For example, more than once we find phrases like these: "we believe that _Jesus_ died," "having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of _Jesus_," and the like--which emphasise His death as the death of a man like ourselves, and bring us close to the historical reality of His human pains and agonies for us. "_Christ_ died" is a statement which makes the purpose and efficacy of His death more plain, but "_Jesus_ died" shows us His death as not only the work of the appointed Messiah, but as the act of our brother man, the outcome of His human love, and never rightly to be understood if His work be thought of apart from His personality.
There is brought into view, too, prominently, the side of Christ"s sufferings which we are all apt to forget--the common human side of His agonies and His pains. I know that a certain school of preachers, and some unctuous religious hymns, and other forms of composition, dwell, a great deal too much for reverence, upon the mere physical aspect of Christ"s sufferings. But the temptation, I believe, with most of us is to dwell too little upon that,--to argue about the death of Christ, to think about it as a matter of speculation, to regard it as a mysterious power, to look upon it as an official act of the Messiah who was sent into the world for us; and to forget that He bore a manhood like our own, a body that was impatient of pains and wounds and sufferings, and a human life which, like all human lives, naturally recoiled and shrank from the agony of death.
And whilst, therefore, the great message, "It is Christ that died," is ever to be pondered, we have also to think with sympathy and grat.i.tude on the homelier representation coming nearer to our hearts, which proclaims that "Jesus died." Let us not forget the Brother"s manhood that had to agonise and to suffer and to die as the price of our salvation.
Again, when the Scripture would set our Lord before us, as in His humanity, our pattern and example, it sometimes uses this name, in order to give emphasis to the thought of His Manhood--as, for example, in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "looking unto Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith." That is to say--a mighty stimulus to all brave perseverance in our efforts after higher Christian n.o.bleness lies in the vivid and constant realisation of the true manhood of our Lord, as the type of all goodness, as having Himself lived by faith, and that in a perfect degree and manner. We are to turn away our eyes from contemplating all other lives and motives, and to "look off" from them to Him. In all our struggles let us think of Him. Do not take poor human creatures for your ideal of excellence, nor tune your harps to their keynotes. To imitate men is degradation, and is sure to lead to deformity. None of them, is a safe guide. Black veins are in the purest marble, and flaws in the most l.u.s.trous diamonds. But to imitate Jesus is freedom, and to be like Him is perfection. Our code of morals is His life. He is the Ideal incarnate. The secret of all progress is, "Run--looking unto Jesus."
Then, again, we have His manhood emphasised when His sympathy is to be commended to our hearts. "The great High Priest, who is pa.s.sed into the heavens" is "_Jesus_" ... "who was in all points tempted like as we are." To every sorrowing soul, to all men burdened with heavy tasks, unwelcome duties, pains and sorrows of the imagination, or of the heart, or of memory, or of physical life, or of circ.u.mstances--to all there comes the thought, "Every ill that flesh is heir to" He knows by experience, and in the Man Jesus we find not only the pity of a G.o.d, but the sympathy of a Brother.
When one of our princes goes for an afternoon into the slums in East London, everybody says, and says deservedly, "right!" and "princely!"
_This_ prince has learned pity in "the huts where poor men lie," and knows by experience all their squalor and misery. The Man Jesus is the sympathetic Priest. The Rabbis, who did not usually see very far into the depth of things, yet caught a wonderful glimpse when they said: "Messias will be found sitting outside the gate of the city _amongst the lepers_." That _is_ where He sits; and the perfectness of His sympathy, and the completeness of His identification of Himself with all our tears and our sorrows, are taught us when we read that our High Priest is not merely Christ the Official, but Jesus the Man.
And then we find such words as these: "If we believe that _Jesus_ died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will G.o.d bring with Him": I think any one that reads with sympathy must feel how very much closer to our hearts that consolation comes, "Jesus rose again,"
than even the mighty word which the Apostle uses on another occasion, "Christ is risen from the dead." The one tells us of the risen Redeemer, the other tells us of the risen Brother. And wherever there are sorrowing souls, enduring loss and following their dear ones into the darkness with yearning hearts, they are comforted when they feel that the beloved dead lie down beside their Brother, and with their Brother they shall rise again.
So, again, most strikingly, and yet somewhat singularly, in the words of Scripture which paint most loftily the exaltation of the risen Saviour to the right hand of G.o.d, and His wielding of absolute power and authority, it is the old human name that is used; as if the writers would bind together the humiliation and the exaltation, and were holding up hands of wonder at the thought that a Man had risen thus to the Throne of the Universe. What an emphasis and glow of hope there is in such words as these: "We see not yet all things put under Him, but we see _Jesus_"--the very Man that was here with us--"crowned with glory and honour." So in the Book of the Revelation the chosen name for Him who sits amidst the glories of the heavens, and settles the destinies of the universe, and orders the course of history, is Jesus.
As if the Apostle would a.s.sure us that the face which looked down upon him from amidst the blaze of the glory was indeed the face that he knew long ago upon earth, and the breast that "was girded with a golden girdle" was the breast upon which he so often had leaned his happy head.
So the ties that bind us to the Man Jesus should be the human bonds that knit us to one another, transferred to Him and purified and strengthened. All that we have failed to find in men we can find in Him. Human wisdom has its limits, but here is a Man whose word is truth, who is Himself the truth. Human love is sometimes hollow, often impotent; it looks down upon us, as a great thinker has said, like the Venus of Milo, that lovely statue, smiling in pity, but it has no arms.
But here is a love that is mighty to help, and on which we can rely without disappointment or loss. Human excellence is always limited and imperfect, but here is One whom we may imitate and be pure. So let us do like that poor woman in the Gospel story--bring our precious alabaster box of ointment--the love of these hearts of ours, which is the most precious thing we have to give. The box of ointment that we have so often squandered upon unworthy heads--let us come and pour it upon His, not unmingled with our tears, and anoint Him, our beloved and our King. This Man has loved each of us with a brother"s heart; let us love Him with all our hearts.
II. So much for the first name. The second--"Christ"--is the name of office, and brings to us a Redeemer.
I need not dwell at any length upon the original significance and force of the name; it is familiar, of course, to us all. It stands as a transference into Greek of the Hebrew Messias; the one and the other meaning, as we all know, the "Anointed." But what is the meaning of claiming for Jesus that He is anointed? A sentence will answer the question. It means that He fulfils all which the inspired imagination of the great ones of the past had seen in that dim Figure that rose before prophet and psalmist. It means that He is anointed or inspired by the divine indwelling to be Prophet, Priest, and King all over the world. It means that He is--though the belief had faded away from the minds of His generation--a sufferer whilst a Prince, and appointed to "turn away unrighteousness" from the world, and not from "Jacob" only, by a sacrifice and a death.
I cannot see less in the contents of the Jewish idea, the prophetic idea, of the Messias, than these points: divine inspiration or anointing; a sufferer who is to redeem; the fulfiller of all the rapturous visions of psalmist and of prophet in the past.
And so, when Peter stood up amongst that congregation of wondering strangers and scowling Pharisees, and said, "The Man that died on the Cross, the Rabbi-peasant from half-heathen Galilee, is the Person to whom Law and Prophets have been pointing,"--no wonder that no one believed him except those whose hearts were touched, for it is never possible for the common mind, at any epoch, to believe that a man who stands beside them is very much bigger than themselves. Great men have always to die, and get a halo of distance around them, before their true stature can be seen.
And now two remarks are all I can afford myself upon this point, and one is this: the hearty recognition of His Messiahship is the centre of all discipleship. The earliest and the simplest Christian creed, which yet--like the little brown roll in which the infant beech-leaves lie folded up--contains in itself all the rest, was this: "Jesus is Christ." Although it is no part of my business to say how much imperfection and confusion of head comprehension may co-exist with a heart acceptance of Jesus that saves a soul from sin, yet I cannot in faithfulness to my own convictions conceal my belief that he who contents himself with "Jesus" and does not grasp "Christ" has cast away the most valuable and characteristic part of the Christianity which he professes. Surely a most simple inference is that a _Christian_ is at least a man who recognises the Christship of Jesus. And I press that upon you, my friends. It is not enough for the sustenance of your own souls and for the cultivation of a vigorous religious life that men should admire, howsoever profoundly and deeply, the humanity of the Lord unless that humanity leads them on to see the office of the Messiah to whom their whole hearts cleave. "Jesus is the Christ" is the minimum Christian creed.
And then, still further, let me remind you how the recognition of Jesus as Christ is essential to giving its full value to the facts of the manhood. "Jesus died!" Yes. What then? What is that to me? Is that all that I have to say? If His is simply a human death, like all others, I want to know what makes the story of it a Gospel. I want to know what more interest I have in it than I have in the death of Socrates, or in the death of any man or woman whose name was in the obituary column of yesterday"s newspaper. "Jesus died." That is a fact. What is wanted to turn the fact into a gospel? That I shall know who it was that died, and why He died. "I declare unto you the gospel which I preach," Paul says, "how that _Christ_ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." The belief that the death of Jesus was the death of the Christ is needful in order that it shall be the means of my deliverance from the burden of sin. If it be only the death of Jesus, it is beautiful, pathetic, as many another martyr"s has been, but if it be the death of Christ, then "my faith can lay her hand" on that great Sacrifice "and know her guilt was there."
So in regard to His perfect example. If we only see His manhood when we are "looking unto Jesus," the contemplation of His perfection would be as paralysing as spectacles of supreme excellence usually are. But when we can say, "_Christ_ also suffered for us, leaving us an example," and so can deepen the thought of His Manhood into that of His Messiahship, and the conception of His work as example into that of His work as sacrifice, we can hope that His divine power will dwell in us to mould our lives to the likeness of His human life of perfect obedience.
So in regard to His Resurrection and glorious Ascension to the right hand of G.o.d. We have not only to think of the solitary man raised from the grave and caught up to the throne. If it were only "Jesus" who rose and ascended, His Resurrection and Ascension might be as much to us as the raising of Lazarus, or the rapture of Elijah--namely, a demonstration that death did not destroy conscious being, and that a man could rise to heaven; but they would be no more. But if "_Christ_ is risen from the dead," He is "become the first-fruits of them that slept." If _Jesus_ has gone up on high, others may or may not follow in His train. He may show that manhood is not incapable of elevation to heaven, but has no power to draw others up after Him. But if _Christ_ is gone up, He is gone to prepare a place for us, not to fill a solitary throne, and His Ascension is the a.s.surance that He will lift us too to dwell with Him and share His triumph over death and sin.
Most of the blessedness and beauty of His Example, all the mystery and meaning of His Death, and all the power of His Resurrection, depend on the fact that "it is _Christ_ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of G.o.d."
III. "The Lord" is the name of dignity and brings before us the King.
There are three grades, so to speak, of dignity expressed by this one word "Lord" in the New Testament. The lowest is that in which it is almost the equivalent of our own English t.i.tle of respectful courtesy, "Sir," in which sense it is often used in the Gospels, and applied to our Lord as to many other of the persons there. The second is that in which it expresses dignity and authority--and in that sense it is frequently applied to Christ. The third and highest is that in which it is the equivalent of the Old Testament "Lord," as a divine name; in which sense also it is applied to Christ in the New Testament.
The first and last of these may be left out of consideration now: the central one is the meaning of the word here. I have only time to touch upon two thoughts--to connect this name of dignity first with one and then with the other of the two names that we have already considered.
Jesus is Lord, that is to say, wonderful as it is, His manhood is exalted to supreme dignity. It is the teaching of the New Testament, that in Jesus, the Child of Mary, our nature sits on the throne of the universe and rules over all things. Those rude herdsmen, brothers of Joseph, who came into Pharaoh"s palace--strange contrast to their tents!--there found their brother ruling over that ancient and highly civilised land! We have the Man Jesus for the Lord over all. Trust His dominion and rejoice in His rule, and bow before His authority. Jesus is Lord.
Christ is Lord. That is to say: His sovereign authority and dominion are built upon the fact of His being Deliverer, Redeemer, Sacrifice.
His Kingdom is a Kingdom that rests upon His suffering. "Wherefore G.o.d also hath exalted Him, and given Him a Name that is above every name."
It is because He wears a vesture dipped in blood, that "on the vesture is the name written "King of kings, and Lord of lords."" It is "because He shall deliver the needy when he crieth," as the prophetic psalm has it, that "all kings shall fall down before Him and all nations shall serve Him." Because He has given His life for the world He is the Master of the World. His humanity is raised to the throne because His humanity stooped to the cross. As long as men"s hearts can be touched by absolute unselfish surrender, and as long as they can know the blessedness of responsive surrender, so long will He who gave Himself for the world be the Sovereign of the world, and the First-born from the dead be the Prince of all the kings of the earth.
And so, dear friends, our thoughts to-day all point to this lesson--do not you content yourselves with a maimed Christ. Do not tarry in the Manhood; do not think it enough to cherish reverence for the n.o.bility of His soul, the gentle wisdom of His words, the beauty of His character, the tenderness of His compa.s.sion. All these will be insufficient for your needs. There is more in His mission than these--even His death for you and for all men. Take Him for your Christ, but do not lose the Person in the Work, any more than you lose the work in the Person. And be not content with an intellectual recognition of Him, but bring Him the faith which cleaves to Him and His work as its only hope and peace, and the love which, because of His work as Christ, flows out to the beloved Person who has done it all. Thus loving Jesus and trusting Christ, you will bring obedience to your Lord and homage to your King, and learn the sweetness and power of "the name that is above every name"--the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
May we all be able, with clear and unfaltering conviction of our understandings and loving affiance of our whole souls, to repeat as our own the grand words in which so many centuries have proclaimed their faith--words which shed a spell of peacefulness over stormy lives, and fling a great light of hope into the black jaws of the grave: "I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord!"
A FOURFOLD CORD
"And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles" doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."--ACTS ii. 42.
The Early Church was not a pattern for us, and the idea of its greatly superior purity is very largely a delusion. But still, though that be true, the occasional glimpses that we get at intervals in the early chapters of this Book of the Acts of the Apostles do present a very instructive and beautiful picture of what a Christian society may be, and therefore of what Christian Churches and Christian individuals ought to be.
The words that I have read, however, are not the description of the demeanour of the whole community, but of that portion of it which had been added so swiftly to the original nucleus on the Day of Pentecost.
Think, on the morning of that day "the number of the names was one hundred and twenty," on the evening of that day it was three thousand over that number--a sufficiently swift and large increase to have swamped the original nucleus, unless there had been a great power of a.s.similation to itself lodged in that little body. These new converts held to the Apostolic "doctrine" and "fellowship," and to "breaking of bread" and to "prayers," and so became h.o.m.ogeneous with the others, and all worked to one end.
Now, these four points which are signalised in this description may well afford us material for consideration. They give us the ideal of a Church"s inner life, which in the divine order should precede, and be the basis of, a Church"s work in the world. But, while we speak of an ideal for a Church, let us not forget that it is realised only by the lives of individuals being conformed to it.
I. The first point, which is fundamental to all the others, is "They continued steadfastly in the Apostles" doctrine."
An earnest desire after fuller knowledge is the basis of all healthy Christian life. We cannot realise, without a great effort, the ignorance of these new converts. "Parthians and Medes and Elamites,"
and Jews gathered from every corner of the Roman world, they had come up to Jerusalem, and the bulk of them knew no more about Christ and Christianity than what they picked up out of Peter"s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. But that was enough to change their hearts and their wills and to lead them to a real faith. And though the _contents_ of their faith were very incomplete, the _power_ of their faith was very great. For there is no necessary connection between the amount believed and the grasp with which it is held. Believing, they were eager for more light to be poured on to their half-seeing eyes. They had no Gospels, they had no written record, they had no means of learning anything about the faith which they were now professing except listening to one or other of the original Eleven, with the addition of any of the other "old disciples"--that is, _early_ disciples--who might perchance have equal claims to be listened to as "witnesses from the beginning." We shall very much misunderstand the meaning of the words here, if we suppose that these novices were dosed with theological instruction, or that "the Apostles" doctrine" consisted of such fully developed truths as we find later on in Paul"s writings. If you will look at the first sermons that Peter is recorded as having delivered, in the early chapters of the Acts, you will find that he by no means enunciates a definite theology such as he unfolds in his later Epistle.
There is no word about the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; His designation is "Thy holy child Jesus." There is no word about the atoning nature of Christ"s sacrifice; His death is simply the great crime of the Jewish people, and His Resurrection the great divine fact witnessing to the truth of His Messiahship. All that which we now regard, and rightly regard, as the very centre and living focus of divine truth was but beginning to shine out on the Apostles" minds, or rather to gather itself into form, and to shape itself by slow degrees into propositions. "The Apostles" teaching"--for "doctrine" does not convey to modern ears what Luke meant by the word--must have been very largely, if not exclusively, of the same kind as is preserved to us in the four Gospels, and especially in the first three of them. The recital to these listeners, to whom it was all so fresh and strange and transcendent, of the story that has become worn and commonplace to us by its familiarity, of Christ in His birth, Christ in His gentleness, Christ in His deeds, Christ in the deep words that the Apostles were only beginning to understand; Christ in His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension--these were the themes on the narration of which this company of three thousand waited with such eagerness.
But, of course, there was necessarily involved in the story a certain amount of what we now call doctrine--that is, theological teaching--because one cannot tell the story of Jesus Christ, as it is told in the four Gospels, without impressing upon the hearers the conviction that His nature was divine and that His death was a sacrifice. Beyond these truths we know not how far the Apostles went.
To these, perhaps, they did not at first rise. But whether they did so or no, and although the facts that the hearers were thus eager to receive, and treasured when they received, are the commonplaces of our Sunday-schools, and quite uninteresting to many of us, the spirit which marked these early converts is the spirit that must lie at the foundation of progressive and healthy Christianity in us. The consciousness of our own ignorance, of the great sweep of G.o.d"s revealed mind and will, the eager desire to fill up the gaps in the circle, and to widen the diameter, of our knowledge, and the consequent steadfastness and persistence of our continuance in the teachings--far fuller and deeper and richer and n.o.bler than were heard in the upper room at Jerusalem by the first three thousand--which, through the divine Spirit and the experience of the Church for nineteen hundred years are available for us, ought to characterise us all.
Now, dear friends, ask yourselves the question very earnestly, Does this desire of fuller Christian knowledge at all mark my Christian character, and does it practically influence my Christian conduct and life? There are thousands of men and women in all our churches who know no more about the rich revelation of G.o.d in Jesus Christ than they did on that day long, long ago, when first they began to apprehend that He was the Saviour of their souls. When I sometimes get glimpses into the utter Biblical ignorance of educated members of my own and of other congregations, I am appalled; I do not wonder how we ministers do so little by our preaching, when the minds of the people to whom we speak are so largely in such a chaotic state in reference to Scriptural truth. I believe that there is an intolerance of plain, sober, instructive Christian teaching from the pulpit, which is one of the worst signs of the Christianity of this generation. And I believe that there are a terribly large number of professing Christians, and good people after a fashion, whose Bibles are as clean to-day, except on one or two favourite pages, as they were when they came out of the bookseller"s shop years and years ago. You will never be strong Christians, you will never be happy ones, until you make conscience of the study of G.o.d"s Word and "continue steadfastly in the Apostles"
teaching." You may produce plenty of emotional Christianity, and of busy and sometimes fussy work without it, but you will not get depth. I sometimes think that the complaint of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews might be turned upside down nowadays. He says: "When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles." Nowadays we might say in Sunday-schools and other places of church work: "When for the time ye ought to be _learners_, you have taken to teaching before you know what you are teaching, and so neither you nor your scholars will profit much." The vase should be full before you begin to empty it.
Again, there ought to be, and we ought to aim after, an equable temper of mutual brotherhood conquering selfishness.
"They continued in the Apostles" doctrine and in fellowship."
"Fellowship" here, as I take it, applies to community of feeling. A verse or two afterwards it is applied to community of goods, but we have nothing to do with that subject at present. What is meant is that these three thousand, as was most natural, cut off altogether from their ancient a.s.sociations, finding themselves at once separated by a great gulf from their nation and its hopes and its religion, were driven together as sheep are when wolves are prowling around. And, being individually weak, they held on by one another, so that many weaknesses might make a strength, and glimmering embers raked together might break into a flame.
Now, all these circ.u.mstances, or almost all of them, that drove the primitive believers together, are at an end, and the tendencies of this day are rather to drive Christian people apart than to draw them together. Differences of position, occupation, culture, ways of looking at things, views of Christian truth and the like, all come powerfully in to the reinforcement of the natural selfishness which tempts us all, unless the grace of G.o.d overcomes it. Although we do not want any hysterical or histrionic presentation of Christian sympathy and brotherhood, we do need--far more than any of us have awakened to the consciousness of the need--for the health of our own souls we need to make definite efforts to cultivate more of that sense of Christian brotherhood with all that hold the same Lord Christ, and to realise this truth: that they and we, however separate, are nearer one another than are we and those nearest to us who do not share in our Christian faith.
I do not dwell upon this point. It is one on which it is easy to gush, and it has got a bad name because there has been so much unreal and sickly talk about it. But if any Christian man will honestly try to cultivate the brotherly feeling which my text suggests, and to which our common relation to Jesus Christ binds us, and will try it in reference to _A_, _B_, or _C_, whom he does not much like, with whose ways he has no kind of sympathy, whom he believes to be a heretic, and who perhaps returns the belief about him with interest, he will find it is a pretty sharp test of his Christian principle. Let us be real, at any rate, and not pretend to have more love than we really have in our hearts. And let us remember that "he that loveth Him that begat, loveth Him also that is begotten of Him."
II. Another characteristic which comes out in the words before us is the blending of worship with life.
"They continued steadfastly in the Apostles" doctrine ... and in breaking of bread." Commentators who can only see one thing at a time--and there are a good many of that species--have got up great discussions as to whether this phrase means eating ordinary meals or partaking of the Lord"s Supper. I venture to say it means both, because, clearly enough, in the beginning, the common meal was hallowed by what we now call the Lord"s Supper being a.s.sociated with it, and every day"s evening repast was eaten "in remembrance of Him."
So, naturally, and without an idea of anything awful or sacred about the rite, the first Christians, when they went home after a hard day"s work and sat down to take their own suppers, blessed the bread and the wine, and whether they ate or drank, did the one and the other "in remembrance of Him."
The gradual growth of the sentiment attaching to the Lord"s Supper, until it reached the portentous height of regarding it as a "tremendous sacrifice" which could only be administered by priests with ordained hands in Apostolic succession, can be partly traced even in New Testament times. The Lord"s Supper began as an appendage to, or rather as a heightening of, the evening meal, and at first, as this chapter tells us in a subsequent verse, was observed day by day. Then, before the epoch of the Acts of the Apostles is ended, we find it has become a weekly celebration, and forms part of the service on the first day of the week. But even when the observance had ceased to be daily, the a.s.sociation with an ordinary meal continued, and that led to the disorders at Corinth which Paul rebuked, and which would have been impossible if later ideas of the Lord"s Supper had existed then.
The history of the transformation of that simple Supper into "the bloodless sacrifice" of the Ma.s.s, and all the mischief consequent thereon, does not concern us now. But it does concern us to note that these first believers hallowed common things by doing them, and common food by partaking of it, with the memory of His great sacrifice in their minds. The poorest fare, the coa.r.s.est bread, the sourest wine, on the humblest table, became a memorial of that dear Lord. Religion and life, the domestic and the devout, were so closely braided together that when a household sat at table it was both a family and a church; and while they were eating their meat for the strength of their body, they were partaking of the memorial of their dying Lord.