authority of Christ. Jesus only began to teach personally (Acts 1:1). His perfected teaching was through the apostles after Pentacost.

(2) Was Paul among the number? This Epistle is a triumphant answer to that question (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 with Galatians 1:1, 11-16). Again, this is blasphemy, insanity, or truth. If the last, then St. Paul's teaching by the terms of his Master's declaration was on a level with his own.

3. Its independence (ver. 38). The apostle felt that any denial of his claim was based upon wilful and invincible ignorance, and with that he would have no further controversy. And this scathing satire loses none of its severity in its modern application. We have no fear that St. Paul's authority, with all the precious teaching which rests upon it, will be shaken. What has been finely said of Christianity as a whole may be said of it: "This anvil has been well beaten, but it has worn out many hammers."

II. AS A TEST.

1. Of fitness to teach. "If any man think himself a prophet," etc. There was no arrogance in this. St. Paul knew that he had been put in trust with the gospel, and that he had faithfully transmitted the sacred deposit. To repudiate his authority, therefore, was to claim the liberty to tamper with Divine revelation and to imperil the souls of men. Many who thought themselves prophets did this with the disastrous results recorded in this Epistle. No man is fit to play the role of prophet who is not prepared to declare all the counsel of God. But this he cannot do if he shuns to declare any of the commandments of the Lord as delivered by Paul.

2. Of spirituality. "If any man think himself to be spiritual" (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:1, 2). No small amount of the carnal-mindedness of the Corinthians is due to their repudiation of Paul's teaching. Puffed up with vanity and conceit they rejected "the commandments of the Lord" and became a law unto themselves. Hence their divisions, contentions, laxity, error. The same test may be applied with unerring accuracy in this and every age. The spiritually minded, with rare exceptions, have been those who have "acknowledged that the things which Paul wrote are the commandments of the Lord."

(J. W. Burn.)

---

---

KJV: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

WEB: What? Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone?