The Work of Christ as Explained in the Epistles

Jn opening the Epistles it will be easy to collate a vast

array of passages which seem to put the controversy

as to the true meaning of Christ’s death to an end for ever.

Who can hesitate for a moment after reading such words

as these, taken almost at random from various apostolic writings ? —

“Christ died for the ungodly; while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. He that spared not His own Son, but freely delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us: Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Jesus Christ gave Himself a ransom for us. Our Saviour Jesus Christ gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity. He was delivered for our offences. Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust. His own self bare our sins In His own body on the tree. Once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained

eternal redemption for us.”
G

It is easy to pile a huge mountain of proof-texts, and yet to have no Bible. If you could heap the stars together you would not make a universe of them; they must be set in their right places and at their proper distances, and be surrounded by their own atmospheres, if you would see anything of the wisdom and power of the Most High. Let me caution you against the unmethodical grouping of proof-texts. You may have a Bible, and yet have no revelation; as you may have a quarry but not a temple. I propose therefore to look into some of the apostolic arguments in their completeness, and to compare them one with another for enlargement and confirmation. The order of history determines that the first position must be assigned to Peter; and if we are to be faithful to our own principle, that to understand a speech we must In some important cases first understand the speaker, we must begin our examination of Peter’s speeches and writings with a few explanatory words about Peter himself. It is clear that he had several undeniable qualifications as an apostolic expositor. He was the oldest of the disciples; he was invariably present at the great scenes in Christ’s life; through him came the revelation of the Divine Sonship of his Lord; he had fallen from his first grace, and had been restored after penitence and proof of sincerity; he was ardent, hopeful, sympathetic. Peter was not a logician, nor an adroit trickster in the use of words, nor a swordsman of remarkable valour and precision. When he swore it was with vehemence, when he wept it was bitterly. From such a man we may expect distinct recollection of facts, positive “expressions of opinion, burning fervour of language, and possibly some confusion in metaphor and argument. I speak thus of him as an ordinary man, not forgetting his, spiritual resurrection and the gift of the Holy Ghost which he had received.

It is easy to foresee how such a man will speak after

The Work of Chrest in the Epistles. 99

passing through the experiences recorded by the evangelists. When the disciples are left alone, and are called upon to give an explanation of the wonderful things which have happened, Peter will, as a matter of constitutional necessity, speak as follows: “Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, let me bow my head before you in uttermost shame and confusion. Bad as you may be in this history, I am infinitely worse. You did not know Christ as I did; I saw His secret life, the beauty that shone at home, the nobleness that became nobler day by day; I loved Him and promised to go with Him to prison and to death, but in the hour of trial I denied ever having known Him, and I spoke of Him as the stranger and the man: but, praised be His name, He spoke to me about my sin; He broke my heart and healed it again, and this day I own my wickedness with shame unspeakable, yet I renew my hope in the mercy and love of God. Now let me speak to you fully of this whole matter. We now know the blessed secret, and may look for the forgiveness for which Christ prayed on the cross. Truly you knew not what you did! I will now explain everything, and then we shall unite in lofty and glowing ascriptions of praise and honour to Him who was despised and rejected of men.”

If such a speech as this had been delivered it would have cleared up every doubt, and brought all who listened to it to unanimous penitence and homage. You must instantly feel that such would have been the happy result. How bold, then, must I be in venturing to suggest that such a speech carries its condemnation on its own face! If the Jews who had resisted the words of Christ, denied the argumentative value of the miracles, and trampled under foot a character against which they could bring no just accusation, could have been persuaded by such a speech, they were not the men they had proved themselves to be.

Their retort would have been instant and crushing: “A clumsy piece of peasant-like art! A nice way of putting together the fragments of a shattered cause! We laughed at this man’s so-called miracles, we heard and rejected His predictions and His arguments, we killed Him on the cross, being driven off we know not where, and now we are politely asked to make it all up, and to this end we are encouraged by a whimpering hypocrite who seeks our tears through the medium of his own! Boldly attempted but feebly done!” And they would have been right. It is not so that God has ever worked. Artifice, mechanism, or dramatic distribution of parts, there is none in the government of God; there is only life, nature, growth, and struggle ending in victory. Let us see if this be not so in the spoken and written testimony of Peter.

(1.) Zhe Testumony of Peter’s Speeches.

- 1. Remember that the Lord Jesus opened the understanding of the disciples that they might understand the Scriptures, and you will at once see how naturally and consistently the apostle Peter began his ministry. But for that fact we might have been startled by the suddenness with which such a man as Peter, neither philosopher by constitution nor scholar by education, assumed to be an authoritative Biblical expositor. He had no sooner returned from witnessing the ascension of Jesus Christ than he said to the hundred and twenty disciples, “The scripture must needs have been fulfilled,’ and in the same first speech he said, “It is written in the Book of Psalms.” Already a noble dignity marked the words of a speaker not famed for prudence, and a noble self-distrust saved him from that obtrusion of his own personality which many circumstances would seem to have justified. Peter did not profess to be an oracle but an expositor, and therein he began well. And as he began so he continued, for in accounting for pentecostal manifestations he did not give a theory of his own, but at once went to the prophecies of Joel, and sustained himself by two quotations from the Messianic psalms of David. Observe, then, that the ancient books were not thrown away in a frenzy of unintelligent ardour; they were lifted up in honour; and were held to be the foundation of whatever. was new in the kingdom about to be set up. Thus Peter unconsciously begets confidence in his ministry; it is not loose or dreamy talk; it has a distinct historical basis, and is meant to conduct to practical and noble conclusions. Personal explanations and personal claims there are none. The common books of the Jews are referred to with precision and applied with authority; and farther back still does Peter go in his great appeal, even to “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” In this speech, delivered on the day of Pentecost, Peter (1) re-asserted the reality of the miracles and wonders and signs of Jesus of Nazareth; (2) claimed that God Himself did every one of them; (3) drove home the charge that the Jews had slain Jesus with wicked hands; (4) preached the resurrection of Christ as a fact attested by many witnesses; and (5) declared, as with exultation and triumph, that God had exalted the crucified Jesus and made Him both Lord and Christ. The whole speech of Peter is not given in verbal detail, for it is distinctly stated that “with many other words did he testify and exhort.’ ‘The probability is, however, that the most important parts of Peter’s speech are reported, and that the “many other words” were but in amplification of these points. So much for the speech on the day of Pentecost.

2. The second speech was delivered on the occasion of the making whole of “a certain man lame from his mother’s womb.” Great tumult, partly joyous, partly controversial, but culminating in great wonder, ensued, and Peter was called upon, either by the circumstances or by direct suggestion, to explain the miracle. In doing this, Peter was careful (1) to disavow all personal merit or claim in the matter, either on behalf of himself or of John, — as though by their own power or holiness they had made this man to walk; (2) to point out that, as before, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers had glorified His Son Jesus; (3) to reannounce this same Jesus as the Holy One and the Just and the Prince of life, who, having been rejected in favour of a murderer, was raised from the dead; (4) and once more to invoke the ancient and unchallenged testimony of Samuel and the prophets, and “the covenant which God made with our fathers.” A Jewish speech made to Jewish hearers, yet with a touch of prophecy, — * Unto you FIRst God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” This speech was made in public; it remains now to be seen whether Peter will stand to it in a more formal assembly, unsustained by the enthusiasm of a great popular assemblage. He was brought before “Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest,” and with startling distinctness he re-affirmed the facts, and recited the full style and title of his Master, calling Him Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom ye crucified; and proclaiming Him the rejected stone, the head of the corner, and the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. The same speech, you see, ennobled by the circumstances, as a mansion may be better displayed upon a mountain than upon a plain.

3. We find in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the lhe Work of Christ in the Epistles. 103

Apostles that the Jewish rulers were filled with indignation because that by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people, and that multitudes of both men and women were added unto the Lord, and sick people were brought into the streets, and laid on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. The indignation. of “the high priest and all that were with him” led to the imprisonment of the apostles, who, however, were liberated by the angel of the Lord and sent by him to speak in the temple “all the words of this life.” Called to account for this, Peter had once more an opportunity of reversing his threefold denial of the Saviour, and what was his use of that opportunity? Observe it. (1) He connected the name of Jesus with the name of God; (2) he brought the charge of crucifixion against the rulers of the Jews; (3) he re-affirmed the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the distinct act of God; (4) he preached the divine exaltation of Christ, and proclaimed Him a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins; and (5) he set forth the apostles as. the responsible witnesses of these things, as was also the Holy Ghost “whom God hath given to them that obey Him.”

4, The concluding evidence supplied by the speeches of Peter is found in the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Peter was sent for to visit Cornelius. The way was prepared on both sides by dreams and visions, as the dawn comes before the glory of noonday. Peter’s spiritual outlook was cleared and enlarged, so that he began to see that a man is more than a Jew. This was the second call, almost the second conversion, of Peter. A great speech he then delivered to the representatives of the Gentile world; his points being, (1) that God is no respecter of persons, — a commonplace to us, but a revelation to a Jew; (2) that the coming of the word of God into the world has a clear and simple history, easy of verification; (3) that Jesus Christ is Lord of all; (4) that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost; (5) that the Jews slew Jesus and hanged Him on a tree; (6) that all these things could be attested by “witnesses chosen before of God;” (7) that the apostles had been commanded of Christ to preach; and (8) that all the prophets gave witness, that through Christ’s name, whosoever believeth in Him, should receive remission of sins. Then came the Gentile pentecost, and the joy of the Lord made the heathen sing.

This is the evidence, analytically stated, of Peter’s speeches as reported fragmentarily in the Acts of the Apostles. Upon this evidence four questions, in some form, must be raised in the final argument, and may be set down here to keep the attention fully on the alert: (1) Is there anything in those speeches about the proper deity of Jesus Christ? (2) Do they contain anything like a formal statement of the doctrine of the Atonement? (3) Is the word Atonement, or any equivalent of it, used in this testimony from beginning to end? (4) Is there a single reference or argument in any of those speeches which a good and honest heart can have the slightest difficulty in understanding? These are inquiries whose bearing and force we must attempt to estimate if we are to come to sound conclusions as to the work of Christ. That you may not be unduly troubled by their temporary reservation I may ask you to bear four things in mind: -(1) That we have been quoting from speeches, imperfectly reported, and not from formal and complete dissertations; (2) that those speeches were replies rather than expositions; (3) that the replies were given under most exciting circumstances; and (4) that from beginning to end the most decisive and challenging testimony is borne to all the principal facts in the earthly history of Jesus Christ. We must now turn from the speeches delivered to excited congregations, to epistles written in quietness and with a view to the instruction and comfort of some who were far away. The pen may record what the tongue may have omitted to utter; at least Peter will have the advantage of being his own reporter and expositor, and of telling calmly all that he knows, or all that admits of explanation by an unlettered but earnest man,

(2.) The Testimony of Peter’s Epistles.

I open the letters of Peter with the keenest interest, having the most confident expectation that I shall learn from him more than any one else has been able to tell me. He will begin at the beginning; say how Jesus Christ looked when He called him; what were the first words he heard Christ say in private; and on from that time he will carry me forward day by day, quoting from every discourse, alluding to every prayer, making a basket of summer flowers out of the tender sayings, the gracious promises, the gentle cautions of his Lord; he will speak of his own unwise speeches and rash acts, of the maiming of Malchus, and the three denials, and the dinner on the sea-shore. From Peter we shall get the whole story with delicate minuteness of statement and inexpressible tenderness of tone. Coming to Peter with these expectations, you may judge of my surprise when I tell you that in almost every one of them I meet with nothing but utter disappointment! He gives no history of Christ. From anything I can learn from Peter there might never have been a Bethlehem, a Capernaum, a sermon ora prayer. In reading these letters there are two things made most clear to my mind; the first is that Peter had no notion of writing; that to write a letter was to him a severe difficulty because of his aversion to the mere act of writing. He would speak with ereat fulness and power, but write he could not. He seems to put down things as they come into his mind without any attempt at arrangement or order. Hence he speaks of the Crucifixion and of women plaiting their hair, almost in one sentence. In short, Peter was not a literary man, nor, indeed, was John, who was as surprised at the length of his own letters as a child might have been at the length of his first considerable walk. Not the less may Peter have been inspired. Inspiration operates according to the mental compass and general figure of the man who is inspired. The Ganges flows on with noble sweep lke a liquid wing; Niagara plunges and roars in an eternal storm: who will deny that the water of both was poured out from the same fountain?

The second point is, that one subject engrossed the thought and love of Peter beyond all others. I do not learn from him that Christ was born, but instantly, in the opening sentence of his first letter, I learn that Christ died. He tells me next to nothing of Christ’s eloquence, but he ceases not to tell me of His blood. There is no summary of the miracles, but there is repeated assurance of the resurrection. This is the one subject that fills and rules the mind of Peter, the sufferings, the death, and the; resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the five chapters of his first letter he expressly names the suffering and rising of Christ not fewer than ten times. Every argument is founded upon these facts; these facts are the inspiration of every appeal; and they are the substratum and guarantee of every consolation. The strangers of the dispersion are “sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ:” they are “begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead:” they are “redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” they are exhorted to suffer patiently, in a manner acceptable with God, “because Christ also suffered for them:” Christ “did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” yet “His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree,” and by His stripes are we healed: the strangers are to account themselves happy if they suffer for righteousness’ sake, “for Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust:” they are to arm themselves with the mind of Christ, because “Christ suffered for us in the flesh:” Peter grounds his right to exhort the elders that were amongst the strangers on the ground that he was “a witness of the sufferings of Christ:” thus their new life in its origin, its discipline, its temper, and its destiny, is related to the blood of Christ in some mysterious but most definite and indispensable way.

Wy fo
i 4 ah
- bay) SLT MAT
he of; ‘ae! te vy ’
ui pi) ca

akg
ae

es
Ni 3y

IN CHEESE ES
(Continued ).

Crrg.)