The Death of Jesus: Unnatural
men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know; Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay. — Acts ii. 22,23.
‘Ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of Life. — Acts iii. 14, 15.
HE present series of studies assumes
that the Christian religion is the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is its authoritative exposition.
Of the Christian system, the Cross of Christ is the central truth. It is at once a profound mystery, and a most glorious revelation. As to its deepest and hidden method it is a mystery; in its unveiling of the heart of God, and in the declara-THE DEATH OP JESUS:
tion of the possibility of the forgiveness of sins, it is a revelation.
Our purpose is to gather about the Cross in order that we may consider it in the light of Bible teaching. I shall endeavour resolutely to avoid making any appeal to speculations or philosophies which are not founded on acceptance of the authority of Scripture.
The two passages which indicate our starting-point contain much teaching with which I do not propose now to deal. I refer to them because they set forth certain truths of supreme importance to our argument. The quotations are taken respectively from the first and second discourses of Peter, delivered in the power of the outpoured Spirit. It has often been pointed out that a comparison of the Apostles before and after Pentecost reveals a most remarkable change in them, resulting from the coming of the Spirit. In nothing was this change more marked than in their attitude to the Cross. In the last days of our Lord’s ministry, during which He foretold His Cross with great distinctness, these men quite honestly believed that the Cross would inevitably mean the defeat of His purpose, and disaster to His enterprise. Immediately after the reception of the Spirit they referred to the Cross in such language as to make it plain that there had come to them an entirely new conception of its meaning.
In each of these passages Peter emphasized two facts: first, that of the sMess-Tipgg nf .Tpans; and Secondly, that of the sin of His murder. The sinlessness of Jesus is declared in the first in the words, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of Cod tmto you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know.” The meaning of the Apostle is perfectly plain. He affirmed that the Man Jesus was proven by His miracles and wonders and signs to be a perfect Man.
When, in the second passage, the Apostle charged those to whom he spoke with having slain “the Holy and Righteous One,” his words were carefully chosen. The word “holy” describes inward purity, which is the perfection of character. The word “righteous” describes active recti-THE DEATH OP JESUS;
tude, wMcli is perfection of conduct. Thus Peter affirmed that Jesus Whom they slew was both “holy,” that is, pure in character; and “righteous,” that is, true in conduct.
He moreover, in each case charged upon the men to whom he was speaking that their putting to death of a sinless Man was an act of sin. We are thus confronted with a problem which we are compelled to recognize, and of which we must attempt to find the solution. That solution is not found in these passages, and we shall not reach it in this study. The matter of first importance is that we should recognize the problem.
Let me state that problem briefiy. In the midst of that universe which the Bible declares to be under the government of God, the one perfect Man m all human history is put to death by the hands of sinful men. Men of impure character slay the one Man of purity of character. Men of unrighteous conduct put to death the one Man of righteous conduct. The fact thus barely stated suggests the problem.
Let us attempt to see this more clearly.
This we shall do if we consider the teaching of the Bible concerning death and Jesus; for such consideration must inevitably reveal the fact that the death of Jesus was unnatural — that is, something out of the regular order, something that demands explanation beyond that which accounts for the death of other human beings.
What does the Bible teach concerning death? In answer to that inquiry I shall first state the case in general propositions, and then make one or two references to particular passages of Scripture. The Bible teaches that death in the case of man is the direct outcome of sin, and the penalty thereof. It declares, moreover, that death essentially consists in the separation of the spirit of man from the Spirit of Life, which is the Spirit of God. It further teaches that this separation of the spirit of man from the Spirit of God involves ultimately, if not immediately, the separation of man’s spirit from man’s body. It finally teaches that the separa-THE DEATH OP JESUS:
tion between the spirit of man and the Spirit of God may be an age-abiding separation. In this connection it must carefully be borne in mind that this teaching refers to human nature, which is more than animal nature. Between the two there is a great gulf fixed. Whatever the process of human creation may have been, the Scripture clearly teaches that man became a “living soul” by the direct act of God, and that there is an impassable gulf between man and every other form of life. This moreover, is acknowledged true as the result of investigation, as well as in the light of Scripture teaching. I do not think it necessary for me to argue that at length, yet it is necessary to state it if we are to imderstand the meaning of death in the case of man. Man is the offspring of God, made in His image, and in His likeness. That declaration has no reference to anything that is merely physical or animal in man’s life. Human personality to-day has a physical basis, an animal tenement in which man dwells; but, according to the uniform teaching of Scripture, man is essentially spirit, as God is Spirit. Death, therefore, fundamentally and finally is the separation of the spirit of man from the Spirit of God. It is, moreover, a penalty, and a penalty ceases to be a penalty if the person upon whom it is imposed cease to exist. The death penalty is essentially that of the separation of man, as a spirit, from God Who is Spirit. The issue of this separation is separation between the spirit of the man and his body, though that may not immediately follow the fundamental separation. Death as separation may become age-ahiding.
According to the Genesis story, the warning given to the first man was, ‘‘In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”; and in the day of their disobedience our first parents died, in that they were separated by that act from God. After they had sinned God said, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” This word was not uttered until sin had been committed. That was the sentence of death. The spirit of man in the moment of its rebellion lost its connection with the Spirit of God, and the separation
between bis spirit and bis body commenced.
In the Epistle to the Romans, in one of the briefest phrases, Paul declared that “tbrougb one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin” I am not proposing to argue these subjects in the light of any human philosophy, or even of scientific knowledge, and yet in passing I am constrained to say that no man of science has even been able to explain the reason why all men die. The teaching of Scripture is that death is the outcome of sia. Had there been no sin there would have been no death. This, of course, applies only to the human race. In the animal world, and indeed, through all the lower forms of life, death was the end of being; but when it invaded the human race it came as the direct result of sin and as its penalty. In the obedient life there is no place for death. As in the case of Christ, life passes from the probationary to the larger and fuller experience by transfiguration or metamorphosis. Man sinning is immediately dead in the deepest meaning of the word, in that he is alienated from God. The issue of that is separation from his body, and finally his age-abiding separation from God. To summarize the rapid survey: death is the wage of sin, its issue, its result, its penalty. All that pall which rests upon humanity to-day by reason of death is demonstration of the government of God. Whether the sinner be rich or poor, high or low, bond or free, he cannot escape the penalty of his sin.
II
In the light of this consideration we now turn to our second inquiry as to the teaching of Scripture concerning Jesus. I am careful for the moment not to speak of Him as Christ or Lord, but only by the name by which He was known in Nazareth, by which His disciples and His familiar friends knew Him — the name which marks Him out as a Man among men. Concerning Him as the Scripture teaches that He was absolutely sinless, and that in that respect He was an exception in human history. He made this claim for Himself in many ways; but two illustrations will suf-THE DEATH OF JESUS:
fice. In an atmosphere surcharged with criticism He declared, “I do always the things that are pleasing to Him.” It is impossible to imagine these words havingbeen spoken by any other. The great teachers of the world, saints of bygone ages, and the saints of to-day have all confessed their own failure. Jesus made no such confession, but rather declared that He always pleased God. The other quotation occurs in the same surroundings. He challenged the men who were criticising His claims, as He asked them, “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” and to this challenge their only answer was silence.
Turning from His own testimony to that of others recorded in the New Testament, we find that at His baptism, God said, “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.” On the Mount of Transfiguration, to the astonished disciples the Voice out of heaven made the same declaration. And again, when Jesus approaching the hour of His passion, prayed, “Father, glorify Thy name,” the answering Voice declared, “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Thus the testimony of God, Who is the sworn foe of all evil, the One Who can by no means clear the guilty, affirmed the sinlessness of Jesus.
The testimony of His own disciples was equally clear. Peter called him “the Holy and Righteous One”; John wrote of Him, “In Him is no sin”; and Paul declared of Him that He “knew no sin.”
Impartial witnesses — that is, those not to be found among the number of His disciples — gave utterance to the same truth. The one voice raised on His behalf in the hour of His sorest need — that of Pilate’s wife — referred to Him as “that righteous Man.” The malefactor, dying by His side on the Cross, declared, “This Man hath done nothing amiss.” The Roman centurion, observing Him in the awful hour of death, said, “Certainly this was a righteous Man.”
The testimony of evil men is the same. The time-serving and scheming Pilate, who fain would have saved both his conscience and his position, thrice declared, “I find no crime in Him.” That was the language of a judge. Charges had been
brought against Jesus. Pilate investigated them, and this was bis verdict. Judas, in the terrible hour when the consciousness of the guilt of his treacherybroke upon his soul, hurried into the presence of the chief priests, and, flinging down the ill-gotten silver, cried in remorse, “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood.”
Or finally, take the testimony of an evil spirit who declared to Jesus, “I know Thee Who Thou art, the Holy One of God.’’
Thus upon His o-wn testimony, upon the testimony of God, upon the testimony of His disciples, upon the testimony of impartial witnesses, upon the testimony of evil men, upon the testimony of a demon, we declare that J esus of Nazareth was sinless.
To the accuracy of that testimony the centuries bear -witness. Men who deny all we believe concerning the deeper mystery of the Person of Jesus yet admit the sinlessness of His human life. Through nineteen centuries no reputable critic of Jesus has ever questioned this claim.
All this finally leads to the conclusion that the death of Jesus was unnatural — that is to say, it was out of the true order of human life according to the economy of God. Death is the outcome of sin. Jesus was sinless. Nevertheless He died. I have taken so long to state the problem because it is only as we are arrested by the uniqueness of this death, by the strangeness of it, by the baffling perplexity of its problem, that we are ever likely to discover its true meaning.
These then, are the problems which arise. If Jesus were only man as I am man, then according to the teaching of the Bible concerning death and concerniag Himself, His death violated the moral order of the universe. We speak to-day of the problem of pain, of the problem of evil, as these are revealed in the conditions and circumstances of human life the world over. I admit them all; but without hesitation declare that no event in human history, no circumstance of human suffering, has ever been chronicled which is so overwhelmingly perplexing as this death of Jesus. If He were man merely as I am.
sharer of my nature, and nothing more, and were perfectly sinless, then His death constitutes the severest reflection on the righteousness of the government of God that the world has ever seen. Here is a problem that demands examination. There must be some meaning in this death beyond anything that appears as the result of surface observation. To find the explanation I must turn to other passages of Scripture than those with which we commenced the present study.
Suffering and death resulting from sin demonstrate the righteous government of God. I know there are mysteries on the plane of our every-day life. Until this hour we see the righteous suffering for the guilty in some lower sense. And yet all that we call righteous are also sinners, and in their suffering do but enter into the fellowship of that which results from the sin in which they also share. Here however, is a case of an absolutely sinless One — a case of One Who, to use that marvellous phrase of the New Testament which we too little understand, was “separate from sinners,’’ — handed over, as Peter distinctly declares, “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” to a violent death at the bands of lawless men.
Our proposition then is, that the suffering and death of Jesus demand some explanation. If He be indeed only man, and if He be sinless as He claimed to be, as God declared Him to be, as men witnessed Him to be, as devils owned Him to be, and yet died; then His death is the crime of all crimes, and in it the moral order was violated as nowhere else.
We pause here. Tbe death of Jesus is unnatural. We ask for an explanation. We shall only find it as we turn to a fuller revelation of Scripture concerning Him and His death than the scope of this study has permitted. At the moment we have arrived at this point; death is the wage of sin; Jesus was sinless, and therefore. He ought not to have died. Why did He die?