1 Corinthians 15:1-11 Facts of Christ Resurrection
1 Corinthians 15:1-11 · Bob Eckel · Oct 30, 2016
1 Corinthians, No. 42
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926541221393

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Alright, I want somebody to read 1 Corinthians 15, 1-11. Volunteer, okay. Then I'll read it, okay? Alright, so I'm going to read it from my text because my computer hasn't drilled in yet. Okay, 1 Corinthians 15, 1-2, and then I'm going to skip through the pages as I continue through the entire passage.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preach to you, which also you receive and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

And then he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and after that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remained to the present, but some had fallen asleep. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remained to the present, but some had fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then, last of all, he was seen by me also. as by one born out of due time.

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach, and so you believe.

When somebody comes to salvation, where do we take them in the Bible? What's the first place we go in terms of telling them to study the Word of God and learn of His truth and grace? It's typically the Gospel of John, isn't it? Is that right? In terms of our doctrinal foundation, where's probably the best place to go? The Book of Romans, I think, in terms of sound doctrine. It's deep and heavy. and requires, I think, a preface, but nevertheless, it really is doctrinally sound.

Randy? I think the number one thing that I've seen is that people send a new believer off into their Bible alone, rather than coming alongside. They started Genesis 1-1, right? I've never read all the way through the Bible. Why? Well, I've gone through Genesis, and then I hit the law, and I just shut down.

And that's the story I've heard hundreds of times. Well, you know, the thing about Genesis is there's some just beautiful stories in Genesis. I mean, it's a great, great book. And maybe, I don't know, the elders ought to think sometimes that, you know, it's not, it's not all for us, but it's all about us and really sets the stage of the principles of God. And really there's so much tradition in Genesis that carries through the New Testament. But I would claim that this First, the set of 11 verses really is just the backbone of the new believer's understanding of the gospel. So let's look at this.

And to be honest with you, I said to Margaret on the way down, I'm not sure I've done justice to this passage, even though it's simplistic. And we could say, in fact, Burr mentioned this last week, in 15 seconds you have your lesson here. Are there any questions? All right. Alright, so first two verses, I've left these in terms of two or three verses or four verses each, so I'm going to deal with the first two.

Moreover brethren, I declare you the gospel which I preach to you which also you receive and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, and if you hold fast that word which I preached to you, unless, by the way, you believed in vain." We'll come back to that. Now, the reason I left a blank at the top of the page is because of what I just said. This is the most simple and clearest presentation of the gospel, deeply seated upon the essential fact that Christ was risen from the dead. We are going to deal with that concept throughout our lesson this morning. What's moreover therefore? Moreover must be a transitional statement. Isn't it? We see therefore, thus, or moreover, or whatever. It relates to what came before. And what came before in 1 Corinthians?

What did Randy teach last week? Randy, what did you teach last week? that there was a tremendous amount of chaos and disorder in the church and a lack of clarity. calm things down so things should be proper. We've got this tongues deal, we've got this prophecy deal, we've got all these gifts that they're arguing about or uncertain about and we're putting them in some sort of priority, but yet, moreover, by the way everybody, Christ is risen from the dead. So, why is Paul needing to declare what he's already preached?

By the way, Acts 18.1, we could turn to that, we don't have to. Paul's already declared this to Corinth. It talks about his transition to Corinth and giving the message to the Corinthian church.

And that they had received, I think verb tense is going to be important for us this morning. Aorist, active, indicative. What does that, not being overly academic here, but what does that verb tense indicate? Aorist tense? It's factual. Yeah, typically one point in time. Could be past, could be present. Unlikely future. Typically past, but could be present. Active? Well active just means that he's doing it, right? This is not passive, it's not being received.

Paul preached. And finally indicative? fact. So Paul's needing to declare what he already preached and that they had received. So the receipt was one point in time, aorist, tense, active, that means they received it. This wasn't some sort of passive experience. The church at Corinth, the believers, the true believers had received the message like all of us. Think when you were saved. Yes, we give God the glory, and it's by his grace that we come to salvation, but it's you that respond to the grace, right? And it's factual. Receive, to take to oneself, to be appropriated, to be enlightened, to be converted.

Actually, all those terms in the Greek language relate to this Greek verb. Gospel. You don't find it all that often in scripture, but it's there enough, and literally in the Greek it means good tidings or glad announcements. Now, the interesting thing here is that the same root word for gospel is used for preach.

So in a sense, if you want to kind of paraphrase that, the gospel which I gospitalize, and that's a word I created, by the way. Gospitalize you might find in Webster's or Oxford or any other fiction. And I knew Tom would like this, right? Can you give us a Bullwinkle description of gospitalize?

Interesting verb tense, perfect, active, indicative. What's different here? It's both they are actively standing, it's factual they are standing, but perfect, what's that tense really indicate? Perfect is something that continues into the future. Perfect is an extenuating bit of standing. It's not like you stand now and your position will be true, that's true, but the life they live based on the faith they have received is currently acting in their life.

By which also you are saved. Present passive indicative, isn't that interesting? By which you are saved if you hold fast the word, we'll come back to that in a second. Present passive indicative, present meaning now, passive, you're saved. Okay, so you responded, you received it, you're actively receiving it, but the position of being saved is not up to you in terms of the process of being saved.

You have to respond, but yet God calls you. He calls everyone, doesn't he? So that passive nature is in fact the same message that exists for the entire world today. God gives the grace to be saved. but we have to receive it by an active decision. Everybody okay with this?

And here verb tense is incredibly important in terms of putting this set of verses in perspective. Now, therefore, is salvation conditional if you hold fast that word? Gary, how you doing? I'm holding fast the word here. Take it in daily. Is there any question about your salvation? The security of it? Is anybody in here unsure about their salvation? No, and I could have listed verse after verse, but if so, if our salvation is conditional, it would contradict endless New Testament scripture.

And so, yeah, Randy? Well, just a question. Do you think in this context that Paul was talking about the church kind of wandering away from the doctrine, and so they're safe, but those that come after them might not be saved because they're not holding fast to the word? Is that a possibility?

Well I think if you put it conditionally with the church at Corinth perhaps that would be an interpretation but I think it does I tend to think that ultimately this is really whether the salvation is actually true. I mean I think That's the commentators I looked at that was consistent with the theme that they brought across. But often commentators, when I don't see any debate at all there, I'm pretty convinced that ultimately it relates to being safe. These are the people who kind of walk in our midst sometimes. I'm not sure that we have many here, but we don't know.

And what does it mean to hold fast? Well, it's to keep secure in memory of, or hold profession of, and the alternative, again, as stated in the verse, is to believe in vain. And basically, here's a point that I think furthers Randy's inquiry, and only the Lord in each one of us knows for sure And for us, the security of our salvation is so very important. So I can think Margaret is saved, and I really believe she is, and I believe each and every one of us in this room are, but only the Lord and we know perfectly for sure of our salvation. That's all that's important. I mean, I think the fellowship we have with one another gives us that certainty of one another's salvation. But, you know, it's not for Roger to question Bonnie's salvation. He's in the assumption day in and day out that he's married to a woman who's saved, and we trust the Lord in that.

But ultimately, it's not our job to put metrics on somebody else's performance to know whether or not they're saved. Is everybody okay with this idea? So if you believe in vain, that means you've kind of been one of these people that raised their hand and we're not going to measure their performance. I've always said this, if you look at people of the world who are not part of a body of believers, their earthly performance can sometimes outshine that of a believer who in fact has fallen astray or is not living by faith. So we're not here to put yardsticks to performance.

But the fellowship we have around the Lord Jesus Christ, I think, provides that comfort and that glory to God that relates to each and every one of our salvation experiences. We okay with that? Alright, verses 3 and 4. For I deliver to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. If there's a couple of verses that really are the bottom line of the gospel message, here it is. Not so much that what Paul delivered to them and what he received, but what is after the colon. For Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and rose again, and the third day again according to the scriptures. When and how did Paul receive the truth? A couple of examples.

Alright, from the Lord directly, Galatians 1.12, that passage there. Apparently that was about a three year time period. Can you imagine what that was like? that Paul was personally instructed by the Lord in the desert or some in desolation someplace.

Does it make you wonder what he was eating? Does it ever make you wonder what he was eating out there? I wonder about the practicality. If the Lord provided manna, no big deal. And we have no evidence Paul was complaining about the map. Think about those things that you're going to be considering when you're in heavenly places and with the Lord, absent from the body, present with the Lord. Don't you want to ask Paul about that experience?

If we can in any way relate to our earthly past, I don't think we're probably going to be able to do that very well. We're going to be so enamored with his presence and his fullness in our existence at that time that I think things of this earth gone by historically will have all knowledge. But I don't think we can relate to them the way we do today. But anyway, I'd love to know more about that three year experience that Paul had.

Yeah, I'm sure. And where else do we witness the Lord giving him the truth? Well, Acts 9.17, after the road to Damascus and Ananias really provided important information to him in terms of what had happened and what plans the Lord had for him.

The verbs died and buried are in the aorist tense again, active and passive. So Christ died, he actively died. He went to the cross, made a decision to pay the price of the sin for all man, for all time. His decision. But he was buried was not his responsibility. He was physically buried. And the passive tense is perfect for that, isn't it? So he actively died. but he was put in the tomb by others.

By the way, it says he rose again as perfect passive, so it's interesting that his being risen has consequences that play out for all of us. Let me say, think of our position. Bob, we often, we ask this as a song, we serve a risen Savior. It's not like that risenness or that fact of a risen Savior continues on past completed action with abiding results. That's the perfect tense. He was risen in the past and that fact of a risen Savior continues on. It just isn't a dry little musty fact in the background. No. the risen savior we serve and that perfect points that out. Isn't it really neat in this verse, died, active, buried, passive and now ultimately perfect tense in terms of his being risen, in terms of the fact his being risen is an act in the past that continues eternally for him and each and every one of us.

Neat. Now I was going to say, what do you make of this? So in effect we simply discussed it. Notice that according to the scriptures is used twice here. It's according to the scriptures. It's not a bunch of people just having an experience in writing it down. So that really relates to the tremendous prophecy. And here I did list a bunch of verses.

We're not going to look at these now, but from Genesis 3.15 through Isaiah, Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Daniel 9, Zechariah 13, Matthew, and on. And we have plenty of post hoc verses that relate to the prophecy of his coming. The prophet of Jonah for instance.

Three days in the sea and ultimately then swallowed by the whale. I think the way Jay Varn teaches the Jonah story is actually that Jonah was dead and he was resurrected. We think he was alive in the belly of the fish. All that aside, The prophecy for his fulfillment of his death, burial, and resurrection is incredibly well supported here. And his resurrection, this is kind of my bolded comment, his resurrection is everything and I think without it our faith is dead. If Christ is not resurrected, we are wasting our time. We really are. And here's tremendous evidence of that through a series of verses that the resurrection, both prophetically and ultimately in terms of present times, is critically important to our faith today.

Alright, 5-7. And he was seen by Cephas or Peter, and then by the twelve, And after that he was seen by over 500 brethren at once. Notice brethren. I didn't put this in the handout, but I'll bring it up now. 500 brethren, but perhaps maybe thousands of other people who were not brethren. And I think Josephus gives us information about that. I didn't drill down.

Anybody here really drill down Josephus in terms of others beyond the church itself that witnessed his resurrection. Of whom the greater part remained to the present, but some had fallen asleep, or had died. In other words, these people, by the time this epistle was written, some had died. And after that, he was seen by over 500 brethren at once, of whom the greater part remained to the present, but some had died. I duplicated that. You duplicated it. Yeah, my bad. I'm sorry. And after that, he was seen by James and by all the apostles. So my apologies for the duplication there.

So mankind, meaning the current existence and that historically, I work in science and medicine. I do research. As a clinician, as a scientist, I want to see validation. Often what happens is a paper comes out about a certain disorder and ultimately it makes a claim and then it can't be validated.

It's been estimated The high-impact journals in science and medicine are Nature and Cell. These are really high-impact factors. That means that the best people publish the best stuff in these journals. 70% of those cannot be reproduced. We're not talking about high-end stuff now. We're not talking about just garbage stuff.

So if the best labs in the world that are peer-reviewed publications can't be validated because their methods can't be reproduced, there's one of two issues. Three issues. One is they're fraudulent, which is generally not true, but occasionally. Secondly, is their methodology can't be reproduced by another lab. or third is that the data were accrued but just couldn't be reproduced even when the methods were appropriately applied.

So you got to deal with that. That doesn't mean medical science is garbage. It's not. I mean we live a better life today because of the scientific discovery that's been present. I mean we're living longer, we're living longer with a higher quality of life and we thank the money that's been spent on research to really accomplish that. But man demands evidence for what's true. So what about the evidence here? Is this sufficient evidence? Can we use this evidence to convince unbelieving people that they should believe?

Randy? By historical factors, this is more of observing witnesses than almost any other event. It's singularly the only event like this, right? By the way, think about this scientifically. Is Christ going to die again and be risen again? The proof that this is validated? Go ahead.

The evidence by history, we can't reproduce this historically. It is a singularly significant event. But this number of witnesses exceeds any number of minimum requirements to say, yes, this was observed. You might question a single observer, but 500 observers at one time, plus the many others, is significant.

Any other thoughts about this? Also the interaction, the physical interaction. Like Thomas, I want to touch, I want to make sure it's not a ghost. We have more evidence, don't we? Right. And then how about Mary? She clung to the Lord. There was physical contact with the Lord. It wasn't just what he appeared there and he kind of moved past us. There was physical interaction with the risen Savior. But a constant reminder of remember all the signs and miracles when Christ walked this earth, right? That did not cause people to believe, did it? Yeah.

Presenting the evidence, even in science, whether it be geological or chemical or physical or medical, no matter what the evidence, if somebody claims to find something, people can have a doubtful attitude about that until it is validated. There will be no validation here beyond what we have in scripture. By the way, do we get saved by the evidence? I don't think so.

We get saved by understanding what the gospel really means. Well, I like the fact that, and we know from other passages, that the Holy Spirit is convincing or convicting the world of their need for a Savior. So that's God's method. He's not presenting a bunch of facts. He's convincing us via His Spirit that this is true.

Was Christ resurrected or not according to the evidence? And I think we've unequivocally said he was. Again, the validity of our faith is totally dependent on these facts. If Christ was not resurrected from the dead, our faith is in vain. Keep in mind, it's our faith that's in vain. You know, if Christ is resurrected from the dead and we have no faith in that truth, then we're still unsafe. But if in fact he's not resurrected, our faith is worthless. And we need to constantly be reminded of that.

When God gives the opportunity, and by his grace he gives it occasionally to share with the unbeliever, I think nearly always one of the first questions to them is, do you believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead? And almost always, no. There's no belief in that truth. So the question is, are there more questions that follow that? And sometimes there are, and sometimes there aren't. So if they don't believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead, sometimes a closed door and there's nothing further to be accomplished by talking about it. But sometimes there is. So spirit must lead under those circumstances. So I'm going to take Macaulay here.

I think he gives us a little bit of insight in terms of the verbs here that are used. Again, I'm going to be verb-focused today because of the tense of the verbs. The verb appeared, occurred four times, and is translated as though it were active voice, subject producing the action of the verb. The word in the original is passive voice, subject acted upon by some outside agency. The normal meaning of the word is to see, thus we should have we should have he was seen by Cephas, the twelve, etc. The translation emphasizes what he did, and the translation was seen emphasized what happened to him. The correct emphasis is the latter.

The human testimony to the resurrected Christ. It should also be added that this verb is always used as a physical act of seeing. The witnesses did not see him in their mind's eye, they saw him with their physical eyes. It's kind of a complicated synopsis of the verb tense and how it applies to this verse. You could have a vision and say you saw something.

What would be the evidence to support that? The psychiatrist might have some concerns about these visions you've been having. dug down deep here is the idea that this is a physical experience that eyes actually did portray the Lord Jesus Christ present. Where was he seen by the 500?

He was crucified where? but the evidence is, and let's turn to these verses, it was presumably seen in Galilee, so let's look at these verses, Matthew 26.32, Margaret would you take that, and Tom I'm going to ask you to do Matthew 28.7 and 10, although you might want to read 7 through 10. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. All right, so he prophesied he would be in Galilee, that's where the brethren were, and isn't it interesting to think he's crucified, buried and resurrected presumably in Jerusalem, but then he was seen, where was he seen? Well he was seen initially, wasn't he? Must have been in Jerusalem, but ultimately when he appeared to the 500 he was in Galilee.

So isn't it interesting thinking about his spiritual body? Now he could have been in New York. He could have been in Beijing. His transport mechanisms are pretty cool. Just right through the walls. He just would come in and he would be there. But interestingly enough, he had a physical body, which is amazing. When Thomas touched it, he just come through the wall, right over here. Then Thomas says, well, I don't really believe maybe you're a vision. I want to touch you. He says, well, come here. do it, put your hands here, and he did it. So it's pretty amazing. He had a body that could go through walls, but also was a physical body. So pretty neat stuff. Why do you think Cephas was the first apostle mentioned? Because he denied the Lord. Because he denied the Lord. Because he denied the Lord. They had to get that figured out.

Why wouldn't John have been the first one? John's the apostle he loved, the disciple he loved. John, by the way, doesn't state that in an overconfident manner. He humbly states that. One thought is that it's the road to Emmaus. And you know, maybe Vern's going to teach that this morning. It really moves me. Deep down. This road to Emmaus experience. And it's in Luke. It's the only place I think it is in the gospel account.

What an incredible experience that must have been. Can you imagine being one of those two guys, and Peter presumably was one of the three. I'm talking about the two guys, not Peter. who in fact are having the scriptures revealed to them, the truth of the scriptures revealed to them, as the Lord was walking with them. I mean, boy, incredible story. It's a warm and fuzzy, isn't it? And to think that these were believers, well, we'll assume they became believers. I would think so. I believe.

These are Old Testament saints prior to him revealing himself. who have been hearing the law and discussing the law, and they know it, but they don't understand it. And so Christ comes, and they start back with Moses, and suddenly this truth comes flooding into their life, and then he shows himself, and I think you'd believe after that. stories or truths, I mean the truth of our salvation is what we are doing today of course, but I mean beyond that the stories in the Bible are really moving and I think the Road to Embrace is one of the most moving and emotional stories that you can turn to.

Alright, who are the twelve? Now, Judas is dead, Judas Iscariot committed suicide, presumably, and Thomas wasn't there, so we're down to ten. Twelve? Some consider Paul as one of them, possibly. Paul wasn't there, he was king of the twelve. Well, they also elected one, a 12th person. Well, Matias, right? Well, the question comes up, too, is this authorization to what would follow? I mean, Paul worked clearly among the 12, right? And the follow up. But it was this in some ways authorizing Paul because He would see Jesus, right? He would see him on the road to Damascus and be talking with him for three years. I don't think anybody is really clear on who the twelve were. Has anybody any clarity here? And by the way, the commentators were all on board on this.

I guess the one thing that mentioned the qualifications for the two who were admitted, for the one who was admitted to be the apostle later on, was that he had seen everything along with them as if he were an apostle that just didn't make the grade then, but then they decided, okay, you're the rookie, but you're in. Here's another thought too, Tom, is that if Paul is ultimately authorized to be the 12 because he would ultimately be seen, Thomas would be included there too, wouldn't he? So I'm okay with the 10 and the 12 who would ultimately come by either in the very near future or in a little bit more of a limited time scale. This isn't going to be anything that's required to get an A in the courts, because we just don't have adequate information to know who the twelve were. But I think the idea of authorizing Thomas immediately to follow and then to Paul is perfectly comfortable. But it could relate.

I don't think Matthias, I mean, we don't have any evidence he saw the Lord, do we? I mean, he might have been this broad interpretation of the apostles. Remember we talked about apostles of the twelve, but then we talked about we're If the apostles had that criteria and they chose from him, I think we could say that he qualified, but he just didn't. And the thing is that I don't think we have to worry about the number of apostles.

There was a criteria. They met it. Paul met it. And so we like twelve. Twelve is convenient because it's the number of disciples that were close to Christ and those things. It's the numbers. Well, it suddenly appeared to the 12, so we have to assume the 12 does relate a finite number of people.

And again, the appearance to Thomas and Paul were delayed. Anyway, I'm OK with that. Of course, you can argue that since God looks at things from a timeless perspective, he looked ahead and said, well, Paul's going to appear to him, too. So he's stating that correctly.

And after that he was seen by James and by all the apostles. James was one of the brothers of Jesus and Thomas would ultimately be included as I just mentioned. By the way, according to John, I should have listed the scripture, Jesus had other brothers who were not believers. So James was one of the twelve, but the other brothers came later and they would become saved ultimately as the church age became real. Last of all, he was seen by me also. So in a sense Paul is creating that atmosphere of credibility by saying he was seen by me. As by one born out of due time, interesting, we'll come back to that.

For I am the least of the apostles who am not worthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain. But I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preached, and so you believed. This is why we came to you and we preach that you might believe. By the way, some of you have believed in me, but those who have not, I'm here to bring you to the recognition that this is the reason why you believe.

Last of all relates to the timing of his conversion. I think Acts 9, 3-7, 17 really goes through that and the details of Paul's conversion. Last of all, meaning of the apostles, that Paul is included by authorization here. He's the last to come to a saving relationship.

Born out of due time. Interestingly enough, most of the interpretation of the Greek term relates to abortion. That's not abortion as we think of it today as murder, but it's abortion being spontaneous, or a miscarriage if you will. Many want to interpret this as prematurely because it fits better with our understanding about a premature birth of a child who is not ready to be born but is born.

And let's look at a couple of Old Testament verses just to see how this word is used historically. By the way, this is the only time in the New Testament that this word is used. And I think in many ways it seems to tie into Paul's unworthiness, and we'll come back to that in a second.

So Numbers 12.12. Gary, can you do that one? Yep.

And Job 3.16. Let's see. Roger, can you get that one for us, please? Do not let there be like one dead whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother's womb. That's the best of an Old Testament term that would relate to the New Testament term in the Greek. Joe, let's see, where's Joe? We spend so little time in the Old Testament that sometimes you... I lost my... What was the end, Joe? 316. John 316.

You guys got your Bibles? They got food. They got food, okay. I would not be an infant. Read louder. OK. Touches a miscarriage. Or like a miscarriage which is discarded. So that's kind of like Bob was saying that spontaneous one. I would not be as infants that never saw light. Okay, so remember in the womb God has created life and that life is debated by the world system when implantation occurs and all that kind of stuff. But isn't it interesting we call abortion therapeutic today? I mean it's just such a disgusting term.

All that aside, but this verb is best translated as a miscarriage. Or a spontaneous abortion. The term abortion has negative today but an abortion is typically a lost pregnancy basically. Most of them in the first trimester. But the commentators like this to be a premature birth. I don't know what's right but it's the only time the word is used in the Greek. Anyway, Paul has a point to make here.

Turn to 1 Corinthians 15.9. We're basically there, aren't we?

The ninth verse really says that I'm the least of the apostles, so I'm not worthy to be called the apostle because I persecuted the church. It kind of goes forward to the idea of born out of due time. It just relates to the fact that he's You know, when Paul says, I'm the chiefest among sinners, I mean, it relates to his heritage, but also relates to the fact that he really sees God's grace for everything that it is. And I think we all need to see ourselves as the most unacceptable before the Lord. That's an individual thing. And grace doesn't bring partly our self-righteousness to the cross.

It brings us as totally unworthy and Paul has really exemplified that in so much of his writings. We can be thankful for the Lord really giving us a great taste of Paul and where he came from and what he did. So identification with this aspect of Paul's view of himself is really something as members of the body of Christ we all need to appropriate for our own selves.

And did Paul persecute the church? Gil, I'm quoting him, he not only consented to the death of Stephen, the first martyr, and held the clothes of them that stoned him, but he made havoc in the church, hailing men and women to prison, and continued to breed back threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. and had letters of commission from the high priest in his pocket to seize any of this way at Damascus and bring them down to Jerusalem. So this is just Gill's summary of Paul's persecution of the church. And keep in mind, much of the persecution of the church was the church itself.

But his ultimate position as a Pharisee, even before the church was founded, is evidence of his self-righteousness and his limited ability to understand the principles of God. And I think, as I mentioned just a minute ago, I think his unworthiness harvests his humility.

And I think that's really where we all need to be. We don't come as sad sacks. crucified, buried, and resurrected in the Lord Jesus Christ. There's joy and exhortation there. And remember, for each and every one of us, there's no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. But as we look at what brought us to the cross, there has to be this atmosphere of unworthiness. There's nothing we've done that deserves God's grace. And by the way, I always kind of mention this, the cross is the great equalizer of all men for all time. Everybody's equal at the cross. There's no black or white. There's no male or female. There's no homosexual or heterosexual. Randy? Just a thought popped in my mind.

When we look at this and we talk about what was believed and who we were before we were saved versus who we are after we're saved, when we see Paul writing about in verse to what you think is the gospel and the way it's been presented doesn't show you in need as a sinner. It doesn't show you, and you just believe in a really nice guy, Jesus, they happen to have been persecuted by some really mean people, but his daddy loved him really a lot and brought him back to life. That's not the gospel. That's not who you are. That's not who he was and who he died for. And that's mainline church kind of stuff, right? Well, sadly, yeah.

But I think it's kind of interesting because what you're talking about is we come depraved and we leave elevated. We leave with the 34 things that are true of us in Christ. Being true of us in Christ, really, is not talking about someone else. It's talking about you. And that's remarkable.

It really is, and I think that's the joy of the Christian experience, is realizing from whence we've come, and the fact we've been risen not just to have our sins forgiven, but to have a new life in Christ Jesus. And that gives joy and exhortation, and allows us to have a rest. Because there's nothing we've done to get there, and there's nothing we do to stay there other than believe. Our faith continues to activate us going forward. Great point, Randy. Thank you.

And so this idea, I mean, Paul's unworthiness and his humility is stated in multiple places in the New Testament. This just isn't the only place. And I don't know that we want to take time right now to look at this, because we're probably going to hear the first bell in a moment. And in verse 15, 10, notice the repleting theme of God's grace here. Let's go back and look at that in a second. Verse 10. but by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain." Wow, so grace shows up a couple of times there. But by the grace of God I am what I am.

The interesting thing here, and I'm overly spiritualizing it so please criticize me here, this iēmē in the Greek, if you turn to I am and you do a reference to I am, Almost all, not all, but much of I am is Christ himself saying I am the I am. I am over spiritualizing this a little bit, but Paul saying by the grace of God I am what I am is really kind of identification. He is what he is as Christ was to claim himself. I am the great prophecy of the Messiah to come. I am. Now again, accept that as over-spiritualization, because I am is used elsewhere in scripture, but much of the I am is the Lord Jesus Christ talking about his response to all the criticism of who he was by the blasphemers in his earthly experience.

Christ's claim repeatedly is what I stated here. I kind of like this. In fact, 1 Corinthians 11 we did this. I think Paul says, be ye followers of me, even as I am. And that's what it says. Even as I am, implying of the Lord. Anyway, take it or leave it. At the very least you can look at the language structure and know that those who are familiar with the teachings of Christ would have seen that and recognized that.

And Paul is saying this is only of God. His credential very short, and the grace that allowed him to come to this understanding, and that grace is there for all of us growing. God is going to give them more grace. Grace is infinite for each and every one of us, but our response to God's grace will only relate to the truth of the Word of God. And because of this grace, Paul labored more abundantly than they all did. How does this apply to us? Is this sort of a competition?

Philippians 2.13. Wendy can you look at Philippians chapter 2 verses 13 and 16. You might want to just read all four verses and we are close to the end here. So as we are working more abundantly does this relate to us? How are you doing in your works Pat? Are you doing okay there? Are you measuring up here?

Philippians 2.13-16.

For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Do all things without grumbling or disputing, so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God, above reproach, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world. Okay, so it's not about us walking, we're not passive robots here. But God working abundantly in Paul is because the great grace that God was given for his task, Paul received and actively by faith lifted out at the time. And it wasn't always easy. I love 2 Corinthians. There have been many opportunities in 2 Corinthians to learn of all Paul's strides. and his trials and tribulations. Good.

Well, you know, we talked about Hebrews too, right? Can we teach all the books next year? Okay, you're going to teach Judges, okay? I tried to bail the Bible study through Deuteronomy once. Couldn't complete it. By the way, I don't know where you guys are all going to go after the first of the year, but Second Corinthians is a great, great, great book.

It's just so special. We'd love to have you all come back. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believe. Remember, salvation is both past, present, and future. I was saved. I'm being saved. Each and every day I'm being saved. And then finally, of course, our future security, once absent from the body, we're present with the Lord. The great hope of the rapture is there for all of us, hopefully, day in and day out.

Thus, as Christ saves us by grace through faith, Ephesians 2.8, Remember, we're saved by grace through faith. Grace is the process of salvation, but by faith is the vehicle. We've got to respond.

We not only by faith bring the unsaved to the Lord, so I think that's what Paul was abundantly about, bringing people who are unsaved to the Lord, but also to encourage the growth of those in the body in Christ around us. I mean, keep in mind, this working abundantly just wasn't to bring new members to the body of Christ, but it was to grow and grace those members who already existed, such as the church at Corinth. And that's really kind of why the gospel is being repeated very clearly and very succinctly here, after all these gifts were becoming the focus of the body and inappropriately. Any other, and by the way the Acts passage is a place to kind of go to kind of look at that aspect of both salvation and growth.

Any thoughts about today? It's a humbling passage to have to teach. I think maybe the first place we ought to have the new believer go to when we ask her or him to enter the word of God in terms of how to understand the message. Now there's a little bit here about Paul receding and all that. You'd have to ultimately qualify it a little bit and make sure that he or she understands 1 Corinthians 15, 1-11.

But nevertheless, the truth of the message is really there, isn't it? Randy, close us in prayer. Heavenly Father, thank you so much that we can come and study your word and look at the richness of the gospel and the richness of its impact and the richness of grace. Thank you so much for sending your son and raising him up and us with him. In Jesus' name.