The declaration of Christ as the supreme Worker is postponed till after the solemn indictment of the nation. But the true way to regard the miracle is set forth at once, as being G.o.d"s glorifying of Jesus. Peter employs a designation of our Lord which is peculiar to these early chapters of Acts. He calls Him G.o.d"s "Servant," which is a quotation of the Messianic t.i.tle in the latter part of Isaiah, "the Servant of the Lord."
The fiery speaker swiftly pa.s.ses to contrast G.o.d"s glorifying with Israel"s rejection. The two points on which he seizes are noteworthy.
"Ye delivered Him up"; that is, to the Roman power. That was the deepest depth of Israel"s degradation. To hand over their Messiah to the heathen,--what could be completer faithlessness to all Israel"s calling and dignity? But that was not all: "ye denied Him." Did Peter remember some one else than the Jews who had done the same, and did a sudden throb of conscious fellowship even in that sin make his voice tremble for a moment? Israel"s denial was aggravated because it was "in the presence of Pilate," and had overborne his determination to release his prisoner. The Gentile judge would rise in the judgment to condemn them, for he had at least seen that Jesus was innocent, and they had hounded him on to an illegal killing, which was murder as laid to his account, but national apostasy as laid to theirs.
These were daring words to speak in the Temple to that crowd. But the humble fisherman had been filled with the Spirit, who is the Strengthener, and the fear of man was dead in him. If we had never heard of Pentecost, we should need to invent something of the sort to make intelligible the transformation of these timid folk, the first disciples, into heroes. A dead Christ, lying in an unknown grave, could never have inspired His crushed followers with such courage, insight, and elastic confidence and gladness in the face of a frowning world.
"THE PRINCE OF LIFE"
"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15. And killed the Prince of life, whom G.o.d hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses."--ACTS iii. 14, 15.
This early sermon of Peter"s, to the people, is marked by a comparative absence of the highest view of Christ"s person and work. It is open to us to take one of two explanations of that fact. We may either say that the Apostle was but learning the full significance of the marvellous events that had pa.s.sed so recently, or we may say that he suited his words to his audience, and did not declare all that he knew.
At the same time, we should not overlook the significance of the Christology which it does contain. "His child Jesus" is really a translation of Isaiah"s "Servant of the Lord." "The Holy One and the Just" is a distinct a.s.sertion of Jesus" perfect, sinless manhood, and "the Prince of Life" plainly a.s.serts Jesus to be the Lord and Source of it.
Notice, too, the pathetic "denied": was Peter thinking of the shameful hour in his own experience? It is a glimpse into the depth of his penitence, and the tenderness with others" sins which it had given him, that he twice uses the word here, as if he had said "You have done no more than I did myself. It is not for me to heap reproaches on you. We have been alike in sin--and I can preach forgiveness to you sinners, because I have received it for myself."
Notice, too, the manifold ant.i.theses of the words. Barabbas is set against Christ; the Holy One and the Just against a robber, the Prince of Life against a murderer. "You killed"--"the Prince of Life." "You killed"--"G.o.d raised."
There are here three paradoxes, three strange and contradictory things: the paradoxes of man"s perverted and fatal choice, of man"s hate bringing death to the Lord of life, and of G.o.d"s love and power causing life to come by death.
I. The paradox of man"s fatal choice.
There occurs often in history a kind of irony in which the whole tendency of a time or of a conflict is summed up in a single act, and certainly the fact which is referred to here is one of these. Let us put it as it would have seemed to an onlooker then, leaving out for the moment any loftier meaning which may attach to it.
Peter"s words here, thus boldly addressed to the people, are a strong testimony to the impression which the character of Christ had made on His contemporaries. "The Holy One and the Just" implies moral perfection. The whole narrative of the Crucifixion brings out that impression. Pilate"s wife speaks with awe of "that just person." "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" "If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil." "I find no fault in Him." We may take it for granted that the impression Jesus made among His contemporaries was, at the lowest, that He was a pure and good man.
The nation had to choose one of two. Jesus was the one; who was the other? A man half brigand, half rebel, who had raised some petty revolt against Rome, more as a pretext for robbery and crime than from patriotism, and whose hands reeked with blood. And this was the nation"s hero!
The juxtaposition throws a strong light on the people"s motive for rejecting Jesus. The rulers may have condemned Him for blasphemy, but the people had a more practical reason, and in it no doubt the rulers shared. It was not because He claimed to be the Messiah that they gave Him up to Pilate, but because He would not meet their notions of what the Messiah should be and do. If He had called them to arms, not a man of them would have betrayed Him to Pilate, but all, or the more daring of them, would have rallied to His standard. Their hate was the measure of their deep disappointment with His course. If instead of showing love and meekness, He had blown up the coals of religious hatred; if instead of going about doing good, He had mustered the men of lawless Galilee for a revolt, would these fawning hypocrites have dragged him to Pilate on the charge of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and of claiming to be a King? Why, there was not one of them but would have been glad to murder every tax-gatherer in Palestine, not one of them but bore inextinguishable in his inmost heart the faith in "one Christ a King." And if that meek and silent martyr had only lifted His finger, He might have had legions of His accusers at His back, ready to sweep Pilate and his soldiers out of Jerusalem. They saw Christ"s goodness and holiness. It did not attract them. They wanted a Messiah who would bring them outward freedom by the use of outward weapons, and so they all shouted "Not this man but Barabbas!" The whole history of the nation was condensed in that one cry--their untamable obstinacy, their blindness to the light of G.o.d, their fierce grasp of the promises which they did not understand, their hard worldliness, their cruel patriotism, their unquenchable hatred of their oppressors, which was only equalled by their unquenchable hatred of those who showed them the only true way for deliverance.
And this strange paradox is not confined to these Jews. It is repeated wherever Christ is presented to men. We are told that all men naturally admire goodness, and so on. Men mostly know it when they see it, but I doubt whether they all either admire or like it. People generally had rather have something more outward and tangible. It is not spiritualising this incident, but only referring it to the principle of which it is an ill.u.s.tration, to ask you to see in it the fatal choice of mult.i.tudes. Christ is set before us all, and His beauty is partially seen but is dimmed by externals. Men"s desires are fixed on gross sensuous delights, or on success in business, or on intellectual eminence, or on some of the thousand other visible and temporal objects that outshine, to vulgar eyes, the less dazzling l.u.s.tre of the things unseen. They appreciate these, and make heroes of the men who have won them. These are their ideals, but of Jesus they have little care.
And is it not true that all such compet.i.tors of His, when they lead men to prefer them to Him, are "murderers," in a sadder sense than Barabbas was? Do they not slay the souls of their admirers? Is it not but too ghastly a reality that all who thus choose them draw down ruin on themselves and "love death"?
This fatal paradox is being repeated every day in the lives of thousands. The crowds who yelled, "Not this man but Barabbas!" were less guilty and less mad than those who to-day cry, "Not Jesus but worldly wealth, or fleeting bodily delights, or gratified ambition!"
II. The paradox of Death"s seeming conquest over the Lord of Life.
The word rendered "Prince" means an originator, and hence a leader and hence a lord. Whether Peter had yet reached a conception of the divinity of Jesus or not, he had clearly reached a much higher one of Him than he had attained before His death. In some sense he was beginning to recognise that His relation to "life" was loftier and more mysterious than that of other men. Was it His death only that thus elevated the disciples" thoughts of Jesus? Strange that if He died and there an end, such a result should have followed. One would have expected His death to have shattered their faith in Him, but somehow it strengthened their faith. Why did they not all continue to lament, as did the two of them on the road to Emmaus: "We trusted that this had been He who should have redeemed Israel"--but now we trust no more, and our dreams are buried in His grave? Why did they not go back to Galilee and their nets? What raised their spirits, their courage, and increased their understanding of Him, and their faith in Him? How came His death to be the occasion of consolidating, not of shattering, their fellowship? How came Peter to be so sure that a man who had died was the "Prince of Life"? The answer, the only one psychologically possible, is in what Peter here proclaims to unwilling ears, "Whom G.o.d raised from the dead."
The fact of the Resurrection sets the fact of the Death in another light. Meditating on these twin facts, the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, we hear Himself speaking as He did to John in Patmos: "I am the Living One who became dead, and lo, I am alive for evermore!"
If we try to listen with the ears of these first hearers of Peter"s words, we shall better appreciate his daring paradox. Think of the tremendous audacity of the claim which they make, that Jesus should be the "Prince of Life," and of the strange contradiction to it which the fact that they "killed" Him seems to give. How could death have power over the Prince of Life? That sounds as if, indeed, the "sun were turned into darkness," or as if fire became ice. That brief clause "ye killed the Prince of Life" must have seemed sheer absurdity to the hearers whose hands were still red with the blood of Jesus.
But there is another paradox here. It was strange that death should be able to invade that Life, but it is no less strange that men should be able to inflict it. But we must not forget that Jesus died, not because men slew Him, but because He willed to die. The whole of the narratives of the Crucifixion in the Gospels avoid using the word "death." Such expressions as He "gave up the ghost," or the like, are used, implying what is elsewhere distinctly a.s.serted, that His death was His offering of Himself, the result of His own volition, not of exhaustion or of torture. Thus, even in dying, He showed Himself the Lord of Life and the Master of Death. Men indeed fastened Jesus to the Cross, but He died, not because He was so fastened, but because He willed to "make His soul an offering for sin." Bound as it were to a rock in the midst of the ocean, He, of His own will, and at His own time, bowed His head, and let the waves of the sea of death roll over it.
III. The triumphant divine paradox of life given and death conquered through a death.
Jesus is "Prince" in the sense of being source of life to mankind, just because He died. Hie death is the death of Death. His apparent defeat is His real victory.
By His death He takes away our sins.
By His death He abolishes death.
The physical fact remains, but all else which makes the "sting of death" to men is gone. It is no more a solitude, for He has died, and thereby He becomes a companion in that hour to every lover of His. Its darkness changes into light to those who, by "following Him," have, even there, "the light of life." This Samson carried away the gates of the prison on His own strong shoulders when He came forth from it. It is His to say, "O death! I will be thy plague."
By His death He diffuses life.
"The Spirit was not given" till Jesus was "glorified," which glorification is John"s profound synonym for His crucifixion. When the alabaster box of His pure body was broken, the whole house of humanity was filled with the odour of the ointment.
So the great paradox becomes a blessed truth, that man"s deepest sin works out G.o.d"s highest act of Love and Pardon.
THE HEALING POWER OF THE NAME
"And His name through faith in His name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."--ACTS iii. 16.
Peter said, "Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" eagerly disclaiming being anything else than a medium through which Another"s power operated.
Jesus Christ said, "That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk"--unmistakably claiming to be a great deal more than a medium. Why the difference? Jesus Christ did habitually in His miracles adopt the tone on which Moses once ventured when he smote the rock and said, "Ye rebels! must _we_ bring the water for you?" and he was punished for it by exclusion from the Promised Land. Why the difference? Moses was "in all his house as a servant, but Christ as a Son over His own house"; and what was arrogance in the servant was natural and reasonable in the Son.
The gist of this verse is a reference to Jesus Christ as a source of miraculous power, not merely because He wrought miracles when on earth, but because from heaven He gave the power of which Peter was but the channel. Now it seems to me that in these emphatic and singularly reduplicated words of the Apostle there are two or three very important lessons which I offer for your consideration.
I. The first is the power of the Name.
Now the Name of which Peter is speaking is not the collocation of syllables which are sounded "Jesus Christ." His hearers were familiar with the ancient and Eastern method of regarding names as very much more than distinguishing labels. They are, in the view of the Old Testament, attempts at a summary description of things by their prominent characteristics. They are condensed definitions. And so the Old Testament uses the expression, the "Name" of G.o.d, as equivalent to "that which G.o.d is manifested to be." Hence, in later days--and there are some tendencies thither even in Scripture--in Jewish literature "the Name" came to be a reverential synonym for G.o.d Himself. And there are traces that this peculiar usage with regard to the divine Name was beginning to shape itself in the Church with reference to the name of Jesus, even at that period in which my text was spoken. For instance, in the fifth chapter we read that the Apostles "departed from the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name," and we find at a much later date that missionaries of the Gospel are described by the Apostle John as going forth "for the sake of the Name."
The name of Christ, then, is the representation or embodiment of that which Christ is declared to be for us men, and it is that Name, the totality of what He is manifested to be, in which lies all power for healing and for strengthening. The Name, that is, the whole Christ, in His nature, His offices, His work, His Incarnation, His Life, His Death, Resurrection, Session at the right hand of G.o.d--it is this Christ whose Name made that man strong, and will make us strong.
Brethren, let us remember that, while fragments of the Name will have fragmentary power, as the curative virtue that resides in any substance belongs to the smallest grain of it, if detached from the ma.s.s--whilst fragments of the Name of Christ have power, thanks be to Him! so that no man can have even a very imperfect and rudimentary view of what Jesus Christ is and does, without getting strength and healing in proportion to the completeness of his conception, yet in order to realise all that He can be and do, a man must take the whole Christ as He is revealed.
The Early Church had a symbol for Jesus Christ, a fish, to which they were led because the Greek word for a fish is made up of the initials of the words which they conceived to be the Name. And what was it?
"_Jesus Christ_, _G.o.d"s Son_, _Saviour_"; _Jesus_, humanity; _Christ_, the apex of Revelation, the fulfilment of prophecy, the Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King; _Son of G.o.d_, the divine nature: and all these, the humanity, the Messiahship, the divinity, found their sphere of activity in the last name, which, without them, would in its fulness have been impossible--_Saviour_. He is not such a Saviour as He may be to each of us, unless our conception of the Name grasps these three truths: His humanity, His Messiahship, His divinity. "His Name has made this man strong."
II. Notice how the power of the Name comes to operate.
Now, if you will observe the language of my text, you will note that Peter says, as it would appear, the same thing twice over: "His Name, through faith in His Name, hath made this man strong." And then, as if he were saying something else, he adds what seems to be the same thing: "Yea! the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness."
Now, note that in the first of these two statements nothing appears except the "man," the "Name," and "faith" I take it, though of course it may be questionable, that that clause refers to the man"s faith, and that we have in it the intentional exclusion of the human workers, and are presented with the only two parties really concerned--at the one end the Name, at the other end "this man made strong." And the link of connection between the two in this clause is faith--that is, the man"s trust. But then, if we come to the next clause, we find that although Peter has just previously disclaimed all merit in the cure, yet there is a sense in which some one"s faith, working as from without, _gave_ to the man "this perfect soundness." And it seems very natural to me to understand that here, where human faith is represented as being, in some subordinate sense, the bestower of the healing which really the Name had bestowed, it is the faith of the human miracle-worker or medium which is referred to. Peter"s faith did give, but Peter only gave what he had received through faith. And so let all the praise be given to the water, and none to the cup.
Whether that be a fair interpretation of the words of my text, with their singular and apparently meaningless tautology or no, at all events the principle which is involved in the explanation is one that I wish to dwell upon briefly now; and that is, that in order for the Name, charged and supercharged with healing and strengthening power as it is, to come into operation, there must be a twofold trust.
The healer, the medium of healing, must have faith in the Name. Yes! of course. In all regions the first requisite, the one indispensable condition, of a successful propagandist, is enthusiastic confidence in what he promulgates. "That man will go far," said a cynical politician about one of his rivals; "he believes every word he says." And that is the condition always of getting other people to believe us. Faith is contagious; men catch from other people"s tongues the accent of conviction. If one wants to enforce any opinion upon others, the first condition is that he shall be utterly self-oblivious; and when he is manifestly saying, as the Apostles in this context did, "Do not fix your eyes on us, as though we were doing anything," then hearts will bow before him, as the trees of the wood are bowed by the wind.
If that is true in all regions, it is eminently true in regard to religion. For what we need there most is not to be instructed, but to be impressed. Most of us have, lying dormant in the bedchamber and infirmary of our brains, convictions which only need to be awakened to revolutionise our lives. Now one of the most powerful ways of waking them is contact with any man in whom they are awake. So all successful teachers and messengers of Jesus Christ have had this characteristic in common, however unlike each other they have been. The divergences of temperament, of moods, of point of view, of method of working which prevailed even in the little group of Apostles, and broadly distinguished Paul from Peter, Peter from James, and Paul and Peter and James from John, are only types of what has been repeated ever since.
Get together the great missionaries of the Cross, and you would have the most extraordinary collection of miscellaneous idiosyncrasies that the world ever saw, and they would not understand each other, as some of them wofully misunderstood each other when here together. But there was one characteristic in them all, a flaming earnestness of belief in the power of the Name. And so it did not matter much, if at all, what their divergences were. Each of them was fitted for the Master"s use.
And so, brethren, here is the reason--I do not say the only reason, but the main one, and that which most affects us--for the slow progress, and even apparent failure, of Christianity. It has fallen into the hands of a Church that does not half believe its own Gospel. By reason of formality and ceremonial and sacerdotalism and a lazy kind of expectation that, somehow or other, the benefits of Christ"s love can come to men apart from their own personal faith in Him, the Church has largely ceased to antic.i.p.ate that great things can be done by its utterance of the Name. And if you have, I do not say ministers, or teachers, or official proclaimers, or Sunday-school teachers, or the like, but I say if you have a _Church_, that is honeycombed with doubt, and from which the strength and flood-tide of faith have in many cases ebbed away, why, it may go on uttering its formal proclamations of the Name till the Day of Judgment, and all that will come of it will be--"The man in whom the devils were, leaped upon them, and overcame them, and said"--as he had a good right to say--"Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?" You cannot kindle a fire with s...o...b..a.l.l.s. If the town crier goes into a quiet corner of the marketplace and rings his bell apologetically, and gives out his message in a whisper, it is small wonder if n.o.body listens. And that is the way in which too many so-called Christian teachers and communities hold forth the Name, as if begging pardon of the world for being so narrow and old-fashioned as to believe in it still.