Primitive Doubtings, and Their Cure
“When the Lord had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his
feet.” — Luke xxiv. 40.
There are two special points which I ask you to notice here: first, the doubts of the disciples; secondly, the Lord’s way of meeting them.
1. The doubts of the disciples. — There were some things respecting their Master which these disciples strangely doubted; and there were other things, which they as strangely, as it seems to us, did not doubt at all. They doubted whether he were risen, as some had reported; but they had no doubt that, if he were risen, all was well with them. They doubted whether those who said that they had seen him were correct in their statement; but they had no doubt that, if these witnesses were correct in their report, they had no further ground for sorrow, or doubt, or fear. They doubted whether this person, who now stood in the midst of them, were really their old Master, Jesus of Nazareth; but they had no doubt that, if this were really he, they had abundant cause of rejoicing.
This state of things is now in a great measure
altered, or rather reversed. There are doubts now as to points on which there were no doubts then; and there are no doubts now upon points which, among the first disciples, were the only subjects of doubt. Seeing that this is the case, may we not suspect that there is something wrong with many of us; wrong at the very root? We do not doubt, it seems, whether Christ has risen; but we doubt whether this resurrection can be of any use to us personally, or wear any kindly aspect towards us, till we have succeeded in doing or feeling something to make it available and beneficial; as if the great virtue of his resurrection did not flow out of that event itself, but out of those acts of our own which we mn3r have been enabled to put forth in connection with it. We do not doubt that the risen and ascended Jesus is actually the Christ of God, the Saviour of the world; but we doubt whether this is of any importance to us, till we have ascertained, according to the most approved tests, whether our knowledge and faith be of the right kind; that is, of such a quality as to warrant us to expect that this risen One will condescend to bless us because of it. We do not doubt that this Son of God is near us, within our reach, so that a touch, a word, a look, may in a moment connect us with him; but we doubt whether this nearness be in itself a matter of rejoicing, until we, by working ourselves into the consciousness of “acting faith” on this truth, have made it a blessing: as if the use of faith were not at once and directly to draw joy out of a thing of joy; to take and use, for purposes of immediate peace and comfort, the simple fact, that Christ is risen; but to put gladness into a fact which otherwise possesses none.
This surely is unnatural, and founded upon a misapprehension of the real meaning of the fact presented to us. The doubts of the first disciples, strange as they seem to us, were natural, in their circumstances. It needed no small amount of proof to convince them, that he whom they had seen crucified on Golgotha, and had buried with their own hands in Joseph’s tomb, was actually risen; but, that proof having been fully given, there lay nothing beyond it to prevent them enjoying the divine fact, and rejoicing in the risen One. The position of many among his disciples now is by no means so intelligible. We admit the proof of his resurrection; we own him as the Prince of Life, and the Conqueror of death; but we say that all this is nothing to us, so long as we are not sure what our own feelings are, or what the quality of that faith of ours is, by which we believe in this resurrection.
This mode of dealing with the facts of the Bible, ascribes to faith what belongs to Christ. By all means let us render to faith what is clue to faith; but let us not forget to render to Christ what is due to him alone. Let us beware of ascribing a virtue to our faith y which belongs to His resurrection.
Our method of treating Christ’s resurrection leads us to concentrate our expectations upon self, and on the changes to, be wrought on self. It makes our joy, to come, not at once from the certain good news of what the Father did for Christ when he raised him from the dead, but from the yet uncertain consciousness of what the Holy Spirit is to do for us and within us. It says that the sinner is not warranted in tasting the full cup of blessing which the resurrection of Christ presents, till he has wrought or prayed himself into a more suitable, more receptive frame of spirit; forgetting that nothing save the direct drinking of this cup can bring about this better and more blessed frame.
The way in which many of us treat the death and resurrection of Christ, always raises questions as to personal acceptance and fitness. The way in which the early disciples treated these, never raised any question pertaining to self at all. Conscious of no goodness, in word, or deed, or feeling; aware that no length of time nor earnestness of effort could make them more fit or more acceptable to Christ; knowing that it was the lost that Christ came to save, the very last thing that could have entered their minds was, that their Master would hesitate about receiving any sinner that would apply to him. They knew well about men refusing to follow him; they never heard of his refusing to receive one. Altogether satisfied as to his grace and power on the one hand, and as to their own poverty and emptiness on the other, there was no room for any question, about self, to be raised at all. If he were the Christ, as they believed him to be; and if they were the lost ones, as they knew themselves to be, then the whole matter was decided at once and for ever. Thoughts about self, and faith, and goodness, could have no place.. They were excluded. By what law? Of works? No. But by that divine testimony, which, ages before, had announced, “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.”
The only question which, during his lifetime, these disciples felt that they needed to have settled was, “Is our Master really the Christ?” The only question which, after his death, they hesitated about, was, “Is our Master really risen, and is he, who now appears in the midst of us, the same as he who formerly went out and in among us, doing the mighty wonders which demonstrated that he was truly the Christ?”
And, after all that has been said, and written, and disputed; after all that has been advanced as to inward evidences and preparatory experiences, this is the one great question still, Is Jesus of Nazareth in very deed the Christ of God? Has he died? Was he buried? Has he risen? These are the questions which we should still feel to be the vital and the lawful ones, had we any right apprehension of the state of matters between us and God.
But did the disciples make of no account the question of their own acceptance? They did not. But they saw it as so entirely included in, or at least so inseparably connected with, the question of his resurrection, that if the one were conclusively settled, the settlement of the other followed, as a matter of course, without difficulty or delay.
Not that they were accepted before they believed, or whether they believed or not; not that they were to believe themselves accepted and forgiven, in order to be accepted and forgiven, as some would frame the Gospel. No; but the knmdedge of Christ, in his person and propitiatory work, was understood to be so necessarily and inevitably the introduction to acceptance and pardon, that they did not suppose it possible to know the Divine testimony concerning Christ, without being, thereupon and thereby, justified and blest. To know him, as crucified for sin, was to be “crucified with Christ.” To know him as dead, was to be “dead with Christ.” To know him as buried, was to be “buried with Christ.” To know him as risen, was to be “risen with Christ.” To receive the Father’s testimony respecting him, as crucified, dead, buried, risen, and ascended, was, in the very act of receiving it, to enter into the state of “no condemnation,” to get possession of eternal life, to be “accepted in the Beloved.” The object of the Holy Spirit’s work was, not to concentrate their thoughts upon themselves, or introduce them to the knowledge of their own acts of faith and love, but to fix their eye upon another, to introduce them directly to the knowledge of the risen Son of God. The saving vision was one, into which no element of self could enter: it was the vision of “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”