|
Acts 2:24-32
 his paragraph is an exposition, in the apostolic preaching, of the central fact concerning Jesus of Nazareth, that, namely, of His Resurrection. The statement concerning the resurrection stands at the centre of the whole movement of this discourse. Three facts precede it-the manhood, the perfection, and the death of Jesus; three facts follow it-His exaltation, His reception of the Spirit, His bestowal of the Spirit upon the assembled disciples. The former three culminated in the resurrection. The later three resulted from the resurrection.
 et us first notice briefly, but carefully, the structure of this particular paragraph. It consists of three parts-a declaration; an affirmation; raised Him” ; and an explanation. The declaration: “God the affirmation: “It was not possible that He should be holden of it” ; the explanation is found in the Psalm quotations.
he declaration is simple and explicit. The affirmation which follows it is bold and defiant. be placed on the pronouns: In reading it the emphasis should holden of it.” “It was not possible that He should be The He refers to that one Person, Jesus of Nazareth, demonstrated perfect, crucified by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Of Him the apostle said: “It was not possible that He should be holden of it.” The simple meaning of that affirmation is that God was bound to raise Him in the very nature of the case.
his affirmation he then explained by quoting one of the Psalms:
“For David saith concerning Him, I beheld the Lord always before My face; For He is on My right hand, that I should not be moved; Therefore My heart was glad, and My tongue rejoiced; Moreover My flesh also shall dwell in hope; Because Thou wilt not leave My soul unto Hades, Neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou madest known unto Me the ways of life; Thou shalt make Me full of gladness with Thy countenance.”
hen followed the defence of his use of the Psalm. It was quite within the bounds of possibility that somebody listening to him might have said, What right have you to make use of that language as applicable to Christ? Peter therefore declared that all that was suggested by the Psalm was not fulfilled in the experience of David, for “he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.” Peter interpreted the Psalm as prophesying the resurrection; he understood that the writer of it was referring to someone who should pass into death, triumph over it, and emerge from it. David did no such thing; he died and was buried, and his sepulcher was with them unto that day. He declared-and let us carefully remember that he was speaking under the inspiration of the new baptism of the Spirit which he had received-that when David wrote that, he wrote as a prophet more than as a psalmist: “Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this, spake of the resurrection of the Messiah.”
he affirmation: “It was not possible that He should be holden of it,” was both bold and defiant. The boldness was born of the confidence that God cannot violate eternal principles. The defiance was born of the assurance that death had been conquered in the resurrection of Jesus.
he explanation was a radiant revelation of the evidence for resurrection, as contained in the necessity of the case. We often defend the truth of the resurrection by historical evidence, and there is ample proof along that line, for if the testimony of these men is not to be accepted, then there is no testimony upon which we can depend concerning anything in the history of mankind.
 eter’s evidence here, however, was not that he had seen the risen Christ, although he came back to that when presently he said: “Whereof we are witnesses.” The line of his argument here is that if the things he had already declared concerning Jesus were true, then the resurrection was absolutely necessary, or else God was violating eternal principles. If this Jesus of Nazareth was indeed demonstrated by the works, wonders, and signs, perfectly sinless; then, though He died, death could not hold Him. It is as though Peter had said: An understanding of Him and an understanding of it, will demonstrate the fact that there could be no final relationship between Him and it; that His passing into “it” was a necessary and a voluntary act, but that, even though He passed into “it,” it could not fasten upon Him, and hold Him. It held David. David foresaw a victory; David sang a song of great confidence; David was filled with hope; nevertheless he died, and was buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day; but this Jesus was other than David; other than any other man; and it was impossible that He should be holden of it. Peter’s reason for this affirmation is revealed in the quotation which he made from the Psalm. Let us then first of all examine the quotation itself. There are three parts to it.
here is first a description of life:
“I beheld the Lord always before My face; For He is on My right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore My heart was glad, and My tongue rejoiced.”
 mmediately following it is a description of death, in which an attitude toward death is assumed that can be postulated of no human being, except this One:
“Moreover My flesh shall also encamp in hope;
Because Thou wilt not leave My soul unto Hades,
Neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption.”
hen, after life and death, is a description of the resurrection:
“Thou madest known unto Me the ways of life; Thou shalt make Me full of gladness, with Thy countenance.”
 ause and effect are set in relation to each other in this Psalm quotation. Let us trace the effect to the cause. We begin with the effect, which was that of resurrection. That resurrection resulted from the peculiar nature of death. The way of life was made open to One Who, laying down flesh in hope, was certain that His soul could not be left in Hades, nor His flesh see corruption. The peculiar nature of that death, which issued in resurrection, resulted from the peculiarity of life, the life which could say:
“I beheld the Lord always before My face;
For He is on My right hand, that I should not be moved.
Therefore My heart was glad, and My tongue rejoiced.”
et us take the same line of thought, tracing it in the other direction, and observing the sequence. The life described was such that in death encamped in hope; such death made resurrection necessary in order to the maintenance of eternal order. Let us now confine ourselves to the reasons for the resurrection, as here set forth. In the words of the Psalm describing the life and death, there is revealed a threefold victory over sin; first, the victory over the possibility of originating evil: “I beheld the Lord always before My face” ; secondly, the victory over evil as suggested from without: “For He is on My right hand that I should not be moved”; and finally, the victory over evil as responsibility assumed:
“Therefore My heart was glad, and My tongue rejoiced: Moreover My flesh also shall encamp in hope; Because Thou wilt not leave My soul unto Hades; Neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption.”
 ictory over the possibility of originating evil is claimed in the words, “I beheld the Lord always before My face.” Whenever we think of this Man of Nazareth we must remember His unique and lonely personality. He was very God and very man. Therefore He was other than either, because He was both. Other than man, because God as well as man. Other than God, because man as well as God. So that when this Man of Nazareth, very man and very God, came into our human life, there came into the universe of God a new Being, a new creation. In His coming the first movement was that He took the form of a servant. In that great word in the Philippian letter, in which Paul was describing that descent from heights that we cannot see to depths that we know experimentally, he declared that He, being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be snatched at, this equality with God, but emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant. That statement is followed by the words, “Being made in the likeness of man The first fact, then, that we have to consider when we see this new Being in the universe of God, is that He was a Servant, on the plane of angel relationship, though not of angel nature. “He took not on Him the nature of angels,“ but He stood on their plane of relationship to God. It was a descent from sovereignty to subjectivity. This is a mystery that cannot be fully explained; it transcends all human experience, but we dwell upon it in order that we may see the meaning of this first phase of victory.
 s we look upon this Man of Nazareth Who is very God and very Man, standing in relation to the eternal God as Servant, we see at once that a new possibility is created of the origination of evil. Jude declared of the angels that fell, that “they kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation.“ There is a difference between the sin of angels and that of Adam. Man did not originate evil by his own volition; he responded to temptation from without. The mystery of evil in the universe is older than the history of man. The story of the fall of the angels is that they kept not their habitation. That is not an account of punishment; it is an account of sin. When Isaiah sang the song of the fall of the king of Babylon, he interpreted the mystery of evil. Lucifer, son of the morning, left his own orbit when he said: “I will ascend into heaven. . . . I will be like the Most High.” Then he left his proper habitation, so losing his principality, and falling. That, so far as we know from revelation, was the origination of evil.
 hen the Son of God came into a new sphere of existence, for the purpose of carrying out the eternal counsels of God, an opportunity was created for a new origination of evil. For the servants of God a habitation is ordained by God; and the law of maintaining their habitation, of moving in their orbit, is that of always keeping Him before their face as King. In the case of Lucifer and those angels who followed him there came a moment when they chose to exercise their will outside of relationship to the command of God. In that moment there was a beginning of evil, not by suggestion as from without, but by the action of the will in independence, instead of in dependence, upon God.
hat conception of the possibility of choosing evil, not in answer to allurement from without, but by original action, is involved in this word: “I beheld the Lord always before My face.” It is as though this One had said: I never indulged in independent or self-caused action: I never left My proper habitation; and so I have reserved My principality. I took upon Me the form of a Servant, and having taken the form of a Servant, I never rebelled against the service, or chose My own method of life---“I beheld the Lord always before My face.” By the very mystery and uniqueness of His Being, this Person might have been a centre from which evil should originate and spread out in ever-increasing circles; but He says: “I beheld the Lord always before My face”; I kept My first habitation; I held My original principality; I never broke from My allegiance to the God Whose Servant I became in the mystery of My being. That is the story of the Being Who passed into death. He was One Who could say: “I beheld the Lord always before My face” ; One Who did not originate evil. That was the first phase of His victory over evil.
et us pass to the next declaration: “For He is on My right hand, that I should not be moved.” The difference is apparent. The first declaration may thus be expressed, “I have not moved.” The second declaration may thus be expressed, “I have not been moved.” I have not moved by My own volition, choosing to act as apart from Divine movement; and I have not allowed any outside attack to overcome that allegiance. This brings us to the consideration of the position of Jesus in the world, to the fact of His Manhood. He came into a world where the force of evil was already in existence, and active. He stood through all the years of His human life between two arguments, the argument of right, and the argument of wrong, just where we stand; He stood between two forces, the force that for evermore was drawing Him towards the Throne, and that which was drawing Him from the Throne. Between these two arguments, these two forces, He, in common with all humanity, was called upon to choose. Angels fell by their own volition and choice. Man fell because standing between these two arguments, he listened and yielded to the one of rebellion. Jesus stood in both places. With regard to the first He said: “I set the Lord always before My face.” With regard to the second He said: “Because He is on My right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore My heart was glad, and My tongue rejoiced”; which means, being expressed in other language: I found the way of pure happiness, because I recognized His nearness to Me, and made Him My defence against all the assaults of the evil one. He gained His victory over the temptations that assailed Him from without by constant co-operation with the God Who was at His right hand. As the Servant of God, on the angelic plane of relationship, He set the Lord before Him, and never left His habitation. As the Man on the human plane of relationship, He recognized God on His right hand, and availing Himself of His strength, was never moved by the forces that were against Him. Thus He gained a victory over the possibility of originating evil; and over evil as suggested from without. Thus a double victory over sin was gained in the life of this Man.
e now come to the third phase of His victory, that gained through the mystery of His death. If we could but free our minds from matters with which we are familiar in this story of Jesus, we should never read of His death without being startled. Here was One Who, as Servant, had not left His habitation: Who, as Man had won His victory of purity and holiness by co-operation with God; in Whom therefore was no reason for death. We see Him passing to death. But now carefully observe His attitude toward death. Out of the midst of this life of victory, this double victory over evil in life, He looked at death, and He said: “My flesh shall rest in hope.” He looked to that which lay beyond death, and He said: “Thou wilt not leave My soul unto Hades, neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption.” As a Servant He had won victory on the first plane; He had not originated evil. As Man He had won victory on the second plane; He had overcome evil in its assaults from without. He now said: I am going into death, but death cannot hold Me. Death is the wage of sin. Death is that which has resulted from the fact of rebellion against God. I am going into it, but it cannot hold Me.
“Thou wilt not leave My soul unto Hades, Neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption.”
his was His claim to victory over evil, as responsibility assumed. Why passed He into death, this Man of perfect life? The explanation can only be gathered from all the teaching of the New Testament. It is hinted at in this very discourse when the apostle said: “Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” The meaning of it had been suggested by our Lord Himself ere He departed, when He said: “No man taketh My life away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.“ The reason why He laid it down is declared in the selfsame discourse, in these words: “I am the Good Shepherd; the Good Shepherd layeth down His life for the sheep.“ The meaning of that death is declared by all the writers of the New Testament,” “Who His own self bare our sins in His body upon the tree.“l “God commendeth His own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” This Man of perfect victory went down to death because He had assumed the responsibility of sin not His own. “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.“
t is sometimes said that it is difficult to understand how one Person could take such responsibility. There is no difficulty if we remember Who the Person was Who took the responsibility. it must not be forgotten that He was more than man or servant; Who, in the midst of His Manhood’s days could say: “I and the Father are One” ; “I do nothing of Myself, but the. things of the Father” ; “My Father worketh . . . and I work.“’ This is the One Who went down to death, and so into the grave.
 id He never rise? Was the stone never rolled away? Did He never come back, the Man of Nazareth? Then of all men we are the most miserable. Then is our preaching vain, and our faith is vain also. But more is involved. If the story of the perfect life be true, God has violated eternal principles in allowing death to hold One in Whom there was no place for death. That is what Peter meant when he said: “It was not possible that He should be holden of it.” God raised Him up; and the raising was proof finally of victory, over the possibility of originating evil, over evil as suggested, and over the evil as responsibility assumed.
“It was impossible that He should be holden of it.” We accept that dictum; we accept the witness of the actual fact of the Resurrection; and so we know that He Who took the responsibility of human guilt has been able to accomplish His purpose; He has turned His vision into victory, and His victory into virtue.
e never stood on the angel plane, and so never could have originated evil as could they; but we have stood as men upon the human plane, and we have listened to the voice of the tempter, and we have yielded; our record is spoilt, we have failed, we are broken. But this Man Who never failed, took the awful, and the mysterious and incomprehensible responsibility of our failure, and went down into death, and sang as He went: “My flesh shall rest in hope.“ From death He emerged, His soul delivered from Hades, His flesh never having seen corruption, and by that resurrection we know that the value of His dying is at our disposal. If Christ won this threefold victory, death could not hold Him. If Christ rose, He did so because He had won. Therefore the central verity of the Christian faith, and the central note of Christian preaching is the Resurrection. This explains the meaning of the Cross; and must issue in the exaltation and the coming of the King.
|
