Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 15

Verses 1-58

XXIII

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

The fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is a great chapter on the resurrection of the dead. Luther said that the doctrine of justification by faith was the doctrine of the standing or falling church, but inasmuch as Christ was raised for our justification, we would be nearer the truth to say that the doctrine of the standing or falling church is the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. I understand by the resurrection of the dead the making alive of a dead body, raising it from the grave, and glorifying it – that is, what was sown in weakness is raised in strength; what was sown in dishonor is raised in honor; what was sown in corruption is raised in incorruption; what was sown a mortal body is raised an immortal body; what was sown a natural body is raised a spiritual body, and then a reunion of the body with the soul which once inhabited it. That is my understanding of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and it certainly includes the idea of the identity of the body.

Before leading on to Paul’s argument I will show the importance of the subject under consideration, and the first point that I make is that our Lord Jesus Christ in his lifetime made this the crucial proof or demonstration of his divinity and of his mission. He made this issue with his enemies. I cite therefore the following passages upon that point. I will prove that intelligently and openly this was made the keynote position with his enemies and understood by them. In John 2:19 (Harmony, p. 20) the Jews who were indignant at his first purgation of the Temple, demanded of him: "What signs showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore be was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

Again, Matthew 12:38 (Harmony, p. 59): "Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation [showing that the resurrection is to be general] and condemn it: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here." Those were there who repented and those who were impenitent.

But the point I am now on is that the issue was joined. Let us see that they distinctly understood the issue. Matthew 27:39-40, while he was hanging upon the cross "they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Thou that destroyeth the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself; if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross." Then in the same chapter again, after he was buried (Harmony, p. 217, "The chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, "Sir we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard; go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them."

Now look at the report of that guard: "Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that had come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day" (Matthew 28:11-15; Harmony, p. 222).

As final proof on that issue, the issue being his resurrection from the dead, I cite Acts 4, on the occasion of Peter and John healing the impotent man: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. And when they set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power, or in what name, have you done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders, if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which is set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved." This shows that it was still the issue after his resurrection from the dead. There was a challenge given, and a challenge accepted, and the matter was put to proof.

Just as clearly, on this very doctrine, is his teaching to his disciples. On the occasion of the great confession of Peter, this is what occurred (Harmony, p. 91): "From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up" (Matthew 16:21). Peter rebuked him. He had not understood the death of Christ, nor the resurrection of Christ. The disciples were very slow to believe, but he began the teaching of that doctrine at Caesarea Philippi, where that disciple said, "Thou art the Son of the living God." Notice again in Galilee, the last six months of his ministry, this language is used (Matthew 17:22-23; Harmony, p. 97): "Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding sorry." Or as Mark says, "They understood not the saying." Or as Luke puts it, "Let these words sink in to your ears," and then he adds, "They understood not the saying, and it was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it," and Mark says, "And were afraid to ask him." This is the chronological order of the teaching.

In John 10:18, after this incident that I have just cited, Jesus says, "I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. This commandment received I from my Father." Yet they do not seem to realize.

I cite a still later incident. This is when he was on his way to Jerusalem for the last time. It is recorded in Matthew 20:18; Mark 10; Luke 18: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall de liver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify; and on the third day he shall be raised up."

I cite a still later instance that is recorded after his resurrection. On one of his appearances to them he brings this matter up and impresses it with great emphasis upon their hearts. He appeared unto them and "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish. And he took it, and did eat before them" (Harmony, p. 225). And later he invited Thomas to put his finger in the prints of the nails and in his side. Therefore the apostle John in his letter uses this language: "That which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled – declare we unto you."

In 1907 there was a minister of the South of exceeding loose views on the inspiration of the Scriptures, and, it seemed to me, in order to give him the opportunity to exploit his particular views, they put him up to preach a sermon at the Southern Baptist Convention, and in that sermon he used these words (I shall never forget them): "Christ’s resurrection-body was assumed temporarily, merely for the purpose of identification, and afterwards eliminated. What became of it we don’t know, and it is not important that we should know." Those are his very words. The sermon was published.

In a textbook of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville, Kentucky, Epochs in the Life of Jesus, by Dr. Robertson (an exceedingly valuable book with this one blur on it), there is this statement: "All at once Jesus stood in the midst of them; he had risen from the dead. This appearance opposes the idea that it was only the spirit of Jesus. He showed his hands and his side, and expressly alleged that he was not a mere spirit, but even had flesh and bones. [Now we come to the trouble.] This passage adds to the difficulty. One must admit it, for flesh and bones will not enter into heaven. In the resurrection the body is a spiritual body; but one must remember that the case of Jesus is entirely exceptional. He spent forty days where his body was in sight. He could go through closed doors and yet eat broiled fish." That is where the man got his idea in the sermon.

I was appointed to preach the next year, and I preached on the Nature and Person of Our Lord. In that sermon I used these words:

He is the firstborn from the dead. That means he was the first in history whose body was raised to die no more. Other resurrections of both Testaments were but resuscitations to mortal life.

It means that the same body that died on the cross was the body raised from the tomb, and was so identified, unmistakably. It means far more: That this very body which wag dead, quickened, raised, recognized, was the body in which he ascended into heaven, and which is now in heaven, and in which he will return to his people. To say that Christ’s risen body was assumed merely for the purpose of identification is the rankest heresy. To break any link in the chain of its identity is to destroy all of the doctrine of the resurrection and blot out all hope for the revival of our own dead. He was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. It is the keystone of the arch of redemption. It is just as important for us to know what became of the body of Jesus as it is to know that he was raised from the dead. God’s history of the divine man, Christ Jesus, is not a mutilated fragment, Christ’s body ascended into the clouds with the angelic assurance – the assurance that "This same Jesus (identity again) shall come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven." And this ascending Jesus was the very one who had just for forty days "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs." So John says, "That which was in the beginning, that we beheld, which our hands have handled," etc. Who, because of metaphysical difficulties interpreted into Christ’s words and deeds, from these difficulties evolved from his own puzzled questionings, shall dare to break the identity of the body of the resurrection of the ascending Jesus?

I call attention again to this fact that Jesus said that when he got to the place to which he was going, the Holy Spirit would come, and he came down on the day of Pentecost as the demonstration that Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified and buried, that was raised, and, as Paul says, that was exalted, is yet alive, and so John, in Revelation, says, "He is risen " and he hears him say, showing it is the same person, "I am he that was dead, that am alive to die no more," and being alive he can now give proof of his life, and does give it every day that we live. Then he gave the ordinance of baptism as a monumental evidence, and he pledged that the day upon which he arose would become to the Christian the sabbath of the New Covenant. As long as waters form into lakes or are gathered into baptistries; as long as men celebrate the Lord’s Supper that points to his second advent; as long as congregations assemble upon the first day of the week to worship, these things will stand as pledges to the fact of the resurrection of the dead.

Let us take up Paul. Attention has already been called to the mixed character of the constituency of the church at Corinth. There were Jews, and other Orientals, and Romans and Greeks, and all these people had different philosophies concerning the future life and the disposition of the body. Three of these philosophies are worth mentioning here. First, the Greek Epicurean, whose views were shared by the Sadducees, who were materialistic and atheistic, denying that there is any such thing as spirit, or that there is any resurrection of the body. Second, the Stoic philosophy. Their philosophy was that the soul exists, but ultimately it will be absorbed and left in the divinity which created it. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body in any sense. The third view was that of Plato. He believed in the immortality of the soul; he did not believe that the soul would ever be merged into the divine being so as to lose its identity, but he did not believe in the future life of the body. Plato’s philosophy was that in dying one gets rid of sin; that sin resides in the body, and to die is to be saved, if he gets rid of the body.

I present these views in order that we may understand the significance of the address of Paul to the people who may have held one or another of these philosophies, or the subsequent ones developed soon after, and in order to show that as these views are held now, 1 Corinthians 15 is just as important to us as it was to them to whom it was addressed.

QUESTIONS

1. What chapter is perhaps the greatest chapter in the Bible on the resurrection of the dead?

2. What said Luther of the doctrine of justification, and what doctrine, according to the author, more nearly expresses the truth?

3. What is meant by the resurrection of the dead, and what does it especially include?

4. How does the author show the importance of the resurrection, and what the first point?

5. Cite three scriptures showing that Christ made his resurrection the test of his divinity with his enemies, and three others showing that he made the same test with his disciples.

6. Cite proof that his enemies understood and accepted the challenge, and also proof that the disciples did not understand his test until after his resurrection.

7. What is the proof that this was still the issue after his resurrection?

8. On what historic occasion did a preacher exploit his views on this subject, what were his views, and how were they met by the author?

9. What is the position of the author on this question, and what importance does he attach to it?

10. How was the exaltation of the risen Lord demonstrated, and what the testimony of Paul and John to the fact that he is alive?

11. What is the monumental evidence of his resurrection?

12. What is the Epicurean philosophy concerning the future life and the disposition of the body?

13. What is the Stoic philosophy on the same points?

14. What is the Platonian philosophy concerning the same points?

15. Why is it necessary to understand these views before studying 1 Corinthians 16?

XXIV

DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

1 Corinthians 15:1-58.

This chapter commences with the statement of the facts which constitute the gospel. The first fact, "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." Three ideas are involved in that fact:

1. Christ actually died. It was not a mere trance; it was actual death.

2. It was a vicarious, substitutionary, expiatory death. "He died for our sins."

3. He died for our sins "according to the Scriptures" – that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament up to the time of his crucifixion clearly foretold his actual, substitutionary, and expiatory death.

The second fact in the gospel is that he was buried – he was dead and buried – and that was according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testified that he would be buried. The third fact is that on the third day, according to the Scriptures, he rose from the dead; and the fourth fact of the gospel is, that risen, he was visible to men, recognized by men, and identified by men.

Paul goes on to tell of the numerous appearances, including an appearance to him. He was buried, he rose again, he was visible after death with spiritual evidence, and his body was identified. In other words, John says, as if to anticipate many foolish statements, "We don’t know what we shall be, but we do know that when he comes we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.”

The next thing that Paul presents is that this was not merely a preaching of his, but all the apostles preached it, as 1 Corinthians 15:11 of that chapter shows. And the next thought is that they did not originate it. He says, "I have delivered unto you that which I also received, and you received it from me." That was according to the sign which Christ submitted: "He died, he was buried, and was raised." The next argument that he makes is that every Christian in the days of the apostles believed what he said, "As I delivered it, so you received it, and that so believing it, you are saved by it," making it a doctrine of salvation.

He then passes to this position – that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is the foundation of all Christianity. He presents it under the following heads:

1. "If there be no such thing as a resurrection of the dead, why, then, Christ is not risen.

2. Then all preaching is vain.

3. All faith in the preaching is vain.

4. All of the apostles were false witnesses, for every one of them testified that Christ rose from the dead, and that they saw him.

5. He then says again, "If there be no resurrection of the dead, you are yet in your sins," i.e., when they said that God for Christ’s sake forgave their sins, they either wilfully lied or were deluded. It was not a fact. He adds next, "Those without hope of the resurrection are of all men the most miserable." That is a tremendous thing. If this hope be taken away the Christian is the most miserable of all men.

He then shows the place of this resurrection of Jesus Christ in the scheme of redemption, and in their order are these:

Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. No man had been raised from the dead in the same sense, that is, to die no more. Two men had been translated, Enoch and Elijah, and after his own resurrection many of the saints came out of their tombs and appeared unto many people who were able to recognize them. It was true that Lazarus was raised, but he was raised to die again.

Next he shows that this position results from Christ’s position as a Second Adam, and hence ours. As by the first Adam death came, so by the Second Adam the resurrection comes, and that means not only the resurrection of the righteous, but the wicked. In two places in the Scriptures, and very emphatically in one of them, the words indicating universality are used. But all in their body are quickened, further indicating his position in the scheme of redemption. He says that the resurrection of Christ must not only precede all others, but draw the others after it as a result. Then he proceeds to show that the resurrection is necessary to the raising of Christ and the exercise of his high priestly functions in heaven, as is further developed in the letter to the Philippians. He emptied himself, laid aside all his glory, and became obedient unto death, therefore God hath also highly exalted him, in his exaltation to be King of kings and Lord of lords, and to exercise the functions of his high priesthood. They were based upon the fact that he had died and was raised.

He goes on further to show this by stating that Christ’s reign on the mediatorial throne in heaven is to last until every enemy that shall be destroyed is dead. Then Christ delivers up his kingdom to his Father; so if we deny the resurrection from the dead, we deny that Christ is Priest and King. Not only that, we deny this: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand [that is, in the kingly position], until I make thine enemies thy footstool." We not only deny that, but we deny all assurance that there will be a judgment day. Paul testified that God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world, and hath given assurance to all men in that he hath raised him from the dead. So the resurrection of the dead underlies the doctrine of the judgment.

He then takes up the life of a Christian. The first argument that he presents is this: "Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" Doubtless the reader is asking in his mind, "What does that mean?" I will give some theories that I don’t believe, and then I will give what I think it means.

The first theory is that Christians had already commenced proxy baptism; that if a man unfortunately died before he was baptized, some friend would be baptized for him. I have two reasons for regarding that as false. First, there is not any reason to believe that any had done this before the writing of the Scriptures; second, that if it had been much practiced by the apostle Paul never could have quoted it with any degree of approval. So I am quite sure it doesn’t mean that.

The second explanation is that the baptism for the dead refers to the baptism of suffering. Christ says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with," and he tells his disciples that they must be baptized with the same baptism, but there is no reference to those who undergo this baptism of suffering here. Here is what I think it does mean: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ were baptized unto his death," i. e., "You made the profession of faith that you were dead to sin, and being dead to sin you are symbolically buried and raised to walk in the newness of life." In other words, to put it in plain English, it means this, Why retain the ordinance of baptism if there be no resurrection from the dead? That is what it means. What signification has it? It is a baptism unto Christ’s death. What should they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? What is the use of the ordinance?

The next argument that Paul presents is based on the life of Christians and their endurance of suffering. He says, "Why should I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, and placed my life in jeopardy every hour, if there be no resurrection from the dead?" He had been sentenced to death – was delivered up to death) and the sentence of death was wrought. In other words, I believe that what is there stated is not even mentioned in the Acts. The wild beasts of Ephesus were not the crowd that was raised by the silversmith, for they didn’t get to Paul &t all. He was not even present, but it means that he was condemned to death – that he was thrown into the amphitheatre and, as he says, God raised him up. Now, what is the pertinency to the matter in hand? Why was a Christian thrown to the wild beasts, and why, being thrown to those beasts, did he not rather deny his Saviour and purchase his life? It is said in the letter to the Hebrews that the Old Testament saints who believed in Jehovah, e. g., women refused to receive their children, looking for a better resurrection, not the escape from death in a figure, as Isaac escaped in the case of Abraham, but they willingly saw their loved ones die, because they believed in a better resurrection than a mere pardon after the sentence of death had been pronounced.

I have a copy of a great painting which I always keep in my study to show my children. Every one of them has stood before that picture and heard its explanation. It presents a Christian girl betrothed to a heathen lover. Her father and mother are heathen. This girl, becoming a Christian, was brought before the image of Diana and commanded to take just a little incense and sprinkle it on the image, and that would save her. There is her lover begging her not to lose him forever. There are the old father and mother weeping and saying, "O daughter, don’t break our hearts!" There she stands with her face lifted up to heaven, pledging not to abjure the name of her Lord. That shows what a tremendous power that doctrine was in the life and death of the saints of God.

I shall never forget this incident. One day after great solemnity of feeling I went down to the Brazos River with an omnibus full of ladies clothed in white, and buried them in baptism. I came out and said to the driver, "Take me to the cemetery while my dripping clothes are on me; I want to stand over the little enclosure that holds three of my children buried there where we put them," and standing there with tears rolling down my face, I said, "Little ones, you shall not sleep forever; your father this day has erected a monument that pledges your resurrection from the dead. I will see you again; we will meet each other, and we will never part again." I have passed through many precious experiences of the Christian religion, but none more calm or sweet than that one.

His third argument from the life of the Christian is based on the quotation from the heathen poet, "Evil companionships corrupt good morals," not manners, but morals. His thought is, to deny the resurrection from the dead corrupts morals – that morality is all dependent upon antecedent doctrines from which it is developed. Therefore Paul’s letters all commence with doctrines, and when he has gotten through with them he takes up morals as developed from them. Then he quotes the doctrine of the Epicureans: "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Or as a Latin proverb of the Epicureans puts it, Carpe dies, "Seize the day," that is, the joys of the present. A notable French infidel was dying, and a friend said, "Do you want to see a priest?" "O, no!" "Do you regret anything?" He said, "Why should I? I have never denied myself anything that I wanted." He was perfectly satisfied. That was his theory of life, but that theory would destroy the significance of all holy relation between father and daughter, husband and wife, and the soul and God – would destroy all altruistic doctrines. Miss Rose Cleveland took the position that George Eliot could not write poetry; that she could write the form of poetry, but it was simply prose arranged in that way. Big ideas in it, but no poetic soul in it, and she said that no agnostic could write poetry". I thought it was the best criticism I ever saw on the emptiness of infidelity. It knows nothing of the great position from which the imagination flies up to its God and catches inspiration from the heavenly Muses.

We now come, in his discussion, to the process of the resurrection, and the kind of body with which it is raised. This is another argument where Paul is replying to an objection: Some one will say, "How are the dead raised?" He first starts out with an analogy. It creates presumptive proof. He says, "When you go out into a field to sow, you sow wheat or barley or grain, and it produces grain of its kind." A grain of wheat was found when they discovered and brought over to this country a mummy of that old Pharaoh that persecuted the Jews, and they got the grain of wheat. It had been preserved alive in the hand of that mummy for ages, and did no good until discovery brought it to light and it was planted. It died – then it produced abundant wheat. Paul says, "Think on that analogy of nature." Then he proceeds to explain the different kinds of flesh. He says that the flesh of a beast is not the flesh of a bird or a fish. The beast has a body that is adapted to the surroundings, as the bird to the atmosphere. When we pass to the heavenly environment, why should not our bodies be changed to suit new conditions, as there are bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial? He then takes up the heavenly bodies and calls attention to the fact that the splendor and the glory of the sun and the moon and the stars are different, as everything has a form to suit its condition. That is his analogical argument. As Oliver Wendell Holmes says, "Who has not gone out whistling and musing, busy with his thoughts, and as it were by chance, turned over a piece of bark and beheld the mysterious things under there, and seen how they ran to cover themselves? One of them may be an ugly thing that cannot get away, but when it passes through death, from the chrysalis emerges the golden winged butterfly that in the air finds its home." Paul does not attempt to explain, therefore he presents these illustrations, and no man ever can explain life of any kind. We can not, to save our lives, explain how in an acorn there is a giant oak. He then tells what there is in every resurrection of the dead. First, there is a quickening of the body that was put in the grave; second, the raising of that body; third, the glorifying of that body. Every one of those things is involved in the resurrection of a righteous man. As every man is born in the image of the first Adam, they shall be in the image of the Second Adam.

As he proceeds to illustrate still further, he takes the case where there never has been and never will be any death at all. Enoch never died, Elijah never died, and nobody ever questioned the identity of their bodies. There was a transformation that glorified those bodies without dying, and then, as if leaning over and whispering a great secret, he says, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: Not all people shall die; some shall be alive when Jesus comes, and when he comes the living shall be like Enoch and Elijah," referring to the living Christians. He then adds what so many preachers misinterpret. It is this: "O death, where is thy victory?" In other words, "You never got to me." That is at the second coming of Christ. "O spirit world, where is thy victory?" They never were disembodied.

Now comes a great part, and in a few words. The second result of the resurrection is that the Christian’s labor is not in vain: "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord." If there be no resurrection from the dead, every preacher’s labor is vain; if there be a resurrection of the dead there shall be fulfilled the declaration of Psalms 126:5: "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy, and he that goeth forth weeping, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing bringing his sheaves with him." Or as is expressed in Galatians: "Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." See the bearing of the passage in 1 Corinthians, where he makes this astounding statement: "God giveth us the victory in every place," then he tells how their preaching was the savor of life unto life or of death unto death, and in either event God is glorified, and that it was his duty to present God’s gospel, even if he knew it would be rejected.

I close by quoting that great author and man, Fairbairn: "If Christ be not risen then that tomb of Joseph is not only a tomb of a man, but of a religion." Christ made the issue of death and the resurrection. To his enemies Christ gave the sign, ’"As Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish," etc. They said, "Sir, we remember that he said that the third day he would rise, and then the last error is worse than the first one, i.e., we are in a worse fix than if we had never killed him." In revivals of religion, the afflatus comes upon men in the Spirit of God. All utterances and liberty in speech, in speaking, explain that Jesus who was dead, is alive again.

QUESTIONS

1. How does Paul introduce the subject of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15?

2. What does he claim as to the origin of his gospel, and how did they treat it when he preached it to them?

3. What is the first fact of the gospel, and what three ideas involved in this fact?

4. What is the second fact of the gospel?

5. What is the third fact of the gospel, and what is its relation to the Old Testament Scriptures?

6. What the fourth fact of the gospel, and what is involved in this fact?

7. How does John seem to anticipate many foolish speculations?

8. Was this merely a preaching of Paul’s, or was it the preaching of the twelve apostles, and what the proof?

9. How does Paul, under seven heads, show that the resurrection is the foundation of Christianity?

10. What is the place of Christ’s resurrection in the scheme of redemption, and what is the meaning of "the first-fruits of them that are asleep"? Illustrate.

11. What the argument from the two Adams as to Christ’s position, and how does he here prove the universality of the resurrection?

12. How does he show the necessity of Christ’s resurrection in order to the exercise of his high priestly functions, and what parallel passage in another letter?

13. What is involved in a denial of the resurrection from the dead?

14. What is the meaning of "baptized for the dead," what the several theories relative to it, and what are the arguments against these theories?

15. What argument does Paul make for the resurrection based upon the life of Christians and their endurance of suffering and what the author’s interpretation of "fought with wild beasts at Ephesus"?

16. Describe the scene in the picture referred to, and give the author’s experience illustrating the tremendous power which the doctrine of the resurrection has over the lives of God’s saints.

17. What is his argument for the redirection based on a quotation from a heathen poet, who the poet, what the doctrine of the Epicureans what the Latin proverb equivalent, and what illustrations cited?

18. What is the process of the resurrection, and how does he show the kind of body with which a person is raised?

19. What mystery does Paul here give, what its interpretation, and when will this be fulfilled?

20. What is the inference and practical application of 1 Corinthians 15:58?

21. In conclusion, what quotation given, what its meaning and what the perpetual evidence of Christ’s resurrection?

Verse 5

XXXI

CHRIST’S APPEARANCES AND COMMISSIONS

Harmony, pages 218-227 and Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-18; Luke 24:1-43; John 20:1-21:25; 1 Corinthians 15:5.

APPEARANCES BETWEEN RESURRECTION DAY AND ASCENSION

FIRST LORD’S DAY

There were five appearances of Christ on the day he rose from the dead. These five, in their order of time, were:

1. To Mary Magdalene – Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18; Harmony, pp. 221-222.

2. To the other women – Matthew 28:9-10; Harmony, pp. 218-222.

3. To Simon Peter – Luke 24:34-35; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Harmony, p. 224.

4. To Cleopas and another disciple on the way to Emmaus – Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35; Harmony, pp. 223-224.

5. To ten apostles, Thomas absent; gives first commission – Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25; Harmony, pp. 224-226.

SECOND LORD’S DAY

6. To the eleven, Thomas present – John 20:26-29; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Harmony, p. 226.

IN THE SECOND WEEK

7. To seven disciples beside the sea of Galilee. Gives Peter a special commission – John 21:1-24; Harmony, pp. 226-227.

THIRD LORD’S DAY

8. To the eleven and above five hundred brethren on the appointed mountain in Galilee, where he gives the Great Commission – Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Harmony, pp. 228-229.

9. To James – 1 Corinthians 15:7; Harmony, p. 229.

FOURTH LORD’S DAY

10. To the eleven; gives another commission – Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:3-5; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Harmony, p. 229.

FORTIETH DAY – HIS ASCENSION

11. To the eleven and many others – Mark 16:19; Acts 1:6; Luke 24:50-53; Harmony, pp. 230-231. Here Acts 1:6 shows another gathering or assembly before they ask the question. From his ascension to the close of the New Testament our Lord appears to at least four persons (not counting Peter and Cornelius) – Stephen, Paul, Ananias, and John; to Stephen and Ananias once each; to Paul several times, and to John on Patmos in visions recorded in Revelation. Unquestionably the voice which spake to Peter (Acts 10:14) was the Lord’s voice, but Peter seems not to have seen the speaker. There was an audible, but not visible interview. Except the first vision in Revelation, John’s visions of the Lord on Patmos were mainly, but not altogether, symbolic representations of the Lord. In the case of Paul three of the appearances were constructively true, but not evident, i.e., they may be proved by argument, namely, the fourth, sixth, and ninth, as enumerated below. In order of time the appearance to Ananias follows the first appearance to Paul.

APPEARANCES BETWEEN HIS ASCENSION AND THE CLOSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. To Stephen – Acts 7:55-60.

2. First appearance to Paul – Acts 9:1-9; Acts 22:5; Acts 26:12-20; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8. and at the beginning of other letters. This was to call him to be an apostle. An apostle must have seen the risen Lord in order to be a witness of his resurrection.

3. To Ananias – Acts 9:10-17.

4. Second to Paul, in Arabia. This is constructive, depending on two lines of argument:

(a) Whether we shall give precedence to Luke’s "straightway" in Acts 9:20, or to Paul’s "immediately" in Galatians 1:15-17. The author believes that Paul did not preach in Damascus until after his return to that city from Arabia – that he had not yet received his gospel.

(b) But before preaching, he spent about three years of retirement and preparation in Arabia, probably at Mount Sinai, communing with the Lord; there at the site of the giving of the law studying its relations to the gospel which afterward he so clearly discloses, and receiving from the Lord directly his gospel to which reception he so often refers, as in Galatians 1:11-18; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 1 Corinthians 15:3.

5. Third to Paul, in the Temple – Acts 22:17-21. This supposes that the Temple vision occurred on his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, an account of which is given in Acts 9:26-29 and Galatians 1:18-19.

6. Fourth to Paul in Tarsus, or possibly Antioch – 2 Corinthians 12:1-9. This is constructive, and depends on two lines of argument:

(a) That "revelations of the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 12:1, implies a vision of the Lord.

(b) The place of the vision is determined by the chronological argument. Reckoning back "fourteen years" from the date of the second letter to the Corinthians, about A.D. 56 or 57, and comparing Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25, we learn where Saul was in this period, and find in Acts 15:41 Cilician churches, probably established by him.

7. Fifth to Paul, in Corinth – Acts 18:9-10.

8. Sixth to Paul, in Jerusalem – Acts 23:11.

9. Seventh to Paul, on the ship – Acts 27:23-25. This is constructive. "An angel of the Lord" would signify an angel proper. But "the angel of the Lord" often means our Lord himself. This appearance, therefore, must be counted as doubtful.

APPEARANCES TO JOHN IN REVELATION
10. Revelation 1:1-3:22. This is real. The following in the same book are mostly symbolical:

(a) The Lamb slain – Revelation 5:6-7.

(b) The Rider on the white horse in converting power – Revelation 6:2.

(c) The angel with the censer – Revelation 8:3-5. (This is the High Priest.)

(d) The angel with the little book, probable – Revelation 10:1-11.

(e) The Lamb on Mount Zion – Revelation 14:1.

(f) The angel with the sickle – Revelation 14:14.

(g) The Rider on the white horse, in power of judgments – Revelation 19:11-16.

(h) The Judge on the throne – Revelation 20:11.

(i) The Lamb, the Light of the New Jerusalem – Revelation 21:23.

(j) Witness (through angel) – Revelation 22:12-20.

COMMISSIONS IN HIS LIFETIME
1. To the twelve – Harmony, pp. 44-45 and 71-72; Matthew 9:36-38; Matthew 10:1-42; Mark 3:13-19; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6.

REMARKS

(a) Limited to Jews – Matthew 10:5.

(b) Provides for their support – Matthew 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 9:14.

(c) Gives authority to cast out evil spirits and heal the sick – Matthew 10:8.

(d) Gives authority to preach the kingdom – Matthew 10:7.

(e) Foretells persecution – Matthew 10:17-18.

(f) Promises protection – Matthew 10:28-29.

(g) Spirit guidance in speech – Matthew 10:19-20.

2. First special commission to Peter, the keys – Matthew 16:19; Harmony, p. 90.

REMARKS

(a) The gift of the keys authorized Peter to open the door of the kingdom of heaven to both Jews and Gentiles.

(b) The door to the Jews was opened by Peter in his Pentecost address – Acts 2:37-39.

(c) The door to the Gentiles was opened by Peter in his address to Cornelius and his household – Acts 10:43-48; Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:7-9.

(d) The power to bind and loose, i.e., to declare the terms of remission, as in Acts 2:38 and in Acts 10:43, and to pronounce judicially and with final authority on all matters of the kingdom, here specially given to Peter, is later given to all the apostles, as we will find in John 20:21-23, and later to Paul. It was also given to the church, as we will find later in two commissions.

3. The discipline commission to the church – Matthew 18:15-18; Harmony, p. 100. Here again we find "the binding and loosing" power which holds good in heaven when the church follows the law of the Head of the church.

4. To the seventy – Luke 10:1-24; Harmony, pp. 110-111.

REMARKS

(a) Limited to Jews.

(b) Provides for the support –Luke 10:4-8.

(c) Gives authority over evil spirits – Luke 10:17.

(d) Gives authority to preach the kingdom – Luke 10:10.

(e) Gives authority to heal the sick – Luke 10:9. Note: This and (a) were both temporary commissions.

COMMISSIONS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION

1. To the ten apostles, Thomas absent – John 20:19-25; Harmony, p. 225. This commission appears in John 20:21-23. REMARKS

(a) They are sent, as the Father sent Jesus, to all the world.

(b) They were inspired.

(c) They had authority to bind and loose, i.e., to declare the terms of remission of sins, and to pronounce judicially and with authority upon all matters pertaining to the church or kingdom. Harmony, p. 227.

2. Second special commission to Peter – John 21:15-17;

(a) The triple form of the question here, "Lovest thou me?" is a mild rebuke of Peter’s triple denial.

(b) The triple form of the commission fits the three classes of Christians symbolized by sheep, little sheep, and lambs; the feed-ing, or shepherding required for each, suggests that the work is great enough to occupy all of Peter’s time, and conveys a mild rebuke to Peter for distrusting Christ’s provision, and his subsequent returning to his old, secular business. Peter erred in the use of the sword while Christ was living, and erred in attempting to provide for a living after Christ was risen. The suspension of Christ’s protection and provision lasted only while Christ was dead.

(c) There is nothing in either of the two special commissions to Peter to warrant his supremacy over the other apostles, and over the church, and especially no ground for a transmitted and perpetual supremacy to his so-called successors, and still less for those successors to be limited to the Roman See.

3. The great and perpetual missionary commission to the church – Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Harmony, pp. 228-229.

REMARKS

(a) This commission was given to an ecclesiastical body, as appears: From the number present. 1 Corinthians 15:6: from its perpetuity, Matthew 28:20; from the universality and scope of the work.

(b) The authority is plenary – Matthew 28:18.

(c) The presence perpetual, through the Holy Spirit.

(d) The work is both evangelistic and pastoral, i.e., making disciples and then training them to do all Christ had commanded.

(e) The baptizing power is under jurisdiction of the church, as is also the keeping of the Lord’s Supper. It supposes a time when no apostle will be alive, and provides a continuous body is whom authority resides.

(f) This commission lasts till the final advent of our Lord, and throughout the Spirit’s administration.

We will now consider in detail some of his appearances after his resurrection and before his ascension, and also his commissions as we come to them. At least ten appearances are mention-ed, but there are some serious difficulties in harmonizing the testimony of all the Gospels concerning about six of these appearances. I will not stop now to point out these six and reply to them. Just now I will discuss the appearances between his resurrection and his ascension: First, to Mary Magdalene – Mark 16:9; John 20:11-20; Harmony, pp. 221-222. All the circum-stances of this case are thrilling. A group of women had follow-ed Joseph and Nicodemus, had witnessed his burial and returned home to prepare spices and ointments for his embalming. Then, resting on the sabbath day (Saturday), they returned early on Sunday morning to embalm him. But they find the tomb empty, see the angel, hear his explanation, and report his message to the disciples. Four of these women are named: Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother of James; Salome, and Joanna. But there were others; as Luke says, Mary Magdalene runs and tells Peter and John that the tomb is empty. She says, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." And she returns with Peter and John and lingers after they have left. While she remains, the appearance of Christ to Mary takes place, as Mark states, and as is graphically described by John. It is very touching when the angels ask her why she weeps. She said, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him."

When I was a young preacher I preached a sermon from that text, and this was the application of the sermon: That people would go to church with a natural expectation of hearing about the Lord; the choir would sing, the pastor would preach, but there would be no Lord in the sermon; the deacons would pray, but there would be no Lord in the prayers; and they would look at the lives of the church members, and there would be no Lord in their lives. Then they would say, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him."

When Mary had thus said, she turned and beheld Jesus, but she did not know it was Jesus. She just caught a glimpse of him, and thought it was the gardener. She saw that somebody was there with her. Jesus said unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" "She, supposing him to be the gardner, said unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary!" As soon as she heard that voice, so familiar, the pathos and the manner of it which she had realized before a thousand times, her heart told her that it was the voice of the Lord. "She turns herself and saith unto him, in Hebrew, Rabboni, that is, My Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not [take not hold of me], for I am not yet ascended unto the Father, and my God and your God." I have never been able to read that passage of Christ’s words to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils – this woman whose love for Christ was unspeakable, and whose gratitude unbounded – without being moved to tears.

Just here an objection comes up, for Jesus said, "I have not yet ascended to my Father." How do you reconcile that with a previous statement that at his death the spirit went to the Father? My answer is that there is no contradiction at all. He is here referring to his ascension in the body: "I have not yet ascended to my Father," that is, the whole Christ – the divinity, soul, and body.

The second appearance is found also on page 222 of the Harmony, and it is to a group of women, Mary Magdalene, however, not included. Matthew alone gives that: "And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not; go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me" (Matthew 28:9-10).

These women are the first to see him. I have already stated that there was a Ladies’ Aid Society organized, which ministered unto him of their substance while he lived. This is the same group of women exactly. They are still going to minister unto him of their substance, after he is dead. They had provided for his embalming; and now he appears to this group – first to Mary, and second to the rest of the group.

The third case is presented on page 224 of the Harmony, Luke 24:34: "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." And 1 Corinthians 15:5: "He appeared to Cephas." You can understand why the next appearance of Christ would be to Peter. Peter had denied him. He had been very greatly honored, and would be honored for all time. So the third appearance of the Lord was to Simon Peter.

The fourth appearance is on page 223 of the Harmony. This is very touching. It is the two men going to the village named Emmaus, about sixty furlongs from Jerusalem; and they were very sad. They had been to the crucifixion. Their Lord was dead, and while they were talking over that sad topic, a Stranger joins them. The record says, "Their eyes were holden that they should not know him." So they did not recognize him. And he asked them what was the matter – what all their sadness was about, and what they were talking about. They said, "You must be a stranger, or you would know what things have lately happened in Jerusalem." And they told him about the death of the Lord, and when they got to their stopping place, Jesus made out as though he was going on. But they halted and asked him to take a meal with them, and when he went to ask the blessing, that mannerism of his, that peculiar, solemn way in which he broke the bread – by these they knew him in a minute, and when he knew that they had recognized him, he disappeared, and then they said, "Did not our hearts burn within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?" He had been delivering a discourse which I would give everything in the world to have heard. He talked about the law, the prophets, and the psalms, and expounded to them every passage which referred to him, and expressed his astonishment that they were so slow to believe all these things that the prophets had foreshown of him. It was right on the surface. Why did they not see it? Why did they not see that it was necessary for Jesus to die for them? Why should they be disappointed at his death? Why should they count that everything was lost when he died? The whole topic is intensely interesting.

The fifth appearance is on pages 224-225 of the Harmony. Mark, Luke, and John each gives an account of it: "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." NOTE: "The first day of the week," the very day on which he rose. This is five times in one day, all of them on that first Lord’s Day. And he "stood in their midst." They were terrified, supposing it was a spirit, for the door was not open; it was fastened. He came in without opening the door; they thought it was a ghost, and he upbraided them on account of their unbelief and hardness of heart. They had no reason to be troubled; they had no right to have reasonings in their hearts. And then he showed them his hands, his side, and his feet. That was to show that it was the very body that was laid in the grave. They could not question the identity.

Here he gives his first commission after his resurrection. It is found on pages 224-226 of the Harmony, as follows: "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, ’Peace be unto you.’ And when he had said this, he showed unto them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, ’Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, ’Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ "

We want to examine that commission. The points are as follows:

As he was sent forth by the Father on a mission to this earth for the salvation of the lost, so he now sends them forth for the same purpose. It is their business by preaching the gospel to afford an opportunity for the Spirit’s application of saving grace, which came through Jesus Christ.

The next item in this commission is that inspiration is given to these ten men. He breathed on them. That is what inspiration means, a "breathing on." He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit."

The third thing in his statement, "Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." What does that mean? Evidently, as God only can forgive sins, it was not granted to these ten men to really forgive sins. But it means that they are inspired to declare the terms of remission of sins, and not to make a mistake. When the apostles hereafter shall be asked, "What shall I do to be saved; how shall my sins be forgiven," these men are inspired to tell just how that remission of sins may be obtained ; and whatever they say is as if God had said it to those asking. "Whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained," that is, when they declare, as inspired men, that a man has not complied with the terms of the remission of sins, then that man has no forgiveness.

Let us take two cases to illustrate that part: The Jailer said to Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved – what are the terms of salvation?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved, and thy house," that is, "thy house must believe also." There he declares that whosoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, his sins are remitted.

"Another New Testament case is where Peter said to Cornelius, as we learn in Acts, "To him [Jesus Christ] gave all the prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth on him shall receive the remission of sins." No man can receive remission of sins except through Christ. The hand with which he lays hold on it is faith; faith apprehends, takes hold. In my discussion on Acts 2:38 I bring out this question again, and answer a further question as to whether baptism is one of the terms essential to forgiveness of sins. The Campbellite’s answer, Dr. Mulling’ answer, and mine; I give them all, and the reader may take any one of the three he prefers. All this is found in Acts of this INTERPRETATION. Here is a summary of this first commission: (1) "As the Father hath sent me, so I send you"; they were thus to be sent; (2) they received inspiration; (3) being so sent and so inspired, they were to declare the only terms upon which the remission of sins could be obtained.

But Thomas was not present; there were only ten of the apostles present at that time. When Thomas came and they told him about It, he would not believe it. Here were ten men saying, "I tell you we have seen Jesus; he came into the room where we were; we know it was Jesus; we saw the marks of the nails in his hands and in his feet, and the spear print in his side." Listen to what Thomas says: "That may do for you, but I won’t believe it until I put my finger in those nail-prints; I will have to see it for myself; I will have to put my finger there." So just a week from those five appearances, and it is the Lord’s Day again, they are assembled, and Thomas is present. This is what it says, John 20:26-31: "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." He was satisfied that this was the very Jesus, and more – that this was God in man. It is quite common to preach a sermon on "Doubting Thomas." A great many men have shown that Thomas was not such a bad case after all; that he did insist on adequate proof – proof that would satisfy him, and not other people. And when that proof reached him he accepted it with all his heart, and forever. So that is the sixth time. Jesus has this rebuke for Thomas: "Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." In other words, there is a sufficiency of testimony without seeing Jesus. You have not seen him, and yet have believed, and you are as strong in your faith as Thomas was.

We note another appearance. It was on another Sunday. Jesus, before he died, made a positive appointment with all of his people, at a certain mountain in Galilee. Not only the apostles, but the women and others were there. Most of his converts were in Galilee. Here we find Peter, as I have said, in one case, acting too quickly, and in another case he acted too late. Jesus had said that while they were under his commission, and he was alive, not to take scrip or purse; not to feel that they had to provide for themselves or to defend themselves; but that while they were thus under his commission he would provide. I showed you how Peter used his sword before Christ was dead, and there he was too quick. Now, after Christ is risen, and he knows that Christ is risen, be says, "I go a fishing." What he meant by that was this: "We have to have a living. It looks like our preaching occupation is gone, and we were by profession fishermen. I am going back to my old business." Let one big man, the ringleader, start off, and the others, not quite so big, will follow. The rest said, "We’ll go with you." And they went back to their old occupation, and to their old homes. They went fishing, toiled all night and caught nothing.

A back-sliding preacher makes a mighty poor farmer or anything else. If he succeeds well in a secular business it is a pretty good proof that God never called him; and if he does not succeeded, then it certainly seems that he is out of his place.

Jesus appears and shows them how to catch fish, as he had done once before. That is a repetition of the miracle that had taken place when he called them to leave that business that he might make them fishers of men. To repeat that miracle here, when they were out of that business, whatever their regular business for Christ, would bring the whole thing back to their remembrance.

And now commences a colloquy between Christ and Peter. He says to Simon, "Do you love me more than these?" Instantly the question comes up – what does that pronoun "these" refer to? Does it mean these fish? If so, it means this: "Do you, Simon, love your secular business more than you love your Lord and Master?" Or that pronoun may refer to the other disciples. Simon had said, "Though all these others leave thee, I will never leave thee." Then it means: "You professed while I was living that you had an attachment for me beyond all other men. Do you love me more than they do? If so, why are you leading them astray?" It will be noticed that Jesus puts his question three times, corresponding to the three denials of Peter, and that Peter’s heart keeps breaking and getting more and more humble, as each question is put. He is a good man. One of my old-time lady members at Waco said, "Peter is a great comfort to me; he was so impulsive and imperfect. But Paul is a trial for me. I am all the time back-sliding and repenting, yet greatly loving my Lord."

We now come to our Lord’s commission to Peter, which is his second commission after his resurrection, and I call attention to another important thing. In the Greek language Jesus directs Peter to take care of three classes of Christians, for the Greek words differ. In the Greek New Testament we see that the words used differ in the manuscripts. The word for "sheep," the word for "lambs," and the word for "little sheep" differ. "Shepherd my sheep," "feed my lambs," and "shepherd my little sheep." A "sheep" is an experienced Christian; a "lamb" is a young convert; and a "little sheep" is a Christian who has been converted long enough to be mature, but who is in a state of arrested development – what you would call a "runt." The majority of Christian people that I know are "little sheep," as Paul says, "For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food" (Hebrews 5:12). It is somewhat like trying to feed them with a spoon, just as if they were babies. They have not moved up any. They can go back and tell when they were converted, but they do not grow. Paul refers to "little women" (gunaikarion), which our translators call "silly women." What he means by "little women" is not the little women that Louisa May Alcott writes about in her book Little Women, i.e., "girls that soon will be women." Paul does not mean little woman in stature, but a woman with a little soul. Her soul is so small that she loves pleasure more than God. The world is bigger to her than heaven. The pleasures and gayeties of this world are more to her than God’s service. She goes to ballrooms. She is swallowed up in fashionable parties, so that she seldom gets in touch with the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This is manifest in the church. Little women, quite small, may be worth 1,000,000; may be leaders in society, but such are little women. Such are on the pastor’s heart very heavily, and he doesn’t know what to do with them.

Jesus says to Simon, "You feed these little sheep." In the twenty-seven years that I was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Waco, I came to know these "little sheep" well, and how to deal with them.

These apostles quit fishing and they went on to the appointment, which brings us to the next appearance of Jesus, at which he gives the third commission after his resurrection, which we will consider in the next chapter.

QUESTIONS
1. How many and what appearances on the day that Christ rose from the dead?

2. How many and what on the second Lord’s Day?

3. How many and what during the second week?

4. How many and what appearances on the third Lord’s Day?

5. What one on the fourth Lord’s Day?

6. What one on the fortieth day?

7. To whom did Christ appear between his ascension and the close of the New Testament and how many times to each?

8. How many and what commissions did Christ give in his lifetime?

9. Analyze the first commission to the twelve.

10. Analyze the special commission to Peter.

11. What is the discipline commission given to the church, and what is the meaning here of the "binding and loosing" power?

12. Analyze the commission to the seventy, and what of special note about the first and fourth of these commissions?

13. How many and what commissions after his resurrection?

14. To whom did Christ first appear after his resurrection, and what the circumstances of that appearance?

15. How do you harmonize Jesus’ statement to Mary, "Touch me not," etc., with the fact that at his second appearance the women touched his feet, and the fact that Thomas was invited to touch his hands and his side?

16. How do you reconcile the last saying on the cross with the statement, "I have not yet ascended to my Father"?

17. To whom did he appear the second time, and what were the circumstances?

18. To whom did he appear the third time, and why to him especially?

19. To whom did he appear the fourth time, and what, in detail, were the incidents connected with it?

20. To whom did he appear the fifth time, what were the circumstances, and what important event in connection with this appearance of our Lord?

21. Analyze this commission, explaining each point in particular.

22. To whom did he appear on the second Lord’s Day, and what were the circumstances, and what was the special purpose of this appearance?

24. What was the meaning of Christ’s questions to Peter here?

25. What analysis of the second commission to Peter? (See outline of the commission.)

26. In this second commission to Peter, what is the meaning and application of Christ’s language to him, distinguishing three classes of Christians?

27. What two references to the "little sheep" by Paul, and who, especially, are Paul’s "little women"?

Verse 7

XXXII

CHRIST’S APPEARANCES AND COMMISSIONS (CONTINUED)

Harmony, pages 228-231 and Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-12; 1 Corinthians 15:7.

The next commission is found on page 228 of the Harmony, Matthew’s account, Matthew 28:16-20: "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth, go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." By the side of it is Mark’s account, also a statement by Paul about five hundred being present. This is what is called the Great Commission. The points of it are: (1) Before he was put to death he appointed this place, a mountain in Galilee, for the assembling of his disciples; and Paul says five hundred brethren were there, and we have already seen that the women were there also. In his appearances to the women he told them to be present, so we must put the number at anywhere between five and six hundred. The gathering is a specially appointed one. He appointed the women after his resurrection to remind them of it. It was to be the gathering of the general body of his disciples – apostles, other men and women. The supposable reasons for assembling them at this particular place are: (a) Most of his disciples were Galileans, and (b) by having this big gathering in Galilee, it would avoid creating a disturbance, for if a meeting had been held in Jerusalem, not so many could have attended, and there they would be liable to interruption by the excited people. (2) The next point is that this was the most eventful, far-reaching, important gathering of God’s people between his death and his ascension. (3) Let us analyze the Commission itself. Dr. Landrum once preached a sermon on the Commission, calling attention to the "alls": (a) "all" authority; (b) go to "all" the nations; (c) observe "all things"; (d) "I am with you all the days," as it is expressed in the margin.

The reference to the authority which he received is to show them that in telling them to do something, and so great a something, and so important a something, he had the authority to do it; "all authority" in heaven and on earth, is given unto him. That is because of his faithful obedience to the divine law, and particularly because he had expiated sin by his own death on the cross. Now he is to be exalted to be above all angels and men; the dominion of the universe is to be in his hands, and from this time on. It is so now. He today sits on the throne of the universe and rules the world; all authority in heaven and on earth is given unto him.

That is the question which always is to be determined when a man starts out to do a thing: "By what authority do you do this?" If you, on going out to preach, should be asked, "By what authority do you preach, and are you not taking the honor on yourself?" you answer that he sent you.

We are to see what he told them to do, and we will compare the Commission to a suspension bridge across a river. On one side of the river is an abutment, the authority of Jesus Christ. And at the other end of the bridge we will take this for the abutment: "And lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the age." On one side of the river stands the authority, and on the other side stands the presence of Jesus Christ – Christ in the Holy Spirit. That is to be until the end of the age. Suspended between these two, and dependent on these two, and resting on these two, is the bridge. Let us see exactly, then, what they are to do: First, to "go therefore." The "therefore" refers to the authority; second, "make disciples of all the nations." So there are three parts to this first item of the Commission: To go, what to go for, and to whom. If we are Missionary Baptists indeed, this Commission is the greatest of all authority.

One of the deacons, when I took charge of the First Baptist Church at Waco, said to me on one occasion, when I was taking up a foreign mission offering, "Brother Carroll, I am interested in helping you reach these Waco people, and I will help some on associational missions, and state missions, but when it comes to these Chinese and Japs, if you will just bring me one of them, I will try to convert him." I said to him, "You don’t read your Commission right. You are not under orders to wait until somebody brings you a Jap; you are to go; you are the one to get up and go yourself. You can’t wrap up in that excuse."

This Commission makes the moving on the part of the commissioned – the people of God; they are to go to these people wherever they are. If they are Laplanders, go; if Esquimaux, go; if they are in the tropics, you must go there; if in the temperate region, you must go there; anywhere from the center of the earth to its remotest bounds. That is what makes it missionary – one sent, and being sent, he goes. And we can’t send anybody unless he goes somewhere. The first thought, then, is the going. It does not say, "Make the earth come to you," but "you are to go to them," and that involves raising the necessary means to get you there. The command to go involves the means essential to going. That is the going law. If the United States shall send one of its diplomats to England, that involves the paying of the expenses of the going.

The next thing is, What are you to do when you get there? You are to make disciples. There are two words here in the Greek – one, matheteusate, which means "to make disciples"; the other, didaskontes, which means "teaching." You do not teach them first, but you make disciples out of them. Now come the questions: How make a disciple? What is discipleship? That will answer the other question, What is necessary to the remission of sins? When is a man a disciple? How far do you have to go in order to make him a disciple? The way to answer that question is to look at what John the Baptist and Christ did. The Gospel of John tells us that John the Baptist made and baptized disciples; that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John did. John made disciples before he baptized them; Jesus made disciples before he baptized them, not afterward. John did not baptize them before he made them disciples; he did not leave off the baptism after he disciplined them. The question of order here is one of great importance. There are three things to be done: (1) Make disciples; (2) baptize disciples; (3) then teach them all things whatsoever Christ commanded. And you must take them in their order. It is not worth while to try to teach a man to do everything that Jesus did when he refuses to be a disciple. Don’t baptize him before he is a disciple. You must not baptize him in order to make him a disciple; you must not attempt to instruct him in Christian duties until he is a disciple.

How important is the answering of that question: "How do you make a disciple?" John made disciples this way: Paul says that John preached repentance toward God, and that they should believe on Jesus to come, i.e., a man who has repented toward God and exercised faith in Jesus Christ, was a disciple; then John baptized him. The Pharisees came to be baptized, but John refused, saying to them: "Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father: for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." "Do not think that entitles you to baptism; that does not at all entitle you to baptism; but you bring forth fruits worthy of your repentance, then I will baptize you, ye offspring of vipers." And Jesus went forth and preached: "Repent ye, and believe the gospel." So that from time immemorial the Baptists have contended that the terms of discipleship, or the terms of remission of sins, are repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul said that he everywhere testified to both Greeks and Jews, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. I sometimes change that a little by putting first the contrition, or godly sorrow; the Spirit convicts a man, and under that conviction he becomes contrite, has godly sorrow; that contrition leads him to repentance; that leads him to faith, then he is a child of God, right there: "We are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus."

This is a great part of your qualification to be a preacher – that you know how to tell a man what to do to be saved; to know what to tell him. You don’t bury a man to kill him. Baptism is a burial. You bury dead men, but not till they are dead. Nor do you bury a live, raw sinner. You must wait till the Spirit kills him to sin.

Major Penn told of a man who had been lost in the woods. It was in the heat of the day, and he was very thirsty. Late in the day he found his way to a shady little nook, where, bursting from a rock, was a cool mountain spring, and hanging up over the spring was an old-fashioned gourd. He dipped that gourd in the spring and held the water up a little and let it run down his throat, and gloried in drinking out of a gourd. Major Penn made such an apt description of it that one man came up and said, "I’ll go and get me a gourd; that is the best drinking vessel; I know by the way you talk about it." So he went to a farmer and asked for a gourd. The farmer picked him a green gourd. He cut off the top of it and dipped it into the water. He commenced sipping and drinking. When he discovered the bitter taste he asked, "What in the world is the matter with this gourd?" An old woman said to him, "Why, you were not such a fool as to drink out of a green gourd, were you? You let that gourd get thoroughly ripe; then open it, take out the insides, boil it, let it get dry, and it will be fit to drink out of." Major Penn said to baptize a man a dry sinner is to bring him up a wet sinner, and it is like drinking out of a green gourd.

This is the answer to the question, What are the terms of discipleship, or, How do you make a disciple? He has godly sorrow. That godly sorrow leads him to repentance – a change of mind; that leads him to the Saviour, and when he accepts Jesus Christ he is a child of God. Now you know how to approach a sinner, but don’t you put him under the water at the wrong time and with the wrong object in view.

This brings up another question: Who is to do this baptizing? Is the command here to be baptized, or is it to baptize? Which comes first? Any lawyer will tell you that the command to do a thing, in which you must submit to the act of another, must specify the authorized party to whom you must submit in that act. For example, suppose that after you had come to the United States from a foreign country, you speak to your friends and ask, "How did you settle in the United States?" They tell you that they took out naturalization papers. Then you meet a man and ask him, "Will you give me some naturalization papers?" He gives you the naturalization papers, and says, "You are a citizen of the United States." Being now a citizen, you come up to vote, but the judge of the election says, "Are you a foreigner?" "Yes, I was till I was naturalized." Then he asks for your papers. Looking at them he says, "Why, this man was not authorized to do it. The law tells how you shall be naturalized, and you have just picked up a fellow on the streets here that did not count at all." The law tells us in every state who shall issue naturalization papers, otherwise the citizenship of the state would be vested in a "Tom-Dick-and-Harry" – everybody and nobody. It is just that way about baptizing.

I know some who teach that the command is simply to be baptized. I said to one of them once, "Does it make any difference who does the baptizing?" "Well," he said, "no it doesn’t; the command is simply to be baptized." I said, "I will give you $100 if you will show me a command to be baptized, with no authorized administrator standing there to administer the ordinance." "Well," he said, "look at Paul’s case: Ananias said, ’Arise and be baptized.’ " I said, "Who sent Ananias? Ananias had authority from God to baptize Paul. Who sent Philip into the desert? The eunuch said, ’Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?’ but there was the administrator talking to him, a sent administrator."

And this question is thereby raised: Jesus ascended to heaven and vested this authority to disciple and to baptize, in whom? Here’s a big gathering, not apostles only, because here are five hundred besides those women. Not in that particular crowd alone, for he said, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the age."

There is no escape from it, that when he gave this Commission, he gave it to an ecclesiastical body – the church. That is why the great church gathered. It is a perpetual commission. No man can deny that these disciples were acting representatively.

"But," says one, "the Commission was given to the apostles." But I say, "Where were the apostles?" Paul says that God set them in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11-16). He did not set anybody out in the woods. Ask those free lances who run out on the prairie, or in the woods, who set them.

God put these apostles, pastors, etc., in the church, and from the time that God gave this commission he has done the baptizing through the church. You cannot give it just in your own way or notion; you cannot just pick people up and put them in the creek, and say, "I baptize you."

Here are the things that are essential to a valid baptism: (1) A man must be a disciple, a penitent believer in Jesus Christ; (2) The act of baptism, whatever that commission means. If it means to sprinkle, sprinkle them; if to pour, then pour; if to immerse, then immersion is the act. (3) The design or purpose: Why do it? If we baptize to "make a disciple" or in order that he may become a disciple; that he may be saved; that his sins be remitted, then I deny that it is baptism. It lacks the gospel design, or purpose. (4) It must be done by authority, and that authority is the church.

The church authorizes; the subject must be a disciple, and the act is immersion. The purpose is to make a public declaration, or confession, of faith in Jesus Christ, to symbolize the cleansing from sin, a memorial of Christ’s resurrection, and a pledge of the disciple.

According to your understanding of this commission you bring confusion into Israel, or keep it out.

While I was pastor in Waco, we received a member from another Baptist church. He heard me preach on this commission and came to me and said, "Look here, I want to preach; I believe I am called to preach, and the way you state that, I have not been baptized at all." I said, "How is that?" "A Campbellite preacher baptized me." "Did the Baptist church receive that baptism?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Now suppose you want to preach, and you come before this church for ordination, and they find out that fact, they won’t ordain you. But suppose they did ordain you, wherever you go that would come up against you. They would say, ’There is a man not scripturally baptized.’ It will hamper your whole ministerial life, and bring confusion into the kingdom of God." "Well," he said, "what ought I to do?" I said, "Don’t do anything until you are convinced it is the right thing to do. You study this again, and let me know what your conclusions are." About a week after he came and said, "I don’t think I have been baptized: he baptized me to make me a disciple. I did not claim to have been a disciple before he baptized me." "Well," I said, "did it make you one?" He said, "I do not think it did." So the blood you must reach before you reach the water. The way is the blood. It has to be applied before you reach the water. It must be reached before you can be saved. So, the blood is before the water. A preacher’s whole future depends on how he interprets this commission.

You will see by referring to the Harmony that Dr. Broadus puts Mark’s commission beside this great Commission on Matthew, thereby indicating that they refer to the same occasion. Assuming this to be correct, I do not discuss the commission of Mark except to say that the first eight verses of Mark 16 are in the manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, but the latter part of this (Mark 16:9-20) which includes the statement, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," is not in any of the ancient manuscripts. I have facsimiles of the three oldest manuscripts – the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian. Whenever those three agree as to what is the text of a passage we need not go further. It is usually right. But whenever those three leave out anything that is in the text, we may count it spurious. The best scholars among preachers never preach from Mark 16:9-20, because it is so very doubtful as to whether it is to be received as Scripture. Dr. Broadus says it certainly does not belong to Mark’s Gospel, but that he believes it records what is true; and I am somewhat inclined to believe that too. I think it is true, though it was added by a later hand. Certainly, Mark did not write it. The manuscript evidence is against that part of it. Therefore, I do not consider this as a separate commission of our Lord.

We now take up the fourth commission, that is to say, the commission recorded by Luke, found in Luke 24:44-49 and 1 Corinthians 15:7; Harmony, pp. 229-230. The remarks upon this commission are these:

1. It is to the eleven apostles.

2. He introduces it by reminding them of his teachings before his death of the witness to him in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, especially concerning his passion, his burial, and his resurrection.

3. Especially to be noted is the fact that he gives them illumination that they may understand these scriptures, and shows the necessity of their fulfilment, in order to the salvation of men.

4. On this necessity he bases the commission here given, which is, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

5. He constitutes them his witnesses of these things.

6. He announces that he will send the promise of the Father, namely, the Holy Spirit, and commands them to wait at Jerusalem until they receive this power from on high to enable them to carry out the work of this commission.

7. The reader should note that, as in the commission recorded by John (John 20:22) he inspired them to write the New Testament Scriptures, so here he illumined their minds to understand the Old Testament Scriptures. Mark the distinction between inspiration and illumination: The object of inspiration is to enable one to speak or write infallibly; the object of illumination is to enable one to understand infallibly what is written.

8. Further note the unity of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, and their equality in inspiration.

9. Note also the very important item that illumination settles authoritatively the apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament as to the true meaning of these Scriptures. As he inspired men to write the Old Testament, and inspired these men to write the New Testament, so now he illumines these men to understand the Old Testament and to interpret it correctly. In other words, as the Holy Spirit is the real author of the Old Testament, which he inspired, by illumination he shows these men just what he meant by those Old Testament writings. We cannot, therefore, put our unaided interpretation on an Old Testament passage against the Spirit’s own explanation of that passage by the illumination of the apostles’ minds. Due attention to this one fact would have prevented many false expositions of Old Testament Scriptures, particularly in limiting to national Israel what the Spirit spoke concerning spiritual Israel. Very many premillennial expositions of the Old Testament prophecies go astray on this point. They insist on applying to the Jews, as Jews, a great many prophecies which these illumined apostles saw referred to spiritual Israel, and not to fleshly Israel. In the same way do the expositions of the Old Testament passages by modern Jews and the limitations of meaning which destructive critics and other infidels put on the Old Testament Scriptures, go astray. It is wrong, and contrary to sane rules of interpretation, to say that you must not read into an Old Testament passage a New Testament meaning. In that way they wish to limit it to things back there only, but the Holy Spirit illumined the minds of the apostles to understand these Old Testament Scriptures better than the prophets that wrote them. Oftentimes the prophets did not know what they meant, and were very anxious to find out what they did mean. The meaning was revealed to New Testament prophets, and their minds illumined to understand them. I have just finished reading a book which as certainly misapplies about two dozen Old Testament prophecies as the sun shines. In other words, this book interprets them as a modern Jew would interpret them, and exactly contrary to what the apostles say these passages mean. When an illumined apostle tells us the meaning of an Old Testament passage, we must accept it, or else deny his illumination, one or the other. You have no idea how much you have learned if you let this one remark sink into your mind.

10. Yet again, you should especially note in this commission the inseparable relation between repentance and the remission of sins, or forgiveness. The first, repentance, must precede remission of sins, and the relation is constant and necessary in each case of all sin, whether against God, against the church, or against ourselves. If you read carefully Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Psalm 51, where the sin is against God, you find that a repentance of that sin is made a condition of forgiveness. Then if you read carefully Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17, where the sin is against ourselves or against the church, the law is, "If he repent, forgive him."

I saw a notice in The Baptist Standard once where it was assumed that we must forgive a sin before the person who committed it against us has repented of the sin. That would make us out better than God, for God won’t do it. He won’t forgive sin against himself until there is repentance, and he says to Peter, concerning a brother’s trespass against a brother, that if he repent, forgive him. And in Matthew 18:15, it says, "If thy brother sin against thee, go right along and convict him of his sin, and if he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother; if he does not hear thee, tell it to the church; if he does not hear the church, then he is unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." There are men who insist that you must forgive trespasses against you whether they are repented of or not, meaning that you must be in a forgiving and loving attitude; and that is correct. You must cultivate that spirit which at all times is ready to forgive when repentance comes. But the majority of people who take that position take it in order to get out of some very troublesome work resting on them, and that work is to go right along to convict a man of that sin. It is much easier to say, "I forgive," and let him alone, than it is to go and show him that he has sinned, and lead him to repentance. And they thus dodge their duty. The largest part of the back-sliding in the church comes from that fact. "If thou seest thy brother sin, then what? Forgive him? No. If thou seest thy brother sin, whether it is a private offense or a general one, report it to the church? No, but go right along and convict him of that sin; and if you fail, take one or two brethren with you; if they fail, let the church try the case. If the church fails, forgive him? No. Let him be to thee a heathen man and a publican." That is Bible usage.

On the other hand there are some people who rejoice in the thought that they do not have to forgive a man until he repents, and they keep right on hating him. You are not to hate him; you are to love him. You are to have toward him a keen desire to gain him, and under the spirit of that desire, the obligation to gain him is on you personally, and there is no excuse for you. God will not hold you guiltless if you see a brother sin on any point, whether against you, the church, or the state, and do not try to bring him to repentance. It is our duty, as Dr. Broadus puts it, "to go right along and not rave at him," but convict him that he has sinned, saying, "Now brother, this is wrong, and I have come, not in the spirit of accusation, nor in a disciplinary manner, but as a brother interested in you, and with the earnest desire in my heart to make you see that wrong, and if you ever see it and get it on your conscience and repent and make amends, I will save my brother."

He says that repentance and remission of sins shall be preached in all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Paul says about that, "I have testified everywhere, both to the Jews and to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

The weakness of modern preaching is that the preachers leave repentance out.

So the modern churches leave out the faithful and loving labor which should always precede exclusion. Especially should you note in this commission the unalterable relation between repentance and remission, or forgiveness of sins. The first must precede the second, and the relation is constant and necessary in the case of all sin, whether against God, the church or against ourselves.

The fifth commission is the commission at his ascension. The scriptures bearing on this are: Acts 1:6-12; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-53, and the account of it is found in the Harmony on pages 229-231. Upon this last commission, given just before Jesus was taken up out of their sight, note:

Acts 1:8 indicates a "gathering together," different from any of the preceding ones, and at which they asked this question: "Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

Acts 1:9 shows that the occasion of this commission was his ascension into heaven.

Acts 1:15 implies that 120 were present at this time. This specific number necessitates that the occasion when 500 brethren were present, mentioned by Paul, must have been at the appointed mountain in Galilee, where the great commission to the church, recorded in Matthew 28:16-20, was given. A very distinguished scholar has said, "Maybe these five hundred brethren were present at the time of his ascension." It could not be, because one hundred and twenty is given as the number. It could not even have been at any other time than at that appointed in Galilee, where most of his converts were, and where be could get together so large a number as that. The form of the commission here is: "Ye shall be my witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." That is the test for the Commission.

The place where the Commission was given is thus stated: "And he led them out until they were over against Bethany," and "from the mount called Olivet." Another commission was given at that place. The place from which he led them is the place of their gathering, to which they returned (Acts 1:13), and they returned to Jerusalem, to the upper room, where were a multitude together, about 120. And then the writer gives the names of those who abode there, and Peter got up and spoke to these 120.

The commission to be his witnesses suggests the simplicity and directness of their work. I heard a preacher say once with reference to what he did when he went out to an appointment, "I snowed." He said the Spirit was not with him, and it was just like s snow. Another preacher said, "I ’hollered,’ and I ’hollered.’ " Preachers lose sight of one important function of their office, and that is to be witnesses. That is a simple thing – to testify. You are to stand with uplifted hands, and with elbows on the Bible you are to witness before God and to bear witness to what you know – to testify.

They were to testify to his vicarious passion, his burial, and his resurrection. Paul makes these three things the gospel. He says, "I delivered unto you first of all that which also I have received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day." Of what they were eyewitnesses we will see a little later, in some other testimony.

We come now to his sixth commission. This commission is found in Acts 9:15-16; Acts 22:10-15; Acts 26:15-18; Galatians 1:15-16; Galatians 2:7-9. These scriptures give you the commission of Paul, on which note:

While both Peter and Paul, on proper occasion, preached to both Jews and Gentiles, yet we learn from Galatians 2:7-9 that while the stress of Peter’s commission was to the circumcision, the stress of Paul’s commission was to the uncircumcision. He was pre-eminently the apostle to the Gentiles.

The elements of his commission may be gathered from all these scriptures cited. Read every one of them, and you will gather together the elements of his commission. Let us see what these elements were:

(a) He was set apart to his work from his mother’s womb, and divinely chosen.

(b) Personally he must suffer great things.

(c) He received the gospel which he was to preach by direct revelation from the risen Lord. He did not get it from reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels were written.

He did not have them to read. He did not go to Jerusalem to talk with them, but he went into Arabia, and therefrom ;the Lord himself, and from the site of the giving of the law, whose relation to the gospel he so clearly cited, he received direct from Jesus Christ the gospel which he wrote.

(d) He was chosen to bear the Lord’s name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

(e) He was chosen to know God’s will, and to see and hear the Just One, and then to witness to all men what he saw and heard. Now, here comes in Paul as a witness, and this is a part of his commission: "What are you testifying to, Paul?" "I know God’s will; it was revealed to me; I saw Jesus; I saw him with these eyes; Jesus raised; I heard him; I heard his voice." What next? "He saved my soul."

One of the most effective sermons I ever preached was on this use that Paul makes of his Christian experience. Seven times in the New Testament Paul states his Christian experience, and for a different purpose every time. When he was arraigned before Agrippa he tells his Christian experience as recorded in Acts 9. In Acts 22, standing on the stairway, looking into the faces of the howling mob of murderous men, he states his Christian experience. Writing to the Romans, as is shown in Romans 7, he tells his Christian experience. Writing to Timothy he does the same. The man is speaking as a witness.

In one of Edward Eggleston’s books there is an account of a pugnacious Methodist preacher, who was not only ready to preach the gospel, but to fight for the gospel also. On the way to a certain community two men waylaid him and said, "Mr. McGruder, if you will just turn your horse around and go back, we will let you alone, but if you persist in going to this place and interfering with our business, we are going to beat the life out of you." So the preacher got down off the horse, saying, "I prefer to give you the beating," and he whipped them both unmercifully. But he got his jaw broken, and that jaw being broken, he could not say a word. In the church he took his pencil and wrote to a sixteen-year-old boy and said, "Ralph, you have got to preach today." Ralph said, "I have just been converted, you must remember." "Do you want me to get up here and write a sermon in lead pencil to a crowd?" continued the preacher. "Well," said Ralph, "I don’t know any sermon." "If you break down on preaching," said the preacher, "tell your Christian experience." So Ralph got up and started to preaching a sermon, looking very much scared, for he had a terror, which was what we would call stage fright. At last he remembered the direction to tell his Christian experience, and the poor boy quit trying to be eloquent, or to expound the Scriptures that he knew very little about, and just told how the Lord Jesus Christ came to him, a poor orphan boy, an outlaw, and saved his soul, and that he wanted to testify how good God was to him. Before he got through there was sobbing all over the house, and a great revival broke out there.

I am telling these things to show that men are commissioned to bear witness, and while you cannot bear witness to facts that you do not know anything about, you can tell what you do know – what God has done for you. David says, "Come, all ye that fear the Lord and I will tell you what great things he hath done for my soul, whereof I am glad." In one of the prophecies concerning Jesus it is written: "I have not hid thy righteousnesses within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy loving kindness and thy truth from the great assembly."

(f) The fulness of Paul’s commission appears best in Acts 26:16-18, as follows: "Arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn: from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me." Whenever you want to preach Paul’s sermon, take Paul’s commission and analyze it. Paul was speaking before Agrippa. Notice that besides witnessing, Paul wanted to open their eyes (they were spiritually blind) ; that they might turn from darkness to light (then they were in the dark) ; from the power of Satan unto God, (they were under the power of Satan); that they might receive the remission of sins (so that they were unpardoned; and to an inheritance among them that are sanctified (then they were without heritage). Analyze that commission and you will see what he was to do; he puts it all before you plainly in that scripture. So he said to Agrippa, "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision," i.e., he just went on and carried out that commission. That is the analysis of the commission of Paul.

The seventh and last commission is the special commission of John – Revelation 1:1-2; Revelation 1:9-11; Revelation 1:19. This commission is unlike any other; but it is a commission. It is a commission, not to speak, but to write; and in it we have an account of the past tenses. "What did you see, John?" "Well, I saw one of the most wonderful things in this world." And he tells about Jesus, and how he looked in his risen glory; about the candlesticks and the stars, and what they meant; and then, having thus told what he saw in the midst of the churches, and (see chap. 4) what he saw in heaven, he looks at the present things; the churches, as they are, and heaven as it is. Then follows the last part of his commission: "Write the things which are to come."

QUESTIONS
1. On the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) answer: What evidence that this was at an appointed meeting? Where, and who were present?

2. What are the supposable reasons for assembling at this particular place?

3. How does this occasion rank in importance?

4. What is Dr. Landrum’s analysis of this commission?

5. What authority does Christ claim in giving this commission, why was this authority given him and what the pertinency of this statement of our Lord on this particular occasion?

6. Compare this commission to a suspension bridge.

7. What does the first part of the commission prescribe to be done, or what are the three parts of the first item?

8. What does this going involve? Illustrate.

9. After going, then what three things are commanded to be done and what is the order?

10. How make disciples, and what is the teaching and example of John the Baptist and Jesus on this point?

11. Who then must do the baptizing?

12. What are the essentials to a valid baptism?

13. What can you say of Mark 16:9-20?

14. To whom was the Commission, recorded in Luke 24:44-49, given?

15. How does Christ introduce this commission?

16. What does he show in this commission to be a necessity in order to the salvation of men?

17. In this commission what does he say should be done?

18. What does he constitute the disciples in this commission?

19. What promise does he announce to them in this commission?

20. What special gift does he bestow upon the disciples here, what is the difference between inspiration & illumination, and what is the object of each?

21. What especially is noted relative to Old & New Testament Scriptures?

22. What very important question does this illumination settle and how?

23. What is the necessary & constant relation between repentance & forgiveness of sins, and what the application of this principle in the case of all sin?

24. What danger, on the other hand, does the author here warn against?

25. What weakness of modern preaching churches here pointed out?

26. Give the analysis of the Commission of our Lord at the ascension.

27. To whom was Paul especially commissioned to preach?

28. What are the six elements of this commission?

29. What was the condition of the people to whom he was sent as indicated in Acts 26:16-18?

30. What was the special commission to John, and what is the analysis of it as given in Revelation 1:1-2; Revelation 1:9-11; Revelation 1:19?

Verses 7-10

XVII

SAUL’S CONVERSION, HIS CALL TO THE APOSTLESHIP AND HIS COMMISSION

Acts 9:1-19; Acts 22:5-16; Acts 26:12-20; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:7-10; Romans 7:7-25.

In commencing this chapter, I call attention to my address called, "The Greatest Man in History," which you will find in The Southwestern Theological Review, Vol. I, No. II. There are ten special scriptures which bear upon the conversion of Saul, and most of them upon his call to the apostleship. The accounts given are as follows: (1) By Luke, Acts 9:1-9, A.D. 36; (2) by Barnabas, Acts 9:26-28, A.D. 39; (3) by Paul at Corinth, Galatians 1:15-16, A.D. 57; (4) by Paul at Ephesus, 1 Corinthians 15:8-10, A.D. 57; (5) by Paul at Corinth, Romans 7:7-25, A.D. 58; (6) by Paul at Jerusalem, Acts 22:1-16, A.D. 59; (7) by Paul at Caesarea, Acts 26:1-19, A.D. 60; (8) by Paul at Rome, Philippians 3:4-14, A.D. 62; (9) by Paul in Macedonia, 1 Timothy 1:12-16, A.D. 67; (10) by Paul at Rome, 2 Timothy 1:9-12, A.D. 68. In order to understand the conversion of Saul of Tarsus we must be able to interpret these ten scriptures.

To prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion I submit two scriptures: (1) The words that Jesus said to him when he met him, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goads." (2) What he says about his experience in Romans 7:7-25, that he was alive without the law until the commandment came, when sin revived and he died.

As to the time and place of Paul’s conversion, the argument is overwhelming that he was converted outside Damascus. In the first place, the humility with which he asked the question, "Who art thou, Lord?" Second, the spirit of obedience which instantly followed: "Whereupon, O King Agrippa, Is was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision." Again he says, "When God called me by his grace, he revealed Christ in me." So we may count it a settled question that Paul was converted out there on the road, when the light above the brightness of the midday sun shone about him, and he fell to the ground.

The proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state, is found in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and also 1 Corinthians 15:8, in which he expressly affirms that he had seen Jesus, and puts it in the same class with the appearances of Jesus to the other disciples, after his resurrection from the dead. It was not simply an ecstasy, nor a trance, nor a mere mental state, but he actually met Jesus, and saw him. Jesus appeared to him, not in the flesh, as on earth before his death, but in the glory of his risen body. He and Paul actually met. There was a necessity for his actually seeing the Lord. He could not otherwise have been an apostle, for one of the main functions of the apostolic office was to be an "eyewitness" that Jesus had risen from the dead. So Peter announces when Matthias was chosen to fill the place of Judas that he must be one who had continued with them from the time of the baptism of John until the Lord was taken up into the heavens, and that he must be one eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ. Other passages also bearing on his apostolic call, are, one particularly, 1 Corinthians 9:1-9, and then what he says in the beginning of his letters: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, not of man." I need not cite all of these beginnings. You can trace these out yourself. The second particular passage that I cite, to be put by the side of 1 Corinthians 9:1-9, is Galatians 1:15-16.

Let us distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this point experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience, and what the elements of his Christian experience. When I was interested in the subject of my salvation, to me, a sinner and an outsider, the distinction between Saul’s conversion and his call to the apostleship was very clear. You must understand that the light above the brightness of the midday sun was the glory of the appearance of the risen Lord to Saul, in order that he might see him to become an apostle, and the shock which Paul experienced by thus seeing the risen Lord was the shock that knocked him down, but it was not a part of his Christian experience – it was a part of his call to the apostleship. You must not expect anything of that kind in order to your conversion, nor must you teach other people to expect it. But the elements of his Christian experience were these: (1) He was convicted that he was a sinner; (2) Christ was revealed to him; (3) he did believe on the Christ thus revealed as his Saviour; (4) he did then and there receive the remission of his sins, which remission was pictorially set forth in his baptism three days later.

Here it is well for us to define a Christian experience. I was once present when a man came to unite with the church, and the first question propounded to him was, "Please tell us in your own way why you think you are a Christian." "Well," he commenced in a sort of "sing-song" manner, "one day – ah, about five o’clock – ah, I just took a notion to walk around the work-fence – ah, and I thought maybe I’d better take my rifle along – ah, for I might see a squirrel – ah," and he went on just that way. I myself have heard, in a Negro protracted meeting on the Brazos, about eight miles below Waco, candidate after candidate tell their experiences. They commenced this way: "Well, about last Sunday night – ah," following the same "sing-song" manner, "something seemed to drop down on me like a falling star – ah, and I heard the angel Gabriel toot his horn – ah; I went down in the valley to pray – ah," and so on.

Therefore, I say that we ought to define accurately the Christian experience. This is a Christian experience: All those convictions, emotions, and determinations of the soul wrought by the Spirit of God in one’s passage from death unto life. That may sound like a strange definition of a Christian experience. It has in it a conviction and certain emotions, also certain determinations, or choices, and those convictions and emotions are not excited by seeing a squirrel, not in imagining that you heard Gabriel blow his horn, for it is not Gabriel that is going to blow the horn. Michael is the horn-blower. But this conviction, this emotion and the determinations of the will, are all Spirit-wrought. And a Christian experience covers every one of those in the passage from death unto life.

There are varied uses which the New Testament makes of Paul’s experience:

1. As soon as he was converted, and yet outside Damascus or at least as soon as he had entered Damascus, the Lord tells Paul’s Christian experience to Ananias in order to induce that disciple to go to him. That disciple says, "Lord, I know this man. Why, he is a holy terror! He just kills us wherever he finds us." But the Lord says, "I tell you he is a chosen vessel unto me, and you go to him." So the Lord made use of Paul’s experience to prepare Ananias to accept Paul, and to minister to him what ought to be ministered to him, just as God made use of the experience of Cornelius related by himself to Peter in order to prepare Peter to perceive that God was no respecter of persons.

2. The second use made is by Barnabas in Acts 9:26-28. Paul came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and essayed to join himself to the disciples, but they would not receive him: "You? Take you? Accept you? Why, this whole city is full of the memories of your persecutions." But Barnabas took up for him, and related how this Saul had met Jesus, and how he was a believer in this gospel, and a preacher. And the relating of Saul’s experience to the Jerusalem church removed all of their objections to him, and prepared them to receive him among them, so the record says, "he went in and out among them."

It is for such objects that the Christian experience should be related to the church. God requires it as the second ceremonial act – that the man shall publicly confess the change that has taken place in him before he can be received into the church, and I will be sorry whenever, if ever, the Baptists leave that out. A man must not only be converted inside, but in order to join the church there must be a confession of that conversion.

In this particular case it was exceedingly appropriate for Barnabas to relate it, as they would not be disposed to believe Paul. The general rule should be that each candidate tell his own experience. It is better to let the candidate just get up and tell the church why he thinks he is a Christian, in his own way. Some people object to it. They say it is too embarrassing to the women. I have never found it so, but Is have seen men so "shaky" when they went to get married that they answered so low I could hardly hear them. But women are always assertive. A woman knows she loves him. She knows what she is doing, and she doesn’t mind saying so.

I remember a Christian experience related to our old First Church at Waco. A Mrs. Warren gave it. I talked with her privately, saying, "When you come before the church, don’t let anybody suggest to you what you are to say, and don’t you say anything because somebody else has said it; you just simply say what has happened to you." When I put the question to her, she opened her Bible and put her finger on the passage from which she heard a sermon, and showed how that sermon took hold of her; told how it led her to pray; she then turned to another passage, showing that through faith she believed in Jesus Christ; and she thus turned from passage to passage. I considered her’s the most intelligent and the most impressive Christian experience I had ever heard. That kind of testimony does a world of good.

3. The third use of it Paul himself makes in his letter to the Galatians. He says, "God, who separated me even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." Thus he goes on to make use of his Christian experience. He says, "Therefore, now first I was converted, and then called as an independent apostle. That is why I do not go to Jerusalem to submit my experience to Peter or John, having derived this direct authority from God, from Christ, who alone can call an apostle. That is why I did not submit to the instruction of man."

4. The next use he makes of it is what is told in Romans 7, and he there tells his experience in order to show the use of the law in the conversion of a man – that the law does not convert the man; that it discovers sin to him: "I had not known sin except the law said, Thou shall and shalt not do this or that. I was not even conscious that I was a sinner until the law showed me I was a sinner. Apart from the law I felt all right, about as good as anybody, but when the law came, sin revived and I died." And then he goes on to show that this mere sight of sin through the law cannot put one at peace with God, neither can it deliver one; it does not enable one to follow the right that he sees in order to evade the wrong that he would not; that it leads one to cry out, "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?" But when he says, "I thank God through Christ Jesus our Lord," he then shows how his conversion, through faith in Jesus Christ was led up to by the law: the law was a schoolmaster to lead him to Christ.

5. In the letter to the Corinthians he makes another use of it. He explains that he is so different from what he was, saying, "By the grace of God I am what I am." In other words, "You need not come to me and say, ‘Why, Paul, when did you commence to do better, to work out your own righteousness? You are so different from what you were when I first heard of you; you then were breathing out threatenings,’ for I say to you, By the grace of God I am what I am."

6. We see another when he stands on the stairway in Jerusalem, giving an explanation as to why he quit one crowd and then went to another crowd. They were howling against him for going over to the Christians after being so zealous as a Jew, and he asked the brethren to hear him. He admits all that they said as to what he had been, and to justify his occupying the position he now occupies, he says, "I will tell you my Christian experience," and he proceeds to do it. If a leader of wild young men, up to all sorts of mischief and devilment, should go off for a few days, and come back changed, and the boys say, "Come down to the saloon tonight, and let us have a good time," and he would then say, "No," they would wonder what had come to him and would ask, "What has come over you lately? Come and let us have a game of cards." But, "No," he says, "boys, I will tell you why I cannot do that." Then he explains why, and he leaves that crowd because he can’t stay with it any more. So Paul explained why he left the persecuting crowd, and could not go with them any more. He had had a Christian experience.

7. In Acts 26 there is another instance recorded in which he made use of it. He was at Caesarea, arraigned on trial for his life, before Festus and King Agrippa. He is asked to speak in his own defense. In defending himself against the accusations of his enemies he relates his Christian experience.

8. In the letter to the Philippians he relates his Christian experience in order to show the impossibility of any man’s becoming righteous through his own righteousness, and to show that Christ laid hold of him. He uses his own experience now to show that his righteousness can never save him, and that though regenerate, he cannot claim to be perfectly holy and sinless.

9. In 1 Timothy 1:12-16 he relates his Christian experience in order to explain two poles of those who are salvable: (a) "God forgave me because I did it through ignorance," and (b) to show that any man who has not committed the unpardonable sin, may be saved, since he, the chief of sinners, was saved.

10. Then, in the last letter to Timothy, and just before he died, he recites his Christian experience. He says, "I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day," i.e., "I committed my soul to him on that day when he came to me and met me; I knew him before I committed it to him, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep it." He made that use of his Christian experience because he was under the sentence of death, expecting in a few hours to be executed. This is his farewell to earth and to time, so he closes his letter with the statement that the time of his exodus is at hand; that he is ready to be poured out as a libation; that he has fought a good fight, has kept the faith, and that he feels sure that there is laid up for him a crown which God the righteous Judge will give to him at his appearing, i.e., the appearing of Jesus. The relating of that experience came from the lips of a dying man, showing that the ground of his assurance gives calmness – the calmness of God’s peace.

A startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience. We do not find many uses of Peter’s experience, or John’s, or Matthew’s, or Mark’s, or Luke’s. Paul is the only man in the New Testament whose experience is held up before us in ten distinct passages of scripture. To account for the fact, let us expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1 Timothy 1:13-16), in which he says, "Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief [of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample, . . ." the conclusion of which is this: All these uses are made of Paul’s experience because as Abraham had the model faith, which is the pattern for all generations, so Paul is a model in Christian experience – he is the pattern. If you preach on the faith of Abraham you have the model faith of the world; if you preach on the experience of Saul of Tarsus you have the model experience of the world.

The principal lesson to us is that as it was in the particular case of Paul, so it is in our case, that the most stupendous fact in our history is not when we were born according to the flesh, but when we were born according to the Spirit. That is our real birthday. It is the most significant and the most far-reaching fact of anybody’s lifetime and an abundant use may be made of it.

For instance, John Jasper, the Negro preacher, with his Christian experience could always reply to any atheist – even to President Eliot, of Harvard, about a new religion. He would say to President Eliot, "When you say there is no such thing as the religion that has been preached, you ought to say, ’Not as you knows of.’ I have it, and since I have got it and you haven’t, I am higher authority on that than you."

In Edward Eggleston’s Circuit Rider is the story of a fighting preacher, who was going to his appointment, and certain rough men stopped him on the way and told him that he must turn round and go home, and not fill that appointment. "No," he said, "I am going to fill it; I’m not going home." "Well, then, we will take you down from your horse and give you such a beating that you will not feel like preaching." "Well, you ought not to do that," he said. "You get down," they said. He got down and whipped both of them outrageously, but in the fight he got his jaw badly bruised and marred, and when he got to where he was to preach he could not preach. There was a big crowd, and no preacher who could preach. So he looked around and took a poor, thin, long-haired, black-eyed young fellow who had been very wild, but who had just been converted – just a boy. The preacher said, "Ralph, get up here and preach." "Why," he says, "I am no preacher; I have not been a Christian long; I have not been licensed, nor ordained." "But," said the preacher, "get up here and preach." "Why," said the boy, "I do not know any sermons." "Well, if you try to make a sermon and fail, then throw your sermon down, and tell your Christian experience before this crowd." So that boy got up and made a failure of trying to preach a sermon like preachers preach. Then, weeping, he said, "Brethren, I can tell you how God for Christ’s sake forgave my sins," and he became more eloquent in telling his experience than Demosthenes or Cicero, and that whole crowd was weeping under the power of the boy’s simple recounting of the salvation of his soul. He could not possibly have done any better than just what he did that day.

There is a myth that when Jupiter made a man he put a pair of saddlebags on his shoulders. In one of the saddlebags was the man’s own sins and in the other were the sins of his neighbors, and when the man threw the saddlebags on his shoulder the sins of his neighbors were in front of him and the other saddlebag with his own sins was behind him so that he could not see them, but his eyes were always on the sins of his neighbors. But when conversion comes God reverses the saddlebags, and putting the man’s own sins in front, he places the sins of his neighbors behind him, so that he never thinks about what a sinner A, B or C is, but, "Oh," he says, "what a sinner I am!" That is the way of it in the Christian experience. Some think that it was the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., that it was because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people. My belief is that all of us feel that way the first time we quit looking at our neighbors’ sins and begin looking at our own sins, but it is not the explanation of Paul’s statement, because that does not make a pattern of the case. He says, "Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief: howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life." Note that his case was a pattern to them that should thereafter believe. That was the reason, and not simply that of looking at his own sins instead of his neighbors.

What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, is e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious? No. I have showed in a previous chapter that Louis XIV and Alva in the lowlands persecuted worse than all. Others have gone before him in blaspheming, and there have been more injurious men than he. The answer is this: He was a "Pharisee of the Pharisees," that is, he was an extremist, going to the fine points of Pharisaism, the acme, the pinnacle, the apex of Pharisaism, which is self-righteousness, and Paul was the most self-righteous man in the world. What is the sin of self-righteousness? It says, "I am not depraved by nature; I do not need the new birth, the re-birth of the Holy Spirit; I need no atonement; I am the ’pink of perfection.’ " That is the greatest sin that man ever committed, because it rejects the Father’s love. It rejects the Saviour’s expiatory death, and his priesthood. It rejects the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Hence it is the culmination of sin. While other people are self-righteous, Paul was the outside man, which means that if all the sinners from Adam to the end of the world were put in a row and graded according to their heinousness, this one a sinner) this one more a sinner, that one even more, and to the outside man, the worst, the one next to hell, that man was Saul of Tarsus. That is what is meant by being the outside man as a pattern. He topped them all, to be held up before other sinners, so as to say, "If the outside man was saved, you need not despair." The value of this man’s conversion to the church and to the world is very great. It marked the turning point in the direction of the labors of the church in a worldwide way, and it established forever the foundations of the new covenant as against the old covenant.

His apostolic call and independent gospel knocks the foundation out from under the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope, because it shows that he did not derive from Peter his apostolic authority; that he did not even go to see Peter before he commenced exercising his call; that he did not get from Peter one syllable of his gospel; and whenever an issue came up between him and Peter the latter went down and not Paul. That one fact destroys the entire claim of the papacy that Peter was the first Pope.

There are some things in this connection that need explanation. First, the falling of the scales from his eyes. Literally, there was no falling of the scales from his eyes, but the glory of Christ blinded him. His physical eyes could not see. It was not his soul that was blinded, but his physical eyes; and "the scales" that fell from his eyes was this temporary suspension of sight caused by this glory of the Lord. If you hold your eye open a little and let me put a red hot iron, not against your eye, but close to it, it will make you as blind as a bat, but if you shut your eye it won’t do it, because the tears in your eyes will break the conduction of the heat. Paul’s case is just as when you are standing out of doors on a dark night and there comes an intense flash of lightning. When it is gone you cannot see for a moment. That is the scales.

Second, Paul was unable to eat and drink for three days. The experience that had come to him was turning the world upside down. He had meat to eat that the ordinary man knows not of. The disciples were astonished that Jesus, sitting at the well of Sychar, was not hungry. He says, "I have meat to eat that ye know not of." Hundreds of times I have been in that condition, after a great illumination in God’s work, and some powerful demonstration in a meeting, that I could not eat anything. The things of heaven tasted so much better than the things of earth. No man eats for a while in the shock of such tremendous experience as that Paul passed through.

Third, the Lord said to Ananias, "Behold, he prayeth." The question arises, What was he praying for? What do you pray for? You are converted. The Lord said to Ananias, "Paul prayeth." It was used as a proof that he was converted, and, "therefore Ananias, you may go to him." Ananias was afraid to go. So the Lord said, "Why, you need not be afraid to go; he is not persecuting now, he is praying; there has a change come over him." I do more praying and quicker praying after an extraordinary visitation of God’s grace than at any other time.

QUESTIONS

1. What address commended for study in connection with this chapter, and have you read it?

2. What the scriptures bearing on the theme, and what the corresponding date of each?

3 Prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion?

4. Through whose ministry was Paul convicted?

5. At what point in the story was he converted – when he met Jesus outside Damascus, at the end of three days in Damascus, or at his baptism?

6. What the proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state?

7. What was the necessity for his actually seeing the Lord?

8. Cite other passages also bearing on his apostolic call.

9. Distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this joint experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience.

10. Define a Christian experience.

11. What varied uses does the New Testament make of Paul’s experience?

12. What startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience?

13. To account for the fact expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1 Timothy 1:13-16) in which be says, "Howbeit Is obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample, etc."

14. What the lessons to us of the use to be made of our experience, and what illustration of it?

15. Cite the myth of Jupiter concerning the man and the saddlebags.

16. Was it the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people? Explain fully.

17. What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious?

18. What is the value of this man’s conversion to the church and the world?

19. What is the bearing of his apostolic call and his independent gospel on the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope?

20. Explain the falling of the scales from his eyes.

21. Explain his not eating and drinking for three days.

22. The Lord said to Ananias, "Behold, he prayeth." What was he waiting for?

Verse 9

XVI

SAUL, THE PERSECUTOR

Acts 7:57-60; Acts 8:1-4; Acts 22:4-5; Acts 22:19-20; Acts 26:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Galatians 1:22-24.

In a preceding chapter on Stephen we have necessarily considered somewhat a part of the matter of this chapter, and now we will restate only enough to give a connected account of Saul. In our last discussion we found Saul and other members of his family residents in Jerusalem, Saul an accomplished scholar, a rabbi, trained in the lore of the Jewish Bible and of their traditions, a member of the Sanhedrin, an extreme Pharisee, flaming with zeal, and aggressive in his religion, an intense patriot, about thirty-six years old, probably a widower, stirred up and incensed on account of the progress of the new religion of Jesus.

In considering this distinguished Jew in the role of a persecutor, we must find, first of all, the occasion of this marvelous and murderous outbreak of hatred on his part at this particular juncture, and the strange direction of its hostility. On three all-sufficient grounds we understand why Saul did not actively participate in the recent Sadducean persecution. First, the issue of that persecution was the resurrection, and on this point a Pharisee could not join a Sadducean materialist. Second, the motive of that persecution was to prevent the break with Rome, and Saul as a Pharisee wanted a break with Rome. Third, the direction of that persecution was mainly against the apostles and Palestinian Christians, who, so far, had made no break with the Temple and its services and ritual, or the customs of Moses. To outsiders they appeared as a sect of the Jews, agreeing, indeed, with the Pharisees on many points, and while they were hateful in their superstition as to the person of the Messiah, they were understood to preach a Messiah for Jews only and not for Gentiles. That is why Saul did not join the Sadducean persecution – because of the issue of it, because of the motive of it, and because of the direction of it.

1. Five causes stirred him up to become a persecutor: First, the coming to the front of Stephen, the Hellenist, whose preaching evidently looked to a Messiah for the world, and not only looked to a break with Jerusalem and the Temple, but the abrogation of the entire Old Covenant, or at least its supercession by a New Covenant on broad, worldwide lines that made no distinction between a Jew and a Greek. That is the first cause of the persecuting spirit of Saul.

2. Stephen’s Messiah was a God-man and a sufferer, expiating sin, and bringing in an imputed righteousness through faith in him wrought by the regenerating Spirit, instead of a Jewish hero, seated on David’s earthly throne, triumphant over Rome, and bringing all nations into subjection to the royal law. This is the difference between the two Messiahs. So that kind of a Messiah would be intensely objectionable to Saul.

3. Stephen’s preaching was making fearful inroads among the flock of Saul’s Cilicean synagogue, and sweeping like a fire among the Israelites of the dispersion, who were already far from the Palestinian Hebrews.

4. Some of Saul’s own family were converted to the new religion, two of them are mentioned in the letter to the Romans as being in Christ before him, and his own sister, judging from Acts 23, was already a Christian.

5. Saul’s humiliating defeat in the great debate with Stephen.

These are the five causes that pushed the man out who had been passive in the other persecution, now to become active in this persecution. They account for the vehement flame of Saul’s hate, and the direction of that hate, not toward the apostles, who had not broken with the Holy City, its Temple, its sacrifice, nor the customs of Moses, but against Stephen and those accepting his broader view. We cannot otherwise account for the fact that Saul took no steps in his persecution against the apostles, while he did pursue the scattered Christians of the dispersion unto strange cities.

We may imagine Saul fanning the flame of his hate by his thoughts in these particulars:

1. "To call this Jesus ’God’ is blasphemy.

2. "To call this convicted and executed felon ’Messiah,’ violates the Old Testament teaching of David’s royal son triumphing over all of his enemies.

3. "That I, a freeborn child of Abraham, never in bondage, must be re-born, must give up my own perfect and blameless righteousness of the law to accept the righteousness of another, is outrageous.

4. "That I must see Jerusalem perish, the Temple destroyed, the law of the Mosaic covenant abrogated, and enter into this new kingdom on the same humiliating terms as an uncircumcised Gentile, is incredible and revolting.

5. "That this Hellenist, Stephen, should invade my own flock and pervert members of my own family, Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen [Romans 16:7], and my own sister [Acts 23:16], and shake the faith of my other kinsmen, Jason and Sosipater [Romans 16:21], is insulting to the last degree.

6. "That I, the proud rabbi, a member of the supreme court of my people, the accomplished and trained logician, should be overwhelmed in debate by this unscholarly Stephen, and that, too, in my own chosen field the interpretation of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, is crucifixion of my pride and an intolerable public shame. Let Stephen perish!

7. "But more humiliating than all, I find myself whipped inside. This Stephen is driving me with goads as if I were an unruly ox. His words and shining face and the Jesus he makes me see, plant convicting pricks in my heart and conscience against which I kick in vain; I am like a troubled sea casting up mire and filth. To go back on the convictions of my life is abject surrender. To follow, then, a logical conclusion, is to part from the counsel of my great teacher, Gamaliel, and to take up the sword of the Sadducee and make myself the servant of the high priest. Since I will not go back, and cannot stand still, I must go forward in that way that leads to prison, blood, and death, regardless of age or sex. Perhaps I may find peace. The issue is now personal and vital; Stephen or Saul must die. To stop at Stephen is to stop at the beginning of the way. I must go on till the very name of this Jesus is blotted from the earth."

That is given as imagined, but you must bring in psychology in order that you may understand the working of this man’s mind to account for the flaming spirit and the desperate lengths of the persecution which he introduces.

Seven things show the spirit of this persecution, as expressed in the New Testament:

1. In Acts 8:3 (Authorized Version), the phrase, "making havoc" is used. That is the only time in the New Testament that the word "havoc" is found. It is found in the Septuagint of the Old Testament. But it is a word which expresses the fury of a wild boar making havoc – a wild boar in a garden: rooting, gnashing, and trampling. That phrase, "making havoc," gives us an idea of the spirit that Saul had, which is the spirit of a wild boar.

2. In Acts 9:1, it is said of Saul, "Yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter." How tersely expressed that is! The expiration of his breath is a threat, and death. Victor Hugo, in one place, said about a man, "Whenever he respires he conspires,” and that is the nearest approach in literature to this vivid description of the state of a man’s mind – that the very breath he breathed was threatenings and slaughter.

3. The next word is found in Acts 26:11. He says, "being exceedingly mad against them." That is the superlative degree. He was not merely angry at the Christians, but it was an anger that amounted to madness; he was not merely mad but "exceedingly mad." So that gives you the picture of that wild boar.

4. "He haled men and women." "Haled" is an old Anglo Saxon word. We don’t use it now, but it means "to drag by violence." He didn’t go and courteously arrest a man; he just went and grabbed men and women and dragged them through the streets. Imagine a gray-haired mother, a chaste wife, a timid maiden, grabbed and dragged through the streets, with a crowd around mocking, and you get at the spirit of this persecution.

5. The next word is "devastate." Paul used this word twice, and Ananias used it once (Acts 9:21). That word is the term that is applied to an army sweeping a country with fire and sword. We say that Sherman devastated Georgia. He swept a scope of country seventy-five miles wide – from Atlanta to the sea, leaving only the chimney stacks – not a house, not a fence – with fire and sword. And that word is here employed to describe Saul’s persecution.

6. Twice in Galatians he uses this word in describing it: "I persecuted them beyond measure," that is, if you want to find some kind of a word that would describe his persecution, in its spirit, you couldn’t find it; you couldn’t find a word that would mean "beyond measure."

7. The last phrase is in Acts 22:4, "unto death." That was objective in spirit, whether men or women. These seven expressions, and they are just as remarkable, and more so, in the Greek, as they are in English, give the spirit of this persecution.

The following things show the extent of this persecution:

1. Domiciliary visits. He didn’t wait to find a man on the streets acting in opposition to any law. He goes to the houses after them, and in every place of the world. The most startling exercise of tyranny is an inquisition into a man’s home. The law of the United States regards a man’s home as his castle, and only under the most extreme circumstances does the law allow its officers to enter a man’s home. If you were perfectly sure that a Negro had burglarized your smokehouse, and you had tracked him to his house, you couldn’t go in there, you couldn’t take an officer of the law in there, unless you went before a magistrate and recorded a solemn oath that you believed that he was the one that did burglarize your place, and that what he stole would be found if you looked for it in his house.

2. In the second place, "scourges." He says many times I have scourged them, both men and women, forty stripes save one; thirty-nine hard lashes he put on the shoulders of men and women. Under the Roman law it was punishable with death to scourge a Roman citizen. Convicts, or people in the penitentiary, can be whipped. Roman lictors carried a bundle of rods with which they chastised outsiders, but on home people they were never used. Cicero makes his great oration against Veres burn like fire when it is shown that Veres scourged Roman citizens. Seldom now do we ever hear of a case where a man is dragged out of his house and publicly whipped by officers of the law, just on account of his religion.

3. The next thing was imprisonment. He says, "Oftentimes I had them put in prison." A thunderbolt couldn’t be more sudden than his approach to a house. Thundering at the door, day or night, gathering one of the inmates up, taking him from the home and taking him to jail. What would you think of somebody coming to your house when you were away in the night, and dragging your wife and putting her in jail, just because she was worshiping God according to the dictates of her conscience? We live in a good country over here. We have never been where these violent persecutions were carried on.

4. He says that when they were put to death he gave his voice against them. He arrested them and scourged them, and then in the Sanhedrin he voted against them.

5. In the next place he compelled them to blaspheme. The Greek doesn’t mean that he succeeded in making them blaspheme, but that he was trying to make them blaspheme. For instance, he would have a woman up, and there was the officer ready to give her thirty-nine lashes in open daylight: "You will get this lashing unless you blaspheme the name of Jesus," Paul would say. Pliny, in writing about the Christians in the country over which he presided when he was ordered to persecute the Christians, says, "I never went beyond this: I never put any of them to death if when brought before me he would sprinkle a little incense before a Roman god. If he would Just do that I wouldn’t put him to death."

6. Expatriation, ex, from, patria terra, "one’s fatherland" – exiled from one’s country. It was an awful thing on those people at a minute’s notice either to recant or else just as they were, without a minute’s preparation, to go off into exile, father, mother, and children. The record says, "They were all scattered abroad except the apostles."

7. Following them into exile into strange countries, and cities, getting a commission to go after them and arrest them, even though they had gotten as far from Jerusalem as Damascus.

8. The last thing in connection with the extent of this persecution is to see, first, the size or number of the church. Let us commence with 120 (that is, before Pentecost), add 3,000 on the day of Pentecost, add multitudes daily, add at another time 5,000 men and women, add twice more, multitudes, multitudes, then we may safely reach the conclusion that there were 100,000 Jewish communicants in that first church at Jerusalem. That represents a great many homes. This man Paul goes into every house, he breaks up every family. They are whipped; they are imprisoned; they are put to death or they are expatriated; and over every road that went out from Jerusalem they were fleeing, the fire of persecution burning behind them. The magnitude of the persecution has never been fully estimated.

There are eight distinct references by him in two speeches and four letters that show his own impressions of this sin. One of them you will find in the address that he delivered on the stairway in Jerusalem when he himself was a prisoner (Acts 22); another one is found in his speech at Caesarea before King Agrippa (Acts 26). You will find two references in Galatians 1 of the letter to the Galatians (1:13, 23) ; there is one in 1 Corinthians 15:15; another in Philippians 3; still another, and a most touching one, when he was quite an old man (1 Timothy). We may judge of the spirit and the extent of a thing by the impression that it leaves on the mind of the participator.

Everything that he inflicted on others, he subsequently suffered. He had them to be punished with forty stripes save one; five times he submitted to the same punishment. He had them put in prison; "oftentimes" he was imprisoned. He had them expatriated; so was he. He had them pursued in the land of expatriation; so was he. He had them stoned; so was he. He attempted to make them blaspheme; so they tried to make him blaspheme under Nero, or die, and he accepted death. He had them put to death; so was he. Early in his life, before a great part of his sufferings had yet commenced, we find his catalogue of the things that he suffered in one of the letters to the Corinthians, and just how many particular things that he had suffered up to that time.

Two considerations would naturally emphasize his unceasing sorrow for this sin:

1. His persecution marked the end of Jewish probation, the closing up of the last half of Daniel’s week, in which the Messiah would confirm the covenant with many. From this time on until now, only an occasional Jew has been converted. Paul did it; he led his people to reject the church of God and the Holy Spirit of God, the church which was baptized in the Spirit, and attested by the Spirit. He, Saul, is the one that pushed his people off the ground of probation and into a state of spiritual blindness – judicial blindness – from which they have not yet recovered.

2. The second thought that emphasized this impression was that he thereby barred himself, when he became a Christian, from doing much preaching to this people. In Romans 9 he says, "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh." "I bear them witness," he says in the next chapter, "that they have a zeal for God," and in Acts 22 he says that when he was in the Temple wanting to preach to Jews, wanting to be a home missionary, God appeared to him, and said, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me." That was one of the most grievous things of his life, and we find it, I think (some may differ from me on this), manifested in the last letter of his first Roman imprisonment – the letter to the Hebrews. He wouldn’t put his name to it. He didn’t want to prejudice its effect, and yet he did want to speak to his people.

Let us compare this persecution with Alva’s in the Netherlands, and the one following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In a few words, it is this: There were two great bodies of Christian people, so-called, in France – the Romanists and the Huguenots. Henry of Navarre was a Huguenot. He became king of France, outwardly abjuring his Huguenot principles, but on the condition that liberty of conscience should be allowed to the people. His grandson, Louis XIV, revoked that great edict of toleration, and by its revocation, in one moment, commanded hundreds of thousands of his people to adopt the king’s religion. If they didn’t, troops or soldiers were placed in their homes with the privilege of maltreating them, and destroying their property, without being held responsible for any kind of brutal impiety that they would commit. Their young children were taken away from the mothers and put in the convents to be reared in the Romanist faith; the men had their goods confiscated, and in hundreds of thousands of instances were put to death. They were required to recant or leave France at once. Before they got to the coast an army came to bring them back, and when some of them did escape, my mother’s ancestors, the Huguenots, when that edict was revoked, came to South Carolina. Some of them went to Canada, some to other countries where there was extradition. The Romanists pursued them, and when they were able to capture them, brought them back to France to suffer under the law. Some of those that reached Canada left the settlements and went to live among the Indian tribes. There they were pursued.

When Alva came into the Netherlands (Belgium and Holland), the lowlands, under Philip, the King of Spain, the inquisition was set up and he entered the homes; he made domiciliary visits; he compelled them to blaspheme; he put to death the best, the most gifted, those holding the highest social and moral positions in the land, to the astonishment of the world. With one stroke of his pen he not only swept away all of their property, but anyone that would speak a kind word to them, or would keep them all night in the house, such a person was put to death. All over that country there was the smoke going up of their burning, and the bloodiest picture in the annals of the world was what took place when Alva’s soldiers captured a city. I would be ashamed before a mixed audience to tell what followed. The devastation was fearful.

This persecution illustrates the proverb, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Whenever Saul put one to death, a dozen came up to take the place of that one. Indeed, he himself caught on his own shoulders the mantle of Stephen before it hit the ground, as God put the mantle of Elijah on Elisha, and as God made John the Baptist the successor in spirit to Elijah. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

The effect of this persecution on the enlargement of the kingdom, and on missions, was superb. Those Jewish Christians in Jerusalem – those terrapins – would never have crawled away from there, if Saul hadn’t put fire on their backs, but when the fire began to burn and they began to run, as they ran, they preached everywhere. It was like going up to a fire and trying to put it out by kicking the chunks. Whenever a chunk is kicked it starts a new fire. When that persecution came, then Philip, driven out, preached to the Samaritans. Then men of Cyrene, pushed out, preached to Greeks in Antioch, and they opened up a fine mission field. Peter himself, at last, was led to see that an uncircumcised Gentile like Cornelius could be received into the kingdom of God. So it had a great deal to do with foreign missions.

The effect of this persecution in bringing laymen to the front was marvelous. They never did come to the front in the history of the world as they did in this persecution. The apostles were left behind. The preachers right in the midst of the big meeting in which 100,000 people had been converted, were left standing there, surrounded by empty pews, with no congregation. The congregation is now doing the preaching. A layman becomes an evangelist. These people carry the word of God to the shores of the Mediterranean, into Asia Minor, to Rome, to Ephesus, to Antioch, to Tarsus, to the ends of the earth, and laymen do an overwhelming part of this work.

It is well, perhaps, in this connection to explain how Saul, in this persecution, could put to death Christian people, since they, the Jews, had no such authority. In the case of Christ we know that it was necessary for the Jews to obtain Roman authority in order to put to death, but just as this time Pontius Pilate was recalled, the Roman Procurator was withdrawn, and a very large part of the Roman military force and the successor of Pilate had not arrived, so the Jews were left pretty much to themselves until that new procurator with new legions came to the country.

QUESTIONS

1. What of Saul already considered in a preceding chapter?

2. Why did not Saul participate actively in the Sadducean persecution?

3. What five causes stirred him up to become a persecutor?

4. How may we imagine Saul fanning the flame of his bate by his thoughts?

5. What seven things show the spirit of this persecution as expressed in the New Testament?

6. What things show the extent of this persecution?

7. What eight distinct references by him in two speeches and four letters which show his own impressions of this sin?

8. What were his own sufferings, in every particular? Were they such as he inflicted?

9. What two considerations would naturally emphasize the unceasing sorrow for this sin?

10. Compare this persecution with Alva’s in the Netherlands and the one following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

11. How does this persecution illustrate the proverb, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church"?

12. What was the effect of this persecution on the enlargement of the kingdom, and missions?

13. What was the effect of this persecution in bringing laymen to the front?

14. How do you explain that, in this persecution, Saul could put to death Christian people, since they, the Jews, had no such authority?