In the Greek, as in our version, there is no definite article before
'prophets,' and its absence indicates that both sets of persons here
mentioned come under the common _vinculum_ of the one definite article
preceding the first named. So that apostles and prophets belong to one
class. It may be a question whether the foundation is theirs in the
sense that they constitute it, an explanation in favour of which can be
quoted the vision in the Apocalypse of the new Jerusalem, in the twelve
foundations of which were written the names of the twelve apostles of
the Lamb, or whether, as is more probable, the foundation is conceived
of as laid by them. In like manner the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians
of having 'as a wise master-builder laid the foundation,' and to the
Romans of making it his aim to preach especially where Christ was not
already named, that he might 'not build upon another man's foundation.'
Following these indications, it seems best to understand the preaching
of the Gospel as being the laying of the foundation.
Further, the question may be raised whether the prophets here mentioned
belong to the Old Testament or to the New. The latter alternative has
been preferred on the ground that the apostles are named first, but, as
we have already noticed, the order here begins at the top and goes
downwards, what was last in order of time being first in order of
mention. We need only recall Peter's bold words that 'all the prophets,
as many as have spoken, have told of the days' of Christ, or Paul's
sermon in the synagogue of Antioch in which he passionately insisted on
the Jewish crime of condemning Christ as being the fulfilment of the
voices of the prophets, and of the Resurrection of Jesus as being God's
fulfilment of the promise made unto the fathers to understand how here,
as it were, beneath the foundation laid by the present preaching of the
apostles, Paul rejoices to discern the ancient stones firmly laid by
long dead hands.
The Apostle's strongest conviction was that he himself had become more
and not less of a Jew by becoming a Christian, and that the Gospel which
he preached was nothing more than the perfecting of that Gospel before
the Gospel, which had come from the lips of the prophets. We know a
great deal more than he did as to the ways in which the progressive
divine revelation was presented to Israel through the ages, and some of
us are tempted to think that we know more than we do, but the true
bearing of modern criticism, as applied to the Old Testament, is to
confirm, even whilst it may to some extent modify, the conviction common
to all the New Testament writers, and formulated by the last of the New
Testament prophets, that 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy.' Whatever new light may shine on the questions of the origin
and composition of the books of the Old Testament, it will never obscure
the radiance of the majestic figure of the Messiah which shines from the
prophetic page. The inner relation between the foundation of the
apostles and that of the prophets is best set forth in the solemn
colloquy on the Mount of Transfiguration between Moses and Elias and
Jesus. They 'were with Him' as witnessing to Him to whom law and ritual
and prophecy had pointed, and they 'spake of His decease which He should
accomplish at Jerusalem' as being the vital centre of all His work which
the lambs slain according to ritual had foreshadowed, and the prophetic
figure of the Servant of the Lord 'wounded for our transgressions and
bruised for our iniquities' had more distinctly foretold.