In The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, J.H. Bernard explained how the meaning of Jesus’ teaching about the coming Spirit in John 16:8-14 is intimately related to the fuller revelation of the canon that He would give the Apostles. He wrote,
Though in the teaching of Jesus all the truth might be implied, it was not all opened; therefore the Holy Ghost was to add that which had not been delivered, as well as to recall that which had been already spoken. There is an evident contrast intended, with regard to extent of knowledge, between “these things which I have spoken while yet present with you,” and ” all things which he shall teach you.” Nay, there is the plainest assertion which could be made, that things were to be said afterwards which had not been said then ; and those not few but many — (“I have yet many things to say unto you”) — not of secondary importance but of the highest moment (” Ye cannot bear them now”). They are things of such a kind as would now weigh down and oppress your minds, seeing that they surpass your present powers of spiritual apprehension. But these many and weighty things shall not be left untold. “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth.” He shall guide you, as by successive steps and continuous direction, into the whole of that truth of which the commencements have now been given; and especially into the highest and central part of it. For it is also made plain on what subject this light shall be poured, and into what mysteries this guidance shall lead. “He shall testify of me;” ” he shall glorify me;” “he shall take of mine and shew it unto you;” “at that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and you in me, and I in you.” Not then for some secondary matters (details of Church order or relations of Jews and Gentiles) was this light and witness of the Holy Ghost reserved (though to these questions also the divine guidance extended), but rather for the great and central mystery of godliness, embracing the nature, work, and offices of Jesus Christ, his mediatorial relations to the Father and to the Church, the redemption of men by his blood, and the salvation of men by his life. But instead of attempting to enumerate these great ideas, it were better to comprehend them all in his own vast and unexplained expression, ” He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.
We have now reviewed the teaching of our Lord in the flesh, in order to draw from it an answer to this question, “Is the revelation of the great salvation given to us in that teaching to be considered as final and complete? The answer has been, “No! It has not the appearance of being final, and it explicitly declares that it is not complete. When it was ended, it was to be followed by a new testimony from God, in order that many things might be spoken which had not been spoken then.” The testimony came; the things were spoken; and in the apostolic writings we have their enduring record. In those writings we find the fulfillment of an expectation which the Gospels raised, and recognize the performance of a promise which the Gospels gave. If we do not, the word of salvation, which began to be spoken by the Lord, has never been finished for us.
While all of this ought to come with the convincing force with which it is intended, we still have to seek for a satisfactory answer to the questions about apostolic teaching that appears to be new ethical teaching—distinct from what our Lord taught during His earthly ministry. The prime explain is found in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 and 14:37-38.
John Murray, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminister Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. wrote the single most helpful chapter on the internal testimony of Scripture, with special references to the Divine inspiration and apostolic authority on account of the language used in such places as 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:37-38. In 1 Cor. 7:10-12 the Apostle employs phraseology that might be construed as unauthoritative judgment,
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
Does this mean that part of our Bible is not authoritatively binding, and that these passages are just pious advice? Seeking to set out an accurate explanation of what Paul actual meant, Murray wrote:
The passage in I Corinthians 7:10-12 is sometimes understood as if Paul were instituting a contrast between the authoritative teaching of Christ and his own unauthoritative judgment on questions bearing upon marriage and separation- “But to the married I give charge, not I but the Lord. …But to the rest I say, not the Lord.” A careful reading of the whole passage will, however, show that the contrast is not between the inspired teaching of Christ and the uninspired teaching of the apostle but rather between the teaching of the apostle that could appeal to the express utterances of Christ in the days of his flesh, on the one hand, and the teaching of the apostle that went beyond the cases dealt with by Christ, on the other. There is no distinction as regards the binding character of the teaching in these respective cases. The language and terms the apostle uses in the second case are just as emphatic and mandatory as in the first case. And this passage, so far from diminishing the character of apostolic authority, only enhances our estimate of that authority. If Paul can be as mandatory in his terms when he is dealing with questions on which, by his own admission, he cannot appeal for support to the express teaching of Christ, does not this fact serve to impress upon us how profound was Paul’s consciousness that he was writing by divine authority, when his own teaching was as mandatory in its terms as was his reiteration of the teaching of the Lord himself? Nothing else than the consciousness of enunciating divinely authoritative law would warrant the terseness and decisiveness of the statement by which he prevents all gainsaying, “And so ordain I in all the churches” (1 Cor. 7:17).
