Part 1.1 (1-11) Proofs

CHRIST’S RESURRECTION AND OURS.

RESURRECTION;

OR, I. CORINTHIANS XV. EXPOUNDED.

THE resurrection of the dead is one of the chief truths of the Christian faith. But it is also something which is most startling to the man who hears it for the first time. Difficulties were raised against it in ancient times on two especial grounds. It was asserted to be (1) Impossible to God, and (2) Undesirable for man.

1. It was supposed to be something beyond the limits of Divine Power, to recall to its integrity the body for ages given over to corruption, of which only a handful of dust was remaining. Was it not absurd to suppose, after the corpse had been consumed by fire, or eaten by wild beasts, that the particles of which it was composed could be re-assembled ?

2. But, supposing it possible, it was undesirable in a high degree. For, according to the prevalent ancient philosophy, sin is the result of the soul’s immersion in matter. Evil is the consequence of ignorance or carelessness on the part of the Creator, who was not the Supreme God, but some inferior celestial Being.

Hence death, as severing the soul from the body, was a something to be coveted. Many philosophers sought to wean the soul from the body, to macerate and overpower it; since only in this way could the spirit of man be purified. To such theorists the resurrection was therefore a great stumbling-block, and they resisted it with all their power. The denial of resurrection has in modern times found favour in the eyes of Swedenborg, the early Quakers, and the Spiritists. But resurrection is a fundamental of the Christian faith (Hebrews 6:2). The denial of it results, as the Saviour said, from ignorance of God’s power, and from unbelief in the Scriptures, which testify that such is the will of God (Luke 20:27-39, Matthew 22:29). Matter is not the cause of sin ; but the wrong choice of the creature was its source. This is proved by the incarnation and resurrection of the perfect Son of God.

We enquire, then - what is death ?

It is the contrary to life; and life is the result ofthe union of soul and body, which together make up the man.* Death is the undoing of the bond of union. The body, severed from the soul, is borne away by survivors to the tomb. The soul goes away to a place called Hadees, or the underworld (Acts ii.,- Luke xvi.). After this separation, either part is, in common discourse, and in Scripture, called the man.

Abraham lies in the cave of Machpelah. Yet Lazarus was carried to Abraham’s bosom in Hadees. The rich man " seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom " (Luke 16:23). Who are the dead?

They are those whose parts are severed; those who, having fallen under the stroke of death, abide in the state of death and corruption.

What is resurrection ?

It is the undoing of death- the restoration of the man to life. As death hath sundered body and soul, resurrection reunites them. As life at first consisted in the union of body and soul, resurrection reknits the divided parts. The soul, ascending out of the place of the departed, takes up its former body. This is proved by the whole tenor of Scripture on the point.

It is written in the facts of the Old Testament and * There is also a third part of man - the spirit. But that does not come into question at this point (1 Thess. v.). of the New. Thus Elijah brought back to the lifeless body the soul of the son of the widow of Sarepta.

Thus Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite. Thus Jesus recalled to its former body the spirit of the daughter of Jairus. Thus He raised the son of the widow of Nain, and Lazarus from the sepulchre. Thus the Lord Himself arose out of the tomb. But in our day there are those who scruple not to assert, as Swedenborgians and the Spiritists do, that ’

Death is resurrection.’ ’ The soul’s coming forth from the corpse is the only rising again that is ever to be experienced. On this view the body perishes. It is never more to be resumed. It was never designed to be aught more than what the scaffold is to the building. The spirit-state is man’s final one.’ This is the consequence of men’s unbelief in the promised resurrection, to which God’s delay in performing it has furnished the occasion.

1, 2. Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also ye received, in which also ye stand: by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast whatever discourse I preached unto you, unless ye believed in vain. The Gospel of Paul was the death and resurrection of Jesus the Son of God. He had testified this truth at Corinth. It had been received there by many as God’s good news, though beyond and contrary to man’s expectations and reasonings. It was now called in question by the wise of the world. The Corinthian believers were beginning to be ashamed of it; were ready to fancy they must have misunderstood the apostle’s meaning, or that he was in error.

They had not, however, given up this foundation of the faith ; and Paul hastens to confirm it. It is salvation to believe in this death and resurrection of the Son of God. But he who is to be saved must hold fast the doctrine,* and not surrender it to human speculations and arguments. Whatever the story of the cross and resurrection was which Paul testified at first, it remained true still : they were to give up no part of it. Their faith was divine, it rested on the witness of God.

3. For I delivered unto you among the first things that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures.

Paul built the Christian faith upon faffs and prophecy :

Facts are the acts of God. These, and not human reasonings, are the basis of our faith. Other religions rest on fables and fancies. Ours on the testimony of eye and ear-witnesses to facts. * It should not have been rendered "keep in memory." Itrefers to a holding fast of the heart by faith.

Paul set forth that first which was of prime importance, and that was Christ’s death and resurrection.

1. " Christ died." The anointed One of God died, not, as other men, for His own sin, but as a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of others.

He died "according to the Scriptures." It was no sudden thought of God to remedy an unlocked for overturning of His plans ; it was His counsel from eternity. The story was no device of a clever impostor. That death had long been foretold in the sacred books of Israel as the counsel of God, and as the result of God’s justice, yet the consequence of His mercy to the fallen. In the word to the serpent in Eden, that he should bruise the Deliverer’s heel, we have the first bud of the promise. Then the sacrifices from Abel downwards represented the Substitute’s death as the hope of the sons of men.

2. But Christ was also " buried." This was a part of God’s plan. The Saviour might have arisen from the dead without burial. But the Lord would thus strengthen the proof of our Lord’s death, and increase the resemblance to the ordinary lot of man. He " rose the third day." Death took place at one moment, resurrection only after a considerable interval. The time of His resurrection is given accordingto Jewish reckoning, not according to ours. The Jewish Scriptures had foretold this in types. The sacrifice and resurrection of Isaac took place on the third day after the Lord’s sentence (Gen. xxii.). The coming forth of Jonah out of the whale’s belly took place the third day. The Saviour’s resurrection - the proof of sin put away by His sacrifice - was foretold in the second Psalm, and in the sixteenth. If death were resurrection, Jesus’ resurrection ought to be described as occurring at His expiring, and not on the third day after that.

We are next presented with the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

5-8. And that he was seen (1) by Cephas, (2) next by the twelve, (3) next, he was seen by above Jive hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until this day, but some have also fallen asleep, (4) next, he was seen by James, (5) next, by all the apostles, (6) last of all he was seen by me also, (by me) who am, as it were, the abortion.

It is remarkable that in this list of witnesses, the evidencfe given by the women is suppressed. On what ground, it is not easy to say. Perhaps because it would be refused by Greeks. i.Peter, then, is the first of the witnesses here cited.

We have no detached account of this in the Gospels : but Paul was not dependent for his knowledge on them. The Saviour had made known to him all the details of the faith at first hand. But this vision must have taken place after Peter’s second visit to the Lord’s sepulchre. His first visit took place in company with John, upon the report of Mary Magdalene that the stone was rolled away. On that occasion they both returned, having seen nothing but the interior of the sepulchre and the disposition of the dead-clothes.

Peter went to the tomb a second time, probably on hearing the testimony of the women’s second company, that they had seen a vision of angels. On that second occasion, Peter did not enter the tomb, as he did on the first. He merely stooped down and looked in, but he saw no angels ; he beheld only the linen clothes, and so came back (Luke 24:11-12). On his return it was, probably, that the Lord appeared to him.

Certain it is, that the twelve testify to the two travellers from Emmaus, that "the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon " (34).

2. The second instance appealed to is Jesus’ apparition to the twelve. The time referred to is doubtless that of Luke 24:33-43. There the apostles are called "the eleven." Why are they here called "the twelve ?" Doubtless because Matthias was among them, who was afterwards incorporated with the original apostles. He was chosen by God as a witness to Israel of all the great facts of our Lord’s ministry and of His resurrection (Acts i.).

3. The third occurrence is the Lord’s appearing to above five hundred at one time. This refers, I doubt not, to the assembly of the Lord’s disciples at the appointed mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16). That was the only occasion on which Jesus assigned the time and place of a meeting for His disciples with Himself. At that assembly all who could be present would naturally be there. This meeting in Galilee was an important part of the evidence of the Saviour’s resurrection. The men of Galilee were to behold the light of God driving away the shadows of death. What could do this so effectually as the appearance of the Saviour, in resurrection the conqueror of death ? The falling asleep of the righteous now is another thing than death. It is to them robbed of its ancient sting.

4. Then He was seen by James. Really the name is "Jacob," and so it ought to have been always rendered. This James is, of course, not ’ James the brother of John’ whom Herod slew with the sword (Acts 12:2). It was the Jacob who was our Lord’s brother, the son of Mary by Joseph (Matthew 13:55, Jude 1:1.). He was afterwards chosen to be the apostle of the circumcision residing at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17).

He is commonly called the bishop of Jerusalem.

Until the Lord’s resurrection he was an unbeliever

(John vii.).

5. "Next by all the apostles." This refers, I believe, to other apostles beside the original twelve.

Beside the twelve chosen by our Lord, there are twelve other apostles named in the New Testament.

Others are mentioned in this very epistle (1 Corinthians 9:5-6). It was necessary to the qualification of an apostle, that he had seen the Lord. This was true of Paul.

6. Paul next cites his own case. The other apostles were in Christ before him. He was, as it were, the abortion, which had come last. This depreciation of himself arises out of his sense of sin in having persecuted, while an unbeliever, the members of Christ even unto death.

9, 10. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am : and his grace which was given unto me became not vain, but I laboured more than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Paul does not defend himself in his previous course, as a man conscientious, even where mistaken. No : the conscience is not the highest authority ; it needs enlightening of God. Left to the darkness of nature and unbelief, it prompts a man to what is evil before God, even where the course is acceptable before men.

Paul was in spirit an Unitarian, up to the time of his conversion. On finding, from Stephen’s prayer, that Jesus was an object of worship to the Christians, far from repenting of the murder of Stephen, he persecuted God’s assembly of believers at Jerusalem, and broke it up. He thought himself justified in so doing. ’ Were not these Christians calling Israel to the worship of another God than the God of their fathers ? And did not Moses call for the putting to death of such polytheists ? ’ He therefore blasphemed the Son of God, and compelled others to blaspheme, by stripes and imprisonment and the fear of death ( Acts). But when Saul beheld Jesus appearing in the sky, clad in the glory of God, and heard Him identify Himself with the disciples whom he was slaying, his soul was shaken within; he confessed his sin. His first discourse to the astonished men of the synagogue was - that the Jesus whom the Christians worshipped was the "Son of God": - in such a sense as that he was God, the proper object of religious worship (Acts 9:20). While the Father, the Son, and the Spirit were building up the Church, he had been, like the wild-boar out of the wood, seeking to root up God’s vine. Balaam’s course was evil ; his was worse. Balaam attempted to injure God’s assembly of old, a far inferior one. Thereby he put himself in the place of an enemy of the Most High; hardly was his life at first spared; at length it was cut off. Saul’s sin was greater; for he blasphemed the God of the new congregation of God. But he was spared, and made a witness of the truth he sought to destroy. Paul joins those whom once he persecuted ; as Balaam should have done, as soon as he knew the Lord’s counsel concerning Israel.

Balaam was drawn aside by the love of money and the desire of pleasing a king. But Saul, arrested by God, gave up all to follow Christ. The apostle traces the great change, not to his own honesty and upright choice, but to the favour of God. The sinner has nothing of his own to boast of. " He that boasteth, let him boast in the Lord." The effect of this sparing grace was seen in Paul’s usefulness. He was no unprofitable servant. As soon as he became the servant of Christ, he exceeded in diligence and in success all of those who were apostles before him. The apostle’s self-depreciation was not the affected humility which is in search of a compliment. Paul was much ’run down’ among the Corinthian be-lievers. The Judaizing teachers could not bear him, or the principles he taught. His appointment to the apostleship was so ’ irregular and out of course.’ He threw, too, the original apostles into the shade ; and the Judaizers were annoyed at it.

Paul, then, will state fairly both sides of the question, (1.) He owns the circumstances which disparaged him in the view of others ; they lowered him also in his own eyes. He had not forgotten them ; one might almost say, that though Christ had forgiven him, he had not forgiven himself. (2.) Yet his after zeal, labour, and success were equally obvious, and this he asserts fearlessly. But he gives the glory of this where it is due. n. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we proclaim, and so ye believed. This sums up the joint testimony of all the apostles.

It all went to the proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This was the powerful unbroken witness of those chief servants of God.

What shall we say about the witness of apostles?

There are only three reasonable propositions. They were either (1) knaves, (2) fools, or (3) true witnesses. Which were they? It is not difficult for the candid to decide hereon. To the determined infidel it is a problem which he cannot reasonably solve.

1. Shall we say that apostles were knaves? What is a knave? He is one who serves his worldly interests at the expense of a good conscience. He discerns at a glance the winning side in a controversy, and frames his story, and takes his part, accordingly.

He seeks above all things to please his audience.

How was it, then, in this case ? Did apostles ’ make a fine thing of it?’ Did they adapt their story so as to win the world’s favour? to obtain greatness and power, wealth and palaces? Or did they gain by their testimony only contempt and hatred, scowls and scourges, prisons and death? Did they continue on this line of conduct long after what the issues of such a course would be ? How, then, can they be knaves ? Was Paul a knave? We have his history. We have his writings. To read his writings, to know his course, is an instant refutation of the charge. His original course as the Pharisee was the one that would alone suit the knave. His after-life can be accounted for only on the supposition of a sterling honesty. The knave-theory, then, is one that will not run upon the rail. It is a Carthaginian elephant that tramples down its friends in the battle.

2. Shall we say they were fools ? ’Well-meaning men, but weak-headed, heated enthusiasts, imagining they saw and heard what never really came to pass.’

Well, we have some of their writings. We know a good deal about their ways. Are their writings those of brain-sick visionaries ? Are they not words rather of sober sense and truth - in which the element of dreams and visions occurs but little? Their ways were sober and successful. Would weak enthusiasts have led captives the sharp-witted Greeks? or the grave and austere Romans? Some of the earlier Christian writings, after apostles were removed from off the stage, are indeed mere twaddle. But their writings task to this day the deepest thinkers and reasoners to fathom them. Beside, to what was it that they testified ? That Jesus of Nazareth was put to death. Cannot men of plain common sense know when a man is dead? They say, that they saw the same Jesus alive after His burial. Cannot a common man tell whether another is alive? whether he saw and felt him? The fool-theory, then, is a cannon that cannot easily be brought to bear on the facts, and its recoil is the destruction of those who discharge it.

3. But if they were honest witnesses of the facts which their four-times-repeated story gives, then Christianity is true, and the refusers of its testimony are lost ! Justly lost, because they turn away from God’s salvation.

Between these three theories unbelievers of each succeeding age wander to and fro. They will not accept the view which is sustained by sufficient evidence, and they cannot rear up any tolerable fortress out of the other theories. So powerful are the evidences of the truth, that numbers of old accepted the story, and multitudes believe it still. The apostle now turns to refute the doctrine of those who denied resurrection.