 |
||
By Pastor Glenn Pease
1. PETER-A DARING DISCIPLE Based on Matt. 14:22‑36
2. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA Based on
Matt. 27:55‑66
3. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA THE CORAGEOUS COWARD Based on Mark 15:37‑47
4. JOHN THE GREATEST Based on MARK
1:1‑8
5. MATTHEW THE TAX COLLECTOR
Based on Mark 2:13‑16
6. SIMON OF CYRENE Based on
Mark 15:15‑26
7. SIMON THE ZEALOT Based on
Luke 6:12‑16
8. JOHN‑SON OF THUNDER
Based on Luke 9:46‑56
9. DEFECTIVE DISCIPLES Based
on Luke 9:46‑50
10. APOSTOLIC INTOLERANCE
Based on Luke 9:49‑50
11. ANDREW THE ORDINARY Based
on John 1:35‑42
12. PHILIP Based on John 1:43‑46
13. THE SON OF LIGHTNING Based
on John 13:1‑10
14. PILATE'S PERPLEXING PROBLEM
Based on John 18:28‑40
15. THOMAS THE DOUBTER Based
on John 20:19‑31
1. PETER-A DARING DISCIPLE Based on
Matt. 14:22‑36
Back in
1959 Ford Motor Company admitted they made a big mistake in making the
Edsel. It cost 250 million to bring it
to market, and they lost 200 million during the 2 and 1/2 years they produced
it. It was the number one lemon in the
history of the U. S. auto industry. But
smart owners turned their lemons into lemonade. They formed an Edsel owners club in all 50 states; they published
a quality magazine and had annual conventions, and they made their Edsels
collectors cars worth much more than they were new.
The
point is, mistakes can be costly, but they can also be profitable. The whole idea involved in Rom. 8:28 that
God works in all things for the good of those who love him is this very
point. God will even work with us in
our mistakes to make them profitable and learning experiences. This means we do not need to fear failure so
much that we refuse to take a chance and do what is of some risk. Our very failure could be the stepping stone
to success. This is not some kind of
mystical religious principle, but it is the wisdom of very practical minded men. Years ago a writer interviewed IBM president
Thomas J. Wadson, and this is what he said:
"It's not exactly my line," Watson said,
"But would you like me
to give you a formula for writing success? It's quite simple, really.
Double your rate of failure." "You're
making a common mistake. You're
thinking of failure as the enemy of success.
But it isn't at all. Failure is
a teacher‑a harsh one perhaps, but the best. You say you have a desk full of rejected manuscripts? That's great! Everyone of those manuscripts was rejected for a reason. Have you pulled them to pieces looking for
that reason? "You can be
discouraged by failure‑or you can learn from it. So go ahead and make mistakes. Make all you can. Because, remember that's where you'll find success. On the far side of failure."
There
are numerous illustrations of this in the secular world, and there are volumes
that deal with the subject. But the
best illustration of this in the New Testament is the life of Peter. We have more recorded mistakes and blunders
of Peter than all the rest of the 12 put together. He was the master of mistakes, and yet Jesus chose him to be the
leader of the 12. There is no list of
the Apostles where Peter is not first.
Is there any connection between all of his mistakes and his being the
number one man in leadership? Yes there
is, and the mistake we want to examine is a prime example.
Peter
was the only man Jesus ever rebuked for lacking the faith needed to stay on top of water. Why would Jesus make this man he had to
rebuke more than all the others the leader of the others? He did so because Peter was the only one of
the 12 willing to take the chance. Yes,
he sank while all the rest were safely in the boat. But that is because he was the only one willing to take the
chance of leaping out of the boat. The
risk taker fails more because they do more.
You can criticize Peter and be justified in doing so, for Jesus rebuked
him for his little faith that led him to doubt and then sink. Peter did fail here, and needed to be
rescued, but look at the whole picture.
The only
reason Peter failed is because he took a chance, and he was the only one who
did. We focus on his failure and
neglect the fact that Peter was the only man besides Jesus whoever succeeded in
walking on water. His faith weakened in
the storm, but the text tells us clearly in verse 29, "Then Peter got down
out of the boat and walked on the water to Jesus." Peter was the greatest success in the world
at walking on water. That took tremendous
faith. But what we see here is that
faith can be very flimsy, and confidence can collapse very rapidly in a fearful
situation.
Neil
Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, said at a press conference in
July of 1970, "I particularly remember the elation of finding out that we
indeed weren't going to sink into the surface, and we could continue with all
the other planned activities."
These were among the coolest men on the planet, and yet they had their
fears as they set foot on the moon. How
much more so for Peter who set foot on the lake where there was no mystery
about it? He knew that sinking in water
was inevitable. Had the water been as
still and calm as glass it still would have been a fearful step out of that
boat. But in a raging storm it would
seem to be an act of folly to even attempt it.
But Peter risked doing the impossible with Jesus, and he did it.
Peter
was rebuked, for Jesus wanted him to go all the way and experience total
victory by his faith, but he failed and began to sink. Jesus was not disgusted with Peter. Yes, he got a F in completion, but he got an
A for effort. He was the only one who
took the test. The rest sat like bumps
on a log, and they did not fail, but they also never had a chance to
succeed. Peter did what none of the
others ever did, he walked on water.
Jesus chose him to be the leader because he was willing to take a
chance. His very failure was a mark in
his favor, for only those who try can fail.
We don't
want to give a false impression that the rest of the 12 were of no value
because they did not rise up and leap over the side of the boat. They are no less chosen of Christ, but they
are less exalted. Peter is made number
one because he had a courage that the others lacked. Not all Christians are risk takers, and it is not sinful that
they are not. Jesus did not need 12 men
leaping into the lake. He only needed
one risk taker of that degree, for he only needed one head man. We are not trying to put anybody down, but
only striving to see what it was about Peter that made him the one Jesus chose
to be the leader of the 12. What we see
is that Peter was more willing to fail and take chances for Christ. His failures were not good, but they
represent a quality of character that Jesus was looking for in a leader. He was ready to risk losing for the sake of
winning.
We can't
all be Peter, just as none of the other disciples could be. They were often chicken compared to
him. But all Christians can learn from
Peter's example to move in the direction of boldness and risk taking. In one sense this whole incident was much
ado about nothing. Who cares about
walking on water? It is one of the most
useless miracles in all the Bible.
Jesus never did it again, and nobody else was ever challenged to do it
again. It healed nobody and helped
nobody. In terms of benefit, you can
place this miracles on the bottom of the pile.
Who could feel the loss if it never would have happened? Obviously a miracle of so little worth must
have great value in terms of education.
This
whole scene was deliberately set up by Jesus to teach a lesson. He sent them out into the lake in a boat
alone. This time he was not going to be
sleeping in the boat when the storm hit.
This was a whole new lesson for them to see how they would cope alone,
and how their faith would respond with him absent. He was not going to be at their side in the flesh forever, and
they needed to develop a faith that went beyond sight. They had just seen Jesus feed 5000 with 5
loaves and 2 fish. You would think
their faith would never fail again after that, but Jesus sends them off to face
contrary winds and put their faith to the test.
Peter
is being tested here especially, and we see him come through with both and A
and a F, but with an overall stamp of approval that made him the key
leader. He got a A for daring and a F
for doubting, but as we shall see, even his failure was an asset that Jesus
appreciated. If we could learn to fail
like Peter, we will please our Lord and be used to build his kingdom. Let's look at his success and failure, or
his daring and doubting.
I. HIS
DARING.
Peter
dared to do what the others never dreamed of doing. Safety first was their motto. But Peter was an impulsive risk taker, and his impulse in this
very unusual setting was to step out onto the water. "Lord if its you tell me to come to you on the water." Peter is saying, "dare me to come
Lord", and Jesus responds, "I dare you to come." Jesus knew Peter was the kind of man who
could not refuse a dare. If you
challenged him to do the unusual and impossible, you better be prepared to deal
with the consequences, for he will be going for it.
Such a
personality trait can quickly turn you into a fool, but it can also make you a
hero. It has to be kept under control,
and Peter had his problems doing that.
Peter dared to do foolish things also, and was like a teenager being
dared to play chicken in a car, or being dared to go over 100 miles per
hour. People who can't say no to a dare
are often at the mercy of the most foolish and dangerous whims. It is one of those virtue‑vice type
traits. If you can be daring, however,
and respond to a dare to do what is good, noble, and heroic, then you have a
very positive virtue.
Studies
show that people can be dared into doing what is best for them. George Warren Kroll was a weakling who was
dared to become the healthiest boy in his class, and the blood flowed through
his body responding to the challenge, and he began to build his body until it
was the strongest in his class. Harry Wonda was about to quit his job as a
salesman when his sales manager challenged him. "I dare you to go out and sell more today than you ever
have."
It was like a call to battle, and he went out with a
determination to do just that, and he did.
He needed the dare to bring out the daring spirit that was in him.
Jesus
knew Peter had a daring spirit, and that is why he challenged him to do the
daring act of walking on water. Jesus
was doing to Peter what Ulysses did to Achilles. He provided an opportunity to reveal his true nature. When the Greeks were besieging Troy the
oracle came saying they would never take the city until Achilles came to the
front. But the mother of Achilles
fearing his death had him hidden away disguised as a girl in the court of
Diomedes. Crafty old Ulysses disguised
himself as a peddler and entered the home of Diomedes where he spread out a
glittering array of trinkets before the eager eyes of the girls. As if by chance there was also a sword laid
among them. Suddenly, a trumpet blast
sounded at the gate, which Ulysses had prearranged to give the impression of an
attack. One of the girls with flushing
cheeks and kindly eyes sprang forward and gripped the sword and flashed it in
the air, and stood forth every inch a warrior.
Ulysses presented a challenge and a dare, and he found his man. Achilles went with him and Troy fell.
Jesus
needed a brave leader to defeat the kingdom of darkness, and by this dare to
come to him on the water Jesus also found his man in Peter the daring
disciple. But we have to face the
reality that Peter did not stay on top of the water very long, and so we have
to look at‑
II. HIS
DOUBTING.
We love
Peter better because he sank. Paul
probably would have walked all the way to Jesus and made us all feel hopelessly
inadequate. But Peter, the Rock, sank
because his daring faith turned to doubting fear, and we see ourselves in Peter, for he is more like us. Paul was more of a intellectual, and he
probably would not have tried it after he gave it some thought. He was smart enough to know it wouldn't
work, but Peter was not that smart.
We get
our courage up at times and feel determined to take a new path. We say with Peter, "Lord bid me come to
you on the water." We pray for
Jesus to guide us to new heights and bold adventures for him. "Lord help me take the leap of faith;
to get out of the boat of complacency and non‑productive habits. Help me be bold for you." Then, like Peter, we soon recognize we are
not very good at walking on water. We
are out of our element, and are like a fish trying to walk on the beach. We see the reality of our inadequacy, and the
waves begin to pound our sand castle of faith, and it dissolves before our
eyes. All we see is the impossibility
of maintaining our commitment, and we cry out as Peter did, "Lord save
me!" Our determination leads us
into deep water, and we are worse off
now than if we would have just stayed in the boat.
We are
just like Peter. Even his best
intentions often ended in a failure because fear and doubt overwhelmed his
faith and daring. Why then did Jesus
choose Peter to be the leader of the 12, when he had the same weaknesses that
they had, and that we all have? The
reason is obvious, for Jesus is teaching us all through Peter that it is better
to try and fail then never to try at all.
It is better to fail in a cause that will one day succeed than to
succeed in a cause that will one day fail.
That statement comes from another Peter who was Peter Marshall.
Jesus
chose Peter because Peter was willing to take a chance and do something rather
than nothing. You can set in the boat
and succeed at being a setter, or you can leap out of the boat and fail to be a
walker on water, but Jesus says that he chooses the one who fails in trying,
rather than the one who succeeds in not trying. Jesus is saying to go ahead and fail in trying to do what he
calls you to do. Take a chance, for I
prefer a rock that tries to walk on water and sinks, over a bump in a boat that
will take no risks.
Jesus
never asked Peter to do this again, or anyone else. He never again walked on water.
It is not anyone's goal in life to walk on water. It is not in God's plan at all, and so it is
obvious this one time event was to teach us this lesson. Failure in trying is superior to success in
not trying. Don't let your doubts and
fears stop you from trying to do something exciting for Christ. Even the world's greatest daredevils have to
fight with fear and doubt. Steve Brodie
at age 23 leaped off the Brooklyn Bridge in 1886. He plunged a 120 feet into the East River. He was on the front page of the New York
Times the next morning. He was arrested, but the judge didn't know what to do
with him, for nobody had ever done this and lived to tell about it. It was against the law to kill yourself this
way, but there was no law dealing with someone who jumped and lived. He was released and became quite famous as a
daredevil.
He
decided to go over Niagara Falls in a rubber suit. This also was against the law, so he got up at 5:30 in the
morning and paddled out to the middle of the river above Horseshoe Falls on the
Canadian side. He went over, and again
he lived to tell about it. But like
Peter, the power of the water all about him raised his doubt level to near
panic. He reported afterward that he
would have given anything to back out, but once he was in the current there was
no return. He tried hard to get to
shore, but when he saw it was impossible he felt he was going to die, and so
cried out in prayer just as Peter did to be spared. By the time he came to the brink of the falls the fear was so
great he went unconscious. That was his
answer to prayer, for he was spared the experience of the fall, and the next
thing he knew he was on the water's edge.
The
point is, the most brave and bold and courageous can be filled with fear, and
his faith can fail. Fear of failure is
no excuse, for all men fear failure at some point. Fear of not trying should be the fear that motivates us. We are not called to walk on water or go
over Niagara, or a thousand other stunts that have no value for the kingdom of
God. But we are called to get out of
the boat which represents the church, and join Jesus on the stormy sea which
represents the lost world. That is the
kind of person Jesus is looking for, and that is why he used Peter to be the first
man to lead a Gentile into the church.
Peter ld Cornelius to Christ before Paul the Apostle and the Gentiles
were involved in ministry. The whole
first part of the book of Acts revolves around Peter. Why? Because he was a man
willing to change.
Stepping
out of the boat onto a stormy sea is what we all do if we take seriously the
call to evangelism. It can lead to so
much failure. We risk offending people
all the time. We risk losing
friendships. We risk getting a reputation
as a fanatic. It is a high risk area to
step into, but it is better to fail in trying than to succeed in staying
safe. Studies show that only about 10
per cent of Christians ever respond to the challenge of evangelism, the
question is, are you one of that 10 per cent?
We can't all be like Peter, but we can all move in the direction of
being a more daring disciple. The unknown poet gives the challenge to us all.
"In this vast universe
There is but one supreme
truth‑
That God is our friend!
By that truth meaning is
given
To the remote stars, the
numberless centuries,
The long and heroic struggle
of mankind....
O my Soul, dare to trust
this truth!
Dare to rest in God's kindly
arms,
Dare to look confidently
into His face,
Then launch thyself into
life unafraid!
Knowing thou art within thy
Father's house,
That thou art surrounded by
His love,
Thou wilt become master of
fear,
Lord of life, conqueror even
of death!"
2. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA Based on Matt. 27:55‑66
The danger
of making a hero out of a man who does a great thing after a long time of doing
nothing is that you give the impression that there was nothing lost by doing it
that way. A man lives a life of sin, or
of indifference to God's will, and suddenly he sees the light and is wondrously
converted. If he has been a well known
sinner, or a famous unbeliever, there is a tendency to make a great deal of it,
and make such a person an example. But
there is often a failure to point out what a great lost was suffered by his
delayed decision. Some have pointed out
that it is of no credit to Paul that God had to beat him down and blind him
before he submitted to Christ.
Joseph
of Arimathea became a hero by his last minute change from cowardice to
courage. But we want to point out
something of the loss he suffered by not making his decision earlier. We want to look at 2 aspects of his
experience and see the loss which he suffered, and the love which he showed.
I. THE LOST WHICH HE SUFFERED.
What is
said here will not be taken as statements out of the text, but as inferences
from other passages of the Bible. First
he suffered loss because his discontent came to late for the greatest good. When he stood before the cross he became
thoroughly discontent with his superficial secret discipleship. But this discontent should have
characterized his life from the start as a believer. Discontent is an essential factor for effective Christian
growth.
But
didn't Paul say I have learned to be content in whatever state I am. Yes, but Paul was speaking of being content
with much or little, with hard bed, in danger, or soft one in the home of a
friend. He was talking about being content with whatever life brought in his
service for Christ, whether it be good or bad.
But when it came to the spiritual, Paul was not content. Paul was as near perfect as we can imagine,
yet called himself chief of sinners, and cried out, "Oh wretched man that
I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death." Paul was constantly pushing onward and
upward trying to apprehend that for which God had apprehended him. He was never content to stop and be
satisfied with where he was in his spiritual growth.
If there
is no discontent, there will be no drive to move ahead. Contentment with one's spiritual life is a
curse. It has been one of the greatest
curses in the history of the church, and was such also in Judaism. Dead orthodoxy is the fruit of
contentment. The Pharisees were content
with their system of salvation by works.
That is why they despise Jesus and wanted to kill Him. That is why the established church has
killed so many who were excited about doing the will of God. Men like to get everything all wrapped up in
a creed and call that Christianity.
This was the case with the state churches of Europe. They were perfectly content to let the
people live for the devil just as long as they memorize the creed. But God raised up men who would not be
content with that kind of Christianity.
We need
to be careful in our use of words like liberal. Remember that the men who were the fathers of what we now call
orthodoxy were once the liberals. They
were the discontented liberals who could not stand dead orthodoxy, and so they
rebelled. There needs to be constant
reformation, for the orthodox has a tendency to settle back into
contentment. It is only as we are
constantly discontent that we can keep orthodoxy alive. Whenever a Christian is content he is in
danger of backsliding, but a discontented Christian grows. We need to distinguish, however, between
discontent and discouragement.
Discouragement drags down, but discontent pushes us on.
I have
said all this as background to explain what Joseph missed by experiencing his
discontent so late. If he had felt this
all along, there is no telling what he may have accomplished among the leaders
of Israel, and especially among those other secret disciples. If only they had a leader who was discontent
enough to speak out and organize them.
This is what Joseph lost‑the honor of organizing a band of
disciples among the elite, and thereby winning many more to Christ.
St.
Augustine was one who lived long in sin before he came to Christ. Once he said, "All too late have I loved
thee." This was Joseph's
experience as well. What he did was
great, but it was too late for the greatest glory. Mary of Bethany demonstrates for us that when we love it ought to
be shown. While Jesus sat at the table
she came an anointed Him with expensive perfumes. Judas rebuked her, but Jesus praised her and said that what she
had done would be spoken as a memorial for her wherever the Gospel is
preached. She gave her gift and showed
her love while Jesus was alive. Joseph
waited until He was dead, and when it was too late for Jesus to appreciate
it.
The
contrast is between those who send flowers to the living, and those who only
send them to the dead. Edgar Dewitt
Jones told of a man who had to leave his invalid mother to work in the city. Every week he sent flowers home. Some felt this was a waste, for she had
flowers all over the house. But the
mother eagerly awaited them each week.
They were concrete expressions of his love, and they made her happy all
her days until she died. The Judas mind
says it is such a waste, and the Joseph mind says why not wait until she
dies. But the Mary mind says express
your love now and never put it off, and she was the only one whom Jesus
praised, for her philosophy is the only one that acts when the greatest glory
can be gained. An unknown poet maybe
too hard on Joseph, but here are some lines he has written:
Strange quite man, what
impulse in your breast
Involved your kindness to
the Master whom
You had not dared to
join? He wanted rest
Within your heart, but found
it in your tomb.
Did you not dare to love
Him, He who sought
To give you life, nor asked
for recompense?
What pity that in finding
Him you brought
Your laggard love in death's
cold cerements!
II. THE LOVE WHICH HE SUFFERED.
Hate
has had its hour, and now love steps in to close the day. Maybe Joseph was late with his love, but it
was of great significance when it came.
It is of interest to note the similarities of the burial of Christ with
His birth.
1. When He was born the rich came to worship.
When He was buried it was in the tomb of a rich man.
2. When He was born the main characters were Mary
and Joseph. When He was buried the main
characters were Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea.
3. Joseph would be the first to touch the baby at
birth, and Joseph was the last to touch the body in burial.
4. In birth He had a borrowed cradle, and in dead a
borrowed grave.
Jesus
did own things, for He was a carpenter and had to have tools. But He was greatly dependant upon others in
His ministry. He preached from a
borrowed boat; He rode on a borrowed colt; He ate the Last Supper in a borrowed
room, and was buried in a borrowed tomb.
He had nothing lasting on earth, for He laid up all His treasure in
heaven. The only thing He had of
permanent value was His life and He gave that for us.
In
comparing His birth and burial Wordworth said, "One Joseph was appointed
by God to be the guardian of His body in the virgin womb, and another Joseph
was the guardian of His body in the virgin tomb, and each man is called a just
man in Holy Scripture." A poet has
put it,
How life and death in Thee
agree;
Thou hadst a virgin womb and
tomb,
And Joseph did betroth them
both.
Some critics
go too far in their criticism of Joseph and say that he only took Jesus down
from the cross because he was concerned about obedience to the Jewish law,
which said in Deut. 21:22‑23, "When a man who has committed a crime
deserving of death, is executed and you hang him on a tree, his body must not
be permitted to remain on the tree over night; you must bury him on the same
day." (Berkley). This is going too far, for if that was his
only concern, why did not take care of the two thieves as well? Not only that, if he was worried about the
law he would not be there defiling himself by touching a dead body on the night
of the Passover Feast. He was a rich
man and could have hired someone to do it.
The fact that he and Nicodemus were there, and cut themselves off from
the feast by defilement, is proof enough of their real love.
John
tells us that while Joseph was getting permission to take the body of Christ
Nicodemus went to buy a 100 pound weight of spices. It is of interest again the myrr should be used, which was one of
the gifts the wise men brought at His birth.
When they came to take down the body of Jesus and prepare it for burial
the women who had been there watching followed them, and Mary Magdalene was
among them. They, no doubt, wondered
what was happening, for they did not know these two men were disciples of
Jesus. They had been secret
disciples. It must have been a pleasant
surprise for them to see these two take the body to a beautiful garden tomb and
prepare it for decent burial. They
would have done it themselves, but they could never have gotten permission to
take the body. Here was the amazing
providence of God in having a man of wealth and position ready just when he was
needed.
In
taking Jesus to His new tomb Joseph was fulfilling the prophecy of Isa. 53:9,
which said, "Men made His grave with the criminals, and He was with the
rich in His death." The tomb of
Joseph must have been in a beautiful garden with many plants and flowers. Man began in the Garden of Eden with perfect
life, but soon he turned it into death.
Jesus now lays in the garden of Joseph dead, but will soon turn it into
life. The beauty of the location was
symbolic of the joy and glory of the Easter message.
It is
more than guess work that makes us visualize the beauty of Joseph's
garden. If you recall, Mary Magdalene
on the first Easter morning saw a figure nearby when she was weeping because
her Lord was gone. It says that she
supposed him to be the gardener. It is
highly unlikely she would think any such thing unless this garden was a
beautiful estate calling for a great deal of care. Joseph was a rich man, and no doubt did have a gardener to keep
this place neat and beautiful, and so it was perfectly natural for Mary to think
that is who she saw.
Thanks
to the love of Joseph, Jesus received the burial of a king and fulfilled
several prophecies. One of them was
that the body of Jesus was not to see corruption. Thanks to the new tomb where none had been laid, and to the
spices that Nicodemus bought, his body did not see corruption. The Christian is to regard the body with
respect and car, but not to worship it. Some say just throw it away as
worthless, and others say honor it as an idol. These extremes are both wrong. The body is to be loved and respected, but
whatever happens to the body does not make a difference in terms of the
resurrection. Jesus had a decent
burial, but the thief on the cross was likely thrown into a ditch somewhere,
but his spirit went to paradise with Jesus just the same. Whatever be the grave of a saint it is a
resurrection field.
Joseph
was late in his expression of love, and because of that he suffered loss, but
he illustrates the truth of the saying that it is better late than never. Joseph will always be remembered for the
love which he finally showed that did play an important role in the respect
given to the body of Christ.
3. JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA THE CORAGEOUS COWARD Based on Mark 15:37‑47
A fireman
who was half dead from exhaustion and smoke inhalation, with face dirty and
uniform covered with grime, staggers past the crowd and is almost deafened by
their shouts and cheers for him. He has
just come from a burning building where, at the risk of his life, he climbed to
the third story and rescued a trapped child.
The crowd watched breathlessly as he walked along the ledge of the
building with his precious burden, and finally managed to get back to the ladder
and down to safety. The crowd cheered
this man more now than they ever thought of doing on the day of the firemen's
parade. He marched by then in his
freshly cleaned uniform with all the buttons shined. It is obvious why. Even
though he was more presentable marching in a parade, that was only a
superficial duty of a fireman, but now they had just witnessed his sacrificial
duty. He had risked his life, and the awful appearance which he
now exhibited was the result of his willingness to perform the hardest,
highest, and most sacrificial duty of a fireman. This called for cheers and
praise.
We would
think people mad if they thought more of him all spic and span marching in the
parade than they thought of him now.
Yet, it is just this very thing that happened in the last week of the
life of Christ. On Palm Sunday when
Jesus rode into Jerusalem the crowds cheered him and honored Him like a
king. A few days later when He hung on
the cross they mocked Him. This was as
foolish as mocking the fireman for saving the child. Couldn't they see that the triumphal entry was only the parade,
but the cross was the real victory?
Here was the king on His throne doing the real and sacrificial duty He
came into the world to do. It was on
the cross that He was at His best. He
came to give His life a ransom for many, and now as he fulfills this greatest
and most sacrificial duty of all time, the cheering crowds have become the
cruel crowds. They were blind, and they
missed the meaning of it all.
What
was obvious in the case of the fireman is just the opposite here, but we want
to consider the happy fact that not everyone missed it. The Bible tells us of several who were
deeply moved by the death of Christ. We
have the Roman Centurion, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus. We want to focus on Joseph, for he was the
first Christian man we know of who was so moved by the cross that he made an
all out commitment of his life. We want
to consider his experience in two stages.
I. HIS
COWARDICE BEFORE THE CROSS. v. 43
Simon of
Cyrene, the penitent thief, and the Roman Centurion, all found Christ at the
cross, and they could sing as a trio, "At the cross, at the cross, where I
first saw the light." This was not
the case with Joseph of Arimathea.
Matthew and John both tell us that he was already a disciple of Christ,
but John adds, "But secretly for fear of the Jews." It was not at the cross where Joseph first
saw the light, but it was there that the light penetrated deep into his heart,
and compelled him to come out into the light of open commitment.
Where
was Joseph before the cross? Why don't
we hear of him until now? It was
because Joseph was one of those men who wanted to eat his cake and have it
too. He and Nicodemus were both members
of the Sanhedrin, the highest ruling body among the Jews. Most of the followers of Jesus were from the
common people. His chosen disciples
were mostly uneducated fishermen. You
certainly would not expect a man of his standing to come out in an open
declaration of his belief in Christ.
Just about everyone in his circle of high society was opposed to this
Galilean upstart who taught with more authority than they did.
It was
too risky to operate in the open, and so Joseph decided he would be a secret
disciple. He, no doubt, had all kinds
of good reasons why this would be best, such as, I'll be more influence in this
position of power; I'll be able to be a silent witness among the elite, the up
and outers. John tells us the real
reason: He was just plain scared. Nothing is so hard as going against the
group.
Joseph
was not alone. There were others who
were afraid to risk their position and reputation by making an open stand. In John 12:42‑43 we read,
"Nevertheless, many even of the leaders believed in Him but, due to the
Pharisees, failed to confess it so they might not be put out of the synagogue,
for they preferred men's esteem to divine approval." Jesus had good cause for saying, "He
who denies Me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in
heaven."
The fear
of what others think is a powerful force in controlling our conduct. A group of boys from good American families
broke over 300 windows in a new school building. A famous psychologist was called in to interview each boy
separately, and he found that not one approved of the conduct of the
group. Each thought that they were the
only one who didn't want to do it, but no one was willing to voice his opinion. They were all afraid of what the others
would think. All it would have taken is
for one with enough sense to call the whole plan a stupid idea. He would have been a welcome leader, and
could have prevented the whole thing, but they were all secret disciples of
what they knew to be right. A secret
disciple is about as useless as a rubber crutch.
Nicodemus and Joseph both made weak attempts to do something for
Jesus. Nicodemus on one occasion said
to the Sanhedrin, "Does our law condemn a man without a trial?" Luke tells us Joseph did not consent to the
decision to condemn Jesus. He didn't
consent, but he didn't fight it either.
He was neutral, but to be neutral and silent in the presence of sin is
to condone the sin. Someone said,
"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do
nothing." If he would have risen
to the defense of Jesus along with Nicodemus, and other leaders who believed,
they could have prevented all the injustice and cruelty Jesus had to suffer,
but he remained a secret disciple and a cowardly Christian.
Secret discipleship is a sad development
in the life of many a believer. The
idea of being a silent witness with your life, without speaking up for Christ,
is being shattered these days. It is a
fine idea, but it just doesn't work as a major method. Luke tells us that Joseph was a good and
righteous man, but that did not do a thing for Christ as long as he was a
silent and secret disciple. To be a
silent witness is the hard way, and it leads to all sorts of
complications. The man who comes right
out and lets others know where he stands finds it much easier to live an
effective Christian life. Once you make
your stand the world expects you to be Christian in your conduct, but until
they know they assume you are like them.
The secret
disciple has to constantly make excuses for why he does not live like the
world. When asked to go to a night
club, he has to say he is tired, or has other plans. When asked to play golf on Sunday morning, he has to explain that
his wife wants him to go to church, or that he would rather play on
Saturday. He has to laugh at their
dirty jokes or they will get suspicious.
When are we going to learn that the best defense is our offense? The world shrinks in weakness before the man
or woman who takes a solid stand for Christ, and for what is right. Even the conscience of the unbeliever is on
our side. No one ever took a fort by
hiding in the woods. You have to attack
to take it. Like a mighty army moves
the church of God; the gates of hell cannot stop it. Secret disciples like Joseph are of no help in the battle. Maybe they are not helping the enemy hold up
the gate, but neither are they doing anything to beat it down. That is why it is a delight to see what
happened to Joseph at the cross.
II. HIS
COMMITTMENT BENEATH THE CROSS. v. 43
What a
sudden change came over Joseph. When Jesus was popular and the crowds cheered
him, he was cowardly, but now when it appears that there is nothing but defeat
and utter ruin of all the Lord's plans, he becomes courageous. When Jesus was performing miracles, healing
the blind, and raising the dead, he was afraid to come out into the open. But now when all his disciples have fled,
and he is a picture of complete helplessness and weakness, he boldly goes to
Pilate and asks for the body of Christ, and thereby proclaims to the world that
he is a follower of this man.
This
took more courage then we realize. The
Roman practice was to dishonor the bodies of criminals who were crucified. They would let the dogs and birds consume
them, or burn them, or throw them in a ditch.
For Joseph to go and request the body of Jesus for decent burial was as
much as saying, "I think you crucified an innocent man. You did wrong to kill him." It was fortunate for him that Pilate felt
guilty, and was glad to grant his wish as another act to ease his
conscience. Eusebius, the ancient
church historian, tells us that when the Presbyter Pamphylius of Cesarea was
sentenced to martyrdom in 309 A. D., his young slave Porphyrius requested that
he might be allowed to bury the body.
The judge was infuriated and condemned him to be tortured at the stake.
Joseph
not only risked his life because of Pilate, but because of the Sanhedrin. What would
they do when they heard what he had done to the one they had so despised? At best he would be cursed and ostracized
from office. What was it that caused
Joseph to do now what he could never do before? I cannot doubt that it was what he saw and heard beneath the
cross. If the cross does not bring a
man out of his cowardly concealment, nothing will. We see in Joseph the first evidence of the power of the cross. There was
a power there that did what even his perfect life could not do. The cross is not only the power that brings
sinners to conversion, it is the power that brings saints to commitment.
As
Joseph stood beneath the cross of Jesus, and saw the love that He exhibited
there, in spite of the hate and mockery against Him, his conscience must have
burned within him. His shame must have been almost unbearable when
Jesus said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." He must have examined Himself and said,
"That is right! I don't know what
I am doing. I have been playing it
safe, and look what He suffers. I've
been worried about my position, power, and possessions. My pride has been my master." He saw what folly he was practicing in the
light of the cross. Even the Roman
Centurion, who did not have the knowledge he did, could see the love of God at
the cross.
Joseph
could not longer hide his love for this one whose love never failed or
faltered, even on the cross.
"For me, I yield, I yield‑I can hold out
no more.
I come by dying love compelled, and own Him conqueror."
Joseph could have sung from actual experience,
"When I survey the wondrous cross on which the
Prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss and poor contempt
on all my pride."
Our text
tells us that Joseph was looking for the kingdom of God. Could it be that even the penitent thief
played a part in Joseph's sudden commitment?
This thief said to Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your
kingdom," and Jesus said, "This day thou shalt be with Me in
paradise." This was certainly a
challenge to Joseph. Here was a thief
who saw in Jesus a king. He believed
that Jesus had a kingdom, and that he could be a part of it, and Jesus assured
him he would be. Joseph must have
wondered at his own folly. He was
looking for the kingdom, and here was the king before his very eyes. He had been counting the cost of coming out
in the open for Christ, and he thought it was too high a price to pay, but now
he begins to consider the cost of remaining silent, and he came to the conclusion
that he would count all else as loss that he might win Christ. He threw all fear to the wind, and made an
open stand. Jesus said, "It is
finished," and Joseph said in his heart, "Amen, and so is my secret
discipleship finished."
The
death of Jesus did something in Joseph just the opposite of what it did to the
disciples of Jesus. They took it as the
final blow, and they slunk away in defeat to weep in despair. Joseph, in contrast, came out of hiding,
threw off his mask, and boldly said, "I love this man enough to give him
my tomb for burial." He took a stand as shocking to all who knew him as it
would be to us if a member of the Supreme Court gave his burial plot to one
that the court had just condemned to death.
If you think that would make headlines, what about the story of
Joseph? It would spread like wildfire
through the land of Israel. He would be
branded for life. Tradition says he was
removed from the Sanhedrin for his action.
How would we feel if the Supreme Court judge who gave his plot, gave it
to one who was condemned as a traitor of our country? That is how the leaders of Israel looked at Jesus, and at Joseph
who gave him a place of burial."
It took
the crisis of the cross to change his cowardice into courage. Sometimes it takes a crisis to bring out a
man's true faith. Foxe, in his book of
martyrs, tells of Christians who trembled in fear as they sat in prison
thinking of being burned at the stake, but when the time came they faced it
bravely. Some Christians are like Peter
who was courageous when all was calm, but who turned weak in the hour of
crisis. Others are like Joseph who was
cowardly, but who became courageous in the hour of crisis.
Joseph
was the first in a long line of men of God who were compelled to risk all in
complete commitment due to a crisis situation.
Savonarola was preaching the Word of God with such boldness to the
Italians that the corrupt church tried to stop him by advancing him to the
position of Cardinal. When the messenger
of Rome arrived with the offer of the Cardinal's purple, Savonarola asked him
to come to his next sermon and receive his reply. In that lenten sermon of 1496 he said, "I desire neither
hats nor mitres, be they great or small.
I desire naught save that which thou hast given to thy saints; it is
death; a crimson hat, a hat of blood I desire." That is what he got, for he chose the cross rather than
compromise, and to be a coward.
Before
the great anti‑Christian outbreak in China, an official who was a secret
believer was ordered to send a message to an inland governor telling him to
kill all Christian missionaries. This
was his hour of crisis, and, as it was with Joseph, it led him to open
commitment. He sent instructions to the
governor to protect the Christians, and in so doing he risked all that his life
offered him, and that is what it cost, for he was soon put to death. It is costly to be committed to Christ. But Jesus did not call us to raise roses,
pick posies, cultivate carnations, but to carry the cross. The Christian life is not a cinch, but a
challenge that calls for courage. As the hymn says,
Ye that are men now serve
Him,
Against unnumbered foes:
Your courage rise with
danger,
And strength to strength oppose.
Leaders
of any cause know that there must be a challenge in their cause if it is going
to succeed. Napoleon once built a
battery in such an exposed position that his artillery officers said he would
never find men to man it. Napoleon was
wise. He set a placard by it which
read, "The Battery Of Men Without Fear." He never lacked men to man that battery.
If we
read between the lines on the placard over the cross, we see written there,
"Jesus Christ the King of the Jews‑those who would follow Him must
be willing to risk everything. Joseph
of Arimethea accepted that challenge, and made the most important decision of
his life‑the decisions to end his secret discipleship of cowardice, and
become an open witness whatever the cost.
As we
consider the cross before our communion service, we too must face its
challenge. We cannot remain neutral
before the cross of Christ, and we ought not to want to, for every man's heart
cries out with George Eliot who said, "I don't want to be a bit of
driftwood on the current of things."
We want our lives to count, and if they count for Christ, they count for
eternity. A decision for him gives
direction to life; gives determination to make life useful, and gives a
destination for our life worth striving for.
Everyone of us stand at the cross of crisis, and it is the hour of
decision: Will we be cowards, or will
be courageous?
It
takes all kinds to make a world is an old cliché, and like many old clichés
there is a lot of truth to it. God so
made our physical world that it just won't work without differences. Issac Asimov points out that energy can only
be turned into work when you find it in greater concentration in one place, and
in lesser concentration in another. If
the world was flat and the sun shone on all of it at the same time, all parts
of the earth would be at the same temperature, and you could get no work out of
it. But if it is round, and so one side
is dark when the other is light, and it
is the reality of these opposites that makes the sun so powerful a source of
energy for work.
God
follows the same laws in the building of His kingdom on earth. He does not want everybody to be the
same. In fact, He wants people who are
opposites: Not just in sex, but in
personality, life‑style, and in there gifts and goals. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the
contrast we see between Jesus and His forerunner John The Baptist. They were as unlike each other as a wedding
and a funeral, or joy and solemnity. Do
not reject or look down on Christians who are different. The world is full of Christians who are strange
to us, but they are just what God wants.
We are all strange to someone else, but God loves the variety.
The
paradox is Jesus and John were so much alike in their preaching of the kingdom
that they were mistaken for each other.
People thought John may be the Messiah, and he had to deny it. Jesus was taken to be John the Baptist
because He was so powerful. People
thought he was John come back to life.
In Matt. 14:1‑2 we read, "At that time Herod the Tetrarch
heard about the fame of Jesus; and he said to his servants, this is John the
Baptist, he has been raised from the dead, that is why these powers are at work
in him." Later on Jesus asked His
disciples, "Who do men say that the Son Of Man is?" And in Matt. 16:14 we read this response,
"And they said, some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others
Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
This
gives us an insight into the powerful impact John the Baptist had on Israel in
the few short years of his ministry.
All the other prophets people thought of were Old Testament
prophets. John was the only
contemporary that was put in that class of people whom Jesus might have been,
for He was the only man of God like him who had been seen in Israel for
centuries. They could easily imagine
that he was the Messiah. So John was
taken for Jesus, and Jesus for John,
because they were both such powerful personalities for God. But they were still very much opposites in
their personal lives.
John was
a hermit who spent a good share of his life in the desert living the life of an
ascetic. This is the point of Mark 1:6
where his dress and his diet are described.
There is not much point in details like this being preserved unless they
have some significance. What do we care
what John wore and ate? Unless there is
something valuable to learn by the contrast with the life‑style of the
Master, whose way he was preparing, there would be no point in it. His camel hair clothing was the clothing of
a wilderness nomad, and his diet of locust and wild honey were the products of
the wilderness. If we saw John today,
we would no doubt point him to a mission, for he would give us the impression
that he was not exactly living high off the hog. He was an uncut diamond, rough and unpolished.
Jesus
said, "Why did you go out into the wilderness, to see a man clothed in
soft raiment?" Jesus went on the
say you would go to king's houses if all you were interested in was soft and
expensive clothing. No, he said, you
went out to see a prophet, and more than prophet. He is the one who was to prepare the way for Messiah. And then Jesus makes this amazing
statement: The greatest compliment he
ever paid to anyone in Matt. 11:11, "Truly, I say to you, among those born
of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist."
Who was the greatest man in history? It all depends on who you ask. But if you had asked Jesus that question in
His day on earth, He would say it was this strange forerunner of his, John the
Baptist. Any survey among Christians
with this question would bring in votes for Abraham, Moses, David, and other
great personalities of the Old Testament.
Few would choose this wild looking man, darken from years in the desert
sun, and unshaven, for he was a Nazarite.
He was too radically different to appeal to us. It is true he had low overhead for his
ministry, the locust and wild honey were free.
Bees were everywhere making honey in the crevices of the rocks.
Some might even consider it a delicacy to eat honey
coated locust. He was getting his
protein and carbohydrates with no preservatives added.
But, all
kidding aside, John the Baptist was performing a ministry to thousands of
people, and he started one of the biggest revivals in all the history of
Israel, and he never took an offering of which we have any record. John was not called to be a fund raiser, or
to build a church, or a school for prophets.
He was called to prepare the way for the Messiah, and he did it without
money. He had the lowest overhead of
any ministry on record. Can you imagine
what it would cost to get John's results today? The point is, there was no credibility gap when he preached to
others to live the simple life style, and to give to the poor. Many who preach this live like kings and
drive the most expensive cars, but John lived what he preached.
John is
one of the few people in history, in or out of the Bible, who demonstrated you
can live a life sold out to God, and give
up all that the world treasures, and still be successful. When John's birth was announced to his
father the angel said in Luke 1:15, "He will be great before the
Lord." He was destined to be
great. His birth is the only one
described in detail in the New Testament, except that of Jesus. Most of the world, in most cultures, at most
times, would not consider John as being very successful, let alone great. He had nothing of the status symbols of
materialism. Yet he was powerful in his
poverty, and we learn from John that the only resource one really needs to be
great, as far as God is concerned, is the Holy Spirit. John is the only person in the Bible who was
surrounded by the Holy Spirit from his conception. We know this was true of
Jesus also, but it is only recorded of John.
In Luke 1:15 we read of John, "..he will be filled with the Holy
Spirit even from his mothers womb." This is never said of any other
person. In Luke 1:41 we read of his
mother, "And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Here is the most unique family in all of
history. No wonder John was in the eyes
of Jesus the greatest man in history.
It is of
interest to note that John was the first person to recognize that Jesus came
into the world to give His life as a
sacrifice. He saw Jesus coming toward
him and he said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world." Some of his disciples
followed Jesus because of this, but it was a long time before they saw in Jesus
what John did. John was so special and
unique, but there are few sermons about him, and this may be legitimate because
he said, "I must decrease and He must increase." His job was to point the way to Jesus, and
not focus on himself, but we can't escape the facts. There are more words in the New Testament about John the Baptist
than there are in 33 of the 66 books of the Bible. He is the first preacher of the New Testament. He did not preach the law, but the New
Testament kingdom coming with the Messiah.
He was
the first man in history called the Baptist.
For decades it was thought that John picked up the idea of baptism from
the Jewish practice of baptizing Gentiles.
It was supposed that the Jews baptized them when the came into the
Jewish faith. Modern studies, however,
reveal that this came after John and not before. There is no reference to this practice in the Old Testament, the
Apocrypha,
Philo, or Josephus, or any record that would
indicate that it came before John. Even
the liberal scholar Rudolf Bultmann writes, "No certain testimony to the
practice of proselyte baptism is found before the end of the first
century." What this means is that all the evidence points to John as the
first Baptist in history, and the founder of the very idea of Baptism. He also baptized more people than anyone we know
of in history. Note verse 5 of our
text: "And there went out to him
all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem, and they were
baptized by him in the river Jordan."
The use
of "all" is hyperbole. It is
deliberate exaggeration to convey the point that it was a major movement
touching everybody from both the city and the country. People of all walks of life were caught up
in the revival, and were being baptized.
A quarter of a century later Paul, in Acts 19, found a group of John's
disciples way off in Ephesus. Jesus
even tells us the Jewish leaders were positively excited about the John's
ministry for awhile. He says in John
5:35, "He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice
for awhile in his light." Even
some of the Scribes and Pharisees were baptized by John. There was no revival like this before in
history. It was the preparation for the
Messiah, and John was doing the job well.
John had
the privilege of baptizing not only the most people in history, but he got to
baptize the Messiah Himself. He
resisted because he felt unworthy, but Jesus did not resist, but gladly let his
body be immersed by John, who in his eyes was the greatest. John was a man that Jesus looked up to and
admired. The other two persons of the
trinity concurred, for it was at that point where John baptized Jesus that the
trinity, for the first time in history, was manifested in all three persons at
the same time: Jesus in the flesh, the
Holy Spirit coming down as a dove, and the Father speaking, "This is my
beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
John was the only man in history permitted to witness such a marvel and
mystery revealed. Many of the Old
Testament saints had visions, but none were ever let in on the full reality of
the trinity.
John was
very special in God's plan for sending His Son into the world. We think of him as sort of a minor
character. So what if he opened the
door for Christ. Anyone could have done
that, we think. But we are wrong to so
think. It took a very special and
unusual man to fill this role. If we go
back to the last two verses of the Old Testament, we read these words, which
were the last official words God spoke to Israel: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great
and terrible day of the Lord comes. And
He will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children
to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse." The Old Testament ends with this promise
of the coming of the prophet Elijah.
Elijah was caught up into heaven without dying. His history was not completed on earth, for
God intended to send him back into history.
Can you come back into history after you have gone to heaven? It is highly improbable, but not impossible
if God chooses to use you in this way.
Elijah was one God so chose to use.
Now, how
serious did the Jews take their hope of seeing the prophet Elijah? Very serious, for the Rabbis taught that
Elijah would appear if Israel would repent for one day. This expectation of the coming of Elijah was
an important part of the Jewish hope.
We already read of how some people thought Jesus was the prophet
Elijah. Now we come to the beginning of
the New Testament, and what do we discover?
A prophet called John the Baptist who is so much like Elijah. In fact, the angel that announced the birth
of John said to his father in Luke 1:17, "He will go before him in the
spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the
children....." This sounds like
John was the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope of the coming of
Elijah.
They
wore the same hairy wilderness clothing.
They both spoke out against wickedness in high places. They both drew great crowds and spoke the
word of God. One begins to wonder if John was the fulfillment of the last
promise of the Old Testament. Well, we
do not need to depend upon
circumstantial evidence for we have a clear word from Jesus. In the very context where Jesus calls him
the greatest man born of woman Jesus says in Matt. 11:13‑14, "And
all the prophets and the law prophesied until John and if you are willing to
accept it, he is Elijah who is to come."
The one who is to come to prepare the way for Messiah has come, and he
is none other than John the Baptist.
No
wonder there was a great revival. He
was the great hope of Israel, and next to the Messiah the most important man in
Jewish hopes. He was second only to
Jesus himself, and that is what Jesus said, and this makes John all the more
amazing. He was a man of great power
and influence, and he could have resented being pushed into the background when
Jesus came onto the scene. But John did
not have any personal ambitions. He
lived only to do the will of God, and said he must increase and I must
decrease. It takes a great man to do
this and nobody did it better than John.
It is of
no small interest for singles to take note that the Messiah and his great
forerunner were both single. This
eliminates forever the idea that the single life can never be as great as the
married life. Here was a single at the
top, greater than all the famous married men of the Old Testament. John never married, never had children,
never lived what most of us would call a normal life. Without having all the facts about this man we have a tendency to
feel sorry for him. He died young
leaving no heirs, and he missed out on most of the pleasures we take for
granted as part of the good life. Yet
Jesus says he was the greatest. If we
are going to evaluate life as Jesus did we will have to resist all of our
cultural conditioning as to what success is, and see that it does not consist
in the abundance of possessions, but in the commitment we have to be obedient
to God's call.
Most of
us would have no interest in living the life of John the Baptist. It has little that is appealing, and much
that is appalling. Fortunately, God
does not call many to live such a life.
Even his own Son the Lord Jesus was not called to live like John. Jesus was not anti‑social like
John. He was seen at weddings and
banquets, and He enjoyed the life and laughter of social life. He wore better clothes, and ate better food,
and grew up in a society where He interacted with people. He was not a loner like John.
God does
not call all of us to be alike. Some
have a radical different role to play in God's plan. But the beauty is we do not hear John even once trying to get a
single follower to join him in his wilderness nomad life‑style. He never condemned another for not giving up
lamb and bread, and joining him in his locust and honey lunch. John was
different, and he knew it, and he accepted it without trying to impose it on others
as if God called all people to be like him.
John
took up the moral issue of Herod's immoral marriage to Herodius, and paid the
price of his life for this courageous stand.
You will observe, however, that neither Jesus nor any of His followers
took up the same cause. When John was
beheaded the issue was dropped, and Jesus never spoke a word about it. Why?
Because this was not his calling.
Nor was it the calling of other Christian leaders.
Not once do we hear John from his prison cell, where
he spent possibly up to a year, crying out and cursing the people of God for
not joining and standing with him against Herod's evil. This was his calling to take such a stand,
and not even Jesus felt that same call.
This
same thing is true today. I get mail
constantly urging to take stands on all sorts of issues. Nobody can get involved in fighting all the
evils of the world. You have to select
what is relevant to you, and let others response to what is relevant to them. This is not only how it has to be, it is how
it is meant to be, and we see it in John and Jesus. On some issues they were as one, but on others they had a
different perspective. Not only about
Herod, but about fasting and other issues of the law as well as life‑style
issues.
Jesus
said John is the greatest, but He did not conform to who John was and what he
did. He did His own thing and what He
was called to do. John was John and
Jesus was Jesus, and their differences were not bad for the kingdom of God, but
were a part of the plan for the kingdom of God. We are not necessarily called to be like this greatest man ever
born of woman. We are not necessarily
called to do what he did nor live like him.
We are called to be obedient like him.
Jesus did not think of John as the greatest because of his life‑style
or his approach to people, but because he was a man sold out to do God's will
regardless of any loss or gain to himself.
There not many of us like that, and nobody was like that in the Old
Testament to the same degree as John.
We all
have mixed motives and self‑centeredness, and few if any can match the
commitment of John. He will always be
next to Jesus as the greatest of men.
Paul and Peter were used to do great things too, but John was never a
persecutor or blasphemer like Paul, and never denied his Lord like Peter. There is no escaping the facts: John with all of his differences was the
closest to being the perfect man because of his ideal spirit. John was filled with the spirit from his
birth.
The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was this man and his ministry. It is of interest to go to the book of Acts
where they are selecting a disciple to take the place of Judas. Listen to the requirements this man had to
fulfill. Acts 1:21‑22 says,
"So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until
the day when He was taken up from us."
Notice that the beginning point for a Christian disciple was not the
public ministry of Jesus, but the baptism of John. This is where the New Testament begins. Everything else before this was Old Testament. The Old Testament ends with the promise of
the prophet Elijah, and the New Testament begins with Johns fulfillment of that
promise. The disciples of Jesus were
first of all disciples of John.
Calvin
in his Institutes writes, "It is very certain that the ministry of John
was precisely the same as that which afterwards was committed to the apostles......the sameness of their doctrine
shows their baptism to have been the same....If any difference be sought for in
the Word of God, the only difference that will be found is, that John baptized
in the name of Him who was to come, the apostles in the name of Him who had
already manifested Himself."
John did
not just baptize Jesus, and that was the end of their relationship. On the contrary Jesus began His ministry and
became quite popular, and the source, not only of His select 12, but of many
others of His disciples was from John the Baptist. In John 10:40‑42 we read of how Jesus had to flee from the
wrath of Jews in Jerusalem, and it says, "He went away again across the
Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there He remained. And many came to Him and they said, John did
no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true. And many believed in Him there." When the leaders and the masses were turning
on Jesus he was still gaining crowds of followers from the ministry of John the
Baptist.
They
were partners in the work of the kingdom, and not in two different camps, as
some give the impression. Jesus made it
clear that though He and John had different approaches, they were on the same
team. He said to the rebellious Jews
who would not repent in Matt. 11:18‑19, "For John came neither
eating nor drinking and they say, he has a demon; the Son of Man came eating
and drinking, and they say behold a wine bibber and a glutton." Jesus is saying they could have been a part
of the kingdom of God had they responded to either approach, for both preached
repentance for the kingdom of God is at hand.
They rejected both because they did not want to repent, and when that is
the case, people find fault with the messenger regardless of his method. John and Jesus were baptizing people at the
same time, and they were not two different kinds of baptism. Jesus did not baptize, but His disciples
did, and they were doing just what John was doing: Bringing Jews back to God in repentance. They were not in competition with their old
master, but were following him who prepared the way.
Dr.
Merrill C. Tenny wrote that John's preaching, "Laid the foundation of all
practical Christian theology."
Augustus Strong, one of the greatest theologians of this century wrote,
"John's baptism was essentially Christian baptism, although the full
significance of it was not understood until after Jesus' death and
resurrection."
George
E. Hicks writes, "It is to the Baptist we are indebted for practically all
the major articles of the Christian faith.
Not only so, but the actual terms used by him have constituted the seed
bed of all subsequent thought."
John was
the first to teach the deity of Christ; the first to teach of the baptism of
the Spirit; the first to teach baptism by immersion. John taught a host of doctrines that are vital to the Christian
faith such as, the sovereignty of God, the kingdom of heaven, the need for
repentance and confession, the inevitability of judgment and individual
responsibility. He taught by example,
loyalty unto death, and a humility that is unsurpassed. We can't begin to look at all that he
taught, but Jesus taught us to look at him as a hero, and a great example to
follow. We can learn a lot from a focus
on this man that Jesus called the greatest.
5. MATTHEW THE TAX
COLLECTOR Based on Mark 2:13‑16
Someone said, you never could take your money with you, but some can remember when the government
would let you keep some while you were still here. It is hard for many to
believe that our country was founded partly to avoid taxation. As bad as taxes are, however, only two
classes of people ever complain-men and women.
Taxes are nothing new, however.
The Romans had just about every tax we do today, and they were
heavy. Rome needed taxes because she
built the best road system the world had ever seen. Some of the roads built in New Testament times are still in use
today. Trade was booming because of the
road system. Soldiers patrolled the
roads to protect travellers from bandits.
To maintain this system and highway patrol protection, plus build
government buildings, town halls, baths and stadiums, there was a need for many
taxes.
They taxed one tenth of crops of grain, one fifth of produce
of wine, oil, and fruit, plus they had an income tax of one percent. On top of this, they had a poll tax for men
14 to 65 and women 12 to 65. This was
one denarius a year, which was the wages of an average man for one day. Then, of course, there were the
import-export taxes, the road taxes, the harbor taxes, and the tax for the use
of the market place. Custom officers
were stationed everywhere to collect these taxes, and they had the power to be
very unjust. It is known that some
levied taxes so high the trader could not pay, and so the tax collector would
loan him the money for his tax at a high interest rate. It was literal highway robbery.
This tax burden and the abused power of the tax collector has
survived into the modern day. Charles
Brown, the dean of Yale Divinity School, went to Palestine years ago when it
was under Turkish control. He talked to
a farmer in Jericho who told him he was required to place his harvested crop of
wheat in ten stacks. He made them as
even as possible because the tax collector had the right to come and select one
of the ten for the state. To get the
tax collector to come and make his selection he had to give the collector
another of the ten stacks for his personal fee. Then to get a paper signed permitting him to thresh his crop he
had to give another stack in final payment.
This same kind of oppression was going on in New Testament
days, and the Jews despised it, and everyone connected with it. The Jews were not opposed to taxes, but, as
a theocracy, they felt only a God appointed man had the right to collect
taxes. They did not mind supporting their
government, but the objected to the support of a foreign government. Those who cooperated with the Romans were
considered traitors to Israel. They
were so hated that their money was not accepted in the temple. Their word was of no value in court, and
they were listed by the Jews along with harlots and murderers. Even the Romans themselves did not respect
the tax collector. Cicero said that it
was a trade unbecoming to a gentleman, and it was vulgar. Lucian listed them with a adulterous,
informers, and money-lenders. All in
all it was a class of people highly
unlikely to contribute anyone to a religious movement, and yet Jesus chose one
of these tax collectors to be one of His 12 select men.
Matthew the publican was chosen long before the only Pharisee
Jesus ever chose as an Apostle, which was Paul. Matthew, or Levi as he is called, also had potential which no one
else would have ever tried to discover, but Jesus not only discovered it, He
developed an used it. When Matthew left
his tax booth he took his pen with him, and was used of God to record words of
Jesus which we would otherwise not have, and be much the poorer. The Sermon on the Mount being just one of
the major examples.
In 1844 a New Testament scholar visited the monestery of St.
Catherine on Mt. Sinai. While there he
saw some papers in a basket. His eye
detected Greek characters which turned out to be the famous manuscript of the
Bible called Codex Sinaiticus. It was a
copy that dated back to the 4th century.
To the monks there it was just an old Bible of no value, but to the
scholar it was a priceless discovery. So it was with Matthew the publican. To his own people he was a worthless Jew; a
disgrace to his nation, and of no value at all, but to Jesus he was so precious
that he chose him to be one of the foundation stones of the New Israel-the Church.
Jesus did not select His 12 according to any standard of
social acceptance of His day. He chose
men of any class or position who had depth of character and commitment. In His selection of Matthew we noticed that
He chose a man who was successful and wealthy.
We know this because he had a house and was able to throw a big party in
it for Jesus and His disciples, plus a large number of old friends who were
publicans and sinners. The Scripture
stresses how big this affair was. It
was probably the largest social event Jesus ever attended, and the news of it
spread so that the Scribes and Pharisees complained of his eating with tax
collectors and sinners. In Luke 5:29 we
read, "Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large
company of tax collectors and others sitting at table with them."
Matthew was obviously a leader among his class of despised
people, and he was well liked if they would all come to his party. The point we want to notice again is that Jesus
did not call a dozen loafers to be His key men. He called men who had already demonstrated their ability in the
secular world. Matthew had achieved
success in his profession, as did Peter, Andrew, James and John in the fishing
business. As far as we know everyone of
the 12 were in middle and upper middle class of the society of that day. Often we like to emphasize that Jesus took a
bunch of poor nobodies and turned them into dynamic leaders. He can and has done it, but when He chose
men for the foundation of His church He chose the best He could find. We are not being honest with the facts of
Scripture if we do not recognize that the men Jesus chose were sharp men in
their field.
Another factor that is common in the selections Jesus made is
the way He chose sets of brothers.
Peter and Andrew were brothers; James and John were brothers, and now we
come to Matthew who also had a brother who was one of 12. In Mark 2:14 we read,
"As he passed on he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax
office, and he said to him, follow me, and he rose and followed Him." Mark gives us the same quick picture of a
call to discipleship without any detail as to the background just as he did in the
call of the fisherman. We know,
however, from John's Gospel that a great deal of background took place
beforehand. We can be confident that
this was true with Matthew as well. We
don't know the story of that background, but Jesus must have had frequent
contact with Matthew and his family, for Matthew is called the son of Alphaeus,
and the other Apostle named James is in Matthew , Mark, Luke, and Acts, always
listed as James the son of Alphaeus.
This is no doubt to distinguish him from James the son of
Zebedee and brother of John. It also
links Matthew and this James together as another set of brothers. It is not
impossible it is only a coincidence that they both had fathers of the same
name, but the pattern of Jesus makes it probable that Jesus got into that
family and won both boys to Himself, just as He did with other families. Jesus seemed to specialize in brothers. The result was that He had a close knit
group from the start. He had a natural
loyalty to build on from the beginning.
What a joy this must have been to Alphaeus the father of Matthew. Remember, Matthew was a despised outcast by
the establishment, and the majority of respected citizens. Matthew had sold his patriotism down the
drain because he wanted to make money at any cost.
Matthew represents the millions who long to make a fortune,
and are willing to forsake all other values to do it. Matthew was money hungry, and the path he took cut him off from
his people, and alienated him from the institutions of Israel's faith. Matthew said the religion of Israel irrelevant,
but making money and friends in the world, and getting somewhere is all that
counts. Yet, though he made his
decision, and was doing quite well, he was not satisfied. You can just imagine Matthew at that big
feast giving his testimony. There can
be no doubt that he did so, for he was leaving his old life to follow Jesus,
and he wanted to tell his old gang why.
He had gained all he could ask for in terms of wealth, success, and fame
among his class of people. Yet, he was
empty. The story of Matthew is repeated
in lives everyday.
Boswell said to Johnson as they went through the mansion of
Lord Scarsdale, "One would think the proprietor of all this must be
happy." "No sir," replied
Johnson, "All this excludes but one evil-poverty." That is the only evil Matthew escaped, and
it cost him more than it was worth, and he knew it, and Jesus knew that he knew
it. Jesus knew that sometimes your best potential is in people outside the
institution of the church. Sometimes a
rebel is so valuable just because he has broken away, and found the world so
empty, and is hungry to find his way back into the real experience of
commitment. Matthew was not in the pig
pen like the Prodigal, but he was just as empty and hungry.
Matthew was a rebel who had fulfilled his dream in the world,
and who realized it was not satisfying.
He calls himself the publican, however, in his Gospel, because he
rejoices that he is a trophy of grace.
He had quite a testimony in his giving up success in the world to follow
Jesus. Matthew's Gospel reveals clearly
the authors personal experience.
Matthew is the only one who records the parables of the hidden treasure
and the pearl of great price. These so
fit him that he could never forget them.
The story of a man hunting for something, and then finally finding it in
Christ, describes Matthew perfectly.
It is also in Matthew that we find such text as, "You
cannot serve God and mammon."
That was the decision he had to
make. "Seek ye first the kingdom
of God and all these things shall be added unto you," is only in
Matthew. How it fits him. Or, "What is a man profited, if he gain
the whole world and lose his own soul."
That is the very thing Matthew almost did. How it must have poured out of him as he wrote for others to read
the words of Christ which had been so relevant to his own life. There are many more that reveal the author
was very conscious of the dangers of the love of money.
Matthew became a zealous Bible reader, for his Gospel has 65
quotes from the Old Testament. It is
the first Gospel, and it bridges the gap between the Old Testament and the New
Testament. Tradition says that for 15
years Matthew preached to the Jews. He
is the most Jewish of the Gospel writers, and aims at Jewish conversions. Matthew forsook Israel to get rich, but
Jesus called him to forsake his riches to be a missionary to Israel. He had already learned to be hated by the
Jews for being a money hungry collaborator with Rome, so he had no problem in
adjusting to be hated for being an Apostle of Christ. All the hate and ridicule he faced in his old life prepared him
to be a bold witness for Jesus.
It is interesting how little things can reveal a factor in a
man's character. Matthew was a humble
man, and one who, no doubt, felt inferior to the other Apostles who had never
deserted Israel as he had. In Mark and
Luke the Apostles are listed with Matthew and Thomas, in that order. But in Matthew's Gospel it is Thomas and
then Matthew. This is an incidental
witness to the author's humility. You
need to know the author of the part of the Bible you are studying, for this
gives you the perspective from which you are seeing his revelation.
Traditions vary as to where and how Matthew died. Some say in a Arabia, and others in
Ethiopia. Some say he died by the
sword, but the Greek church uses fire as a symbol of Matthew, because they believe
he died a martyr by burning. All we
know for sure is that this ex-tax-collector became a profitable servant of
Christ; teaching us to never underestimate the potential of any worldly person
for the kingdom of God. When ever you
see an ambitious, materialistic, money hungry man, remember Matthew, and do not
despise him, but pray and labor for his conversion. Like Matthew, he can become as zealous for the Master as he
formerly was for money.
6. SIMON OF
CYRENE Based on Mark 15:15‑26
This text focuses on a man who was forced to become
famous. Millions of people through the
ages have labored and fought to get their names in the record of history, but
Simon of Cyrene was pushed into the pages of history. Except for one incident in his life he would never have been known,
but because of that one experience, he is known the world over wherever the
Gospel of Jesus is known. There is very
little said about Simon in the Bible.
In fact, just about everything we know about him is found in Mark 15:21,
and in one verse in each of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which are parallels
of this one.
One might suspect that there is hardly enough information to
preach on for ten minutes, but this is not the case, for the Bible has a unique
way of saying a great deal in just a few words. A high school student was assigned to write a five hundred word
theme, and he chose to write on the universe, its origin, nature, and
destiny. Even the Bible does not
attempt to condense to that degree, but it does not waste words. The story of creation is told in two
chapters. The great 23rd Psalm is just
a little over a hundred words. The
famous Sermon on the Mount is in three
chapters, and the last words of Christ on the cross, though few in quantity,
have been of such quality as to give birth to literally tons of literature. The Bible is the key example of the truth
that one does not need to be wordy to
be wise, nor voluminous to be valuable.
I trust we see this as we consider what we can know about Simon from
this one verse. First of all‑
I. WE KNOW WHERE HE WAS FROM AND WHAT HE WAS DOING.
He was from Cyrene, one of the two largest towns of Libya in
North Africa, of over 100,000 people.
It was a city in which a great many Jews lived, and many of them would travel
all the way to Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost. In the list of places in Acts 2 of which the people were from,
you will find Cyrene listed. Simon was
either a Jew or a proselyte, that is a pagan who was converted to Judaism, and
who was a very pious believer, for he was willing to travel over a thousand
miles to Jerusalem to worship in the temple.
But what he was doing when he was suddenly, in a moment, made
to change the whole direction of his life, was simply passing by. He knew nothing of all that had gone on in
the city that night. Jesus had been
going through the agonies of Gethsemane, and the trial, and had endured the
cruel mockings and beatings of the mob and soldiers. Simon had no doubt been sleeping. He had a long day planned, and was up early in the morning, as
were all Orthodox Jews, saying their prayers.
He was dressed, cleaned, and almost into the city before 9 in the
morning. If he had been three minutes
earlier or later, or had gone a different way, we never would have heard of
him, but in the providence of God Simon was to have an experience that morning
that changed his whole life. This
brings us to the second thing we know about Simon.
II. WE KNOW HE WAS COMPELLED TO BEAR THE CROSS
OF CHRIST.
As Simon came near the
city gate he saw a crowd coming out of the city. They were shouting and mocking at three men who were bearing
crosses. One of them was having a
difficult time, and it was obvious he was holding up the procession. The soldiers who were anxious to get this
business over ordered Simon to bear his cross.
The Roman soldiers had a right to compel a civilian to help them. When Jesus said, "If anyone compel you
to go a mile, go with him two miles," He was referring to this practice.
Why the soldiers picked Simon is not known. We know that Jesus had been up all night,
and had taken a beating that was known to have killed other men. Therefore, it is quite likely that the
traditional viewpoint is true‑that Jesus stumbled and fell beneath the
load. Many feel that Simon must have
shown sympathy for this one who had been so cruelly treated, and possibly even
stepped forward to help Him up. The
soldier in charge, seeing a chance to speed things up, says, "Alright
helpful, you carry the cross," and forced him to do so. Simon was likely the only one in the crowd
not mocking Jesus, and so he was a likely one to choose.
I find it easy to believe another idea held by many, that
Jesus looked on Simon with a look of love that drew out his compassion. Jesus had a power in His eyes to move
men. Just hours before He moved another
Simon, called Peter, to tears of repentance by a mere glance. It is likely then that Simon was moved by a
force within before he was compel from without. The poet put it‑
Thou must have looked on
Simon,
Turn Lord, and look on me,
Till I shall see and follow,
And bear Thy cross for Thee.
Because of an act of sympathy and compassion he found himself
going in the opposite direction and bearing a cursed cross. What a way to start the Passover
season. He was on his way to church,
and he winds up in a prossession to a crucifixion. Just to touch the cross would defile him, so his day was
ruined. What a miserable way to meet
the Master. He was on his way to
worship God, and was interrupted by having to help Christ get to the cross to
redeem the world. Not a bad days
work! He, of course, did not realize
what was taking place. He came a
thousand miles to do something significant, and all he did was help save the
world.
Simon did not rebel at this sudden turn of events. It had to be a disappointment, but it was
one of the greatest acts of love in history.
Like Cornelius, Lydia, and others who were honestly seeking to know the will
of God, he had, no doubt, prayed that very morning, "Lord teach me thy
will and draw me closer to you this day."
He had come a long way seeking a deeper knowledge of God, but he
believed compassion and not cruelty was the will of God, so he submitted to the
shame of bearing the cross.
He was compelled to bear it, but he chose to submit. The fact that nothing more is said indicates
that Simon gave no trouble, but bore the cross without a struggle. If only we could, like Simon, choose to bear
what we are compelled to bear. If only
we could see the blessings and burdens that we bear for Jesus. Circumstances compel us to bear burdens, but
we can choose to submit or rebel. This
principle holds true for all of life.
For example: Young people are
compelled to go to school. This is a
burden that many would not choose if it was left to them. But since we are compelled to go, we have
two choices. We can rebel and fight
the system, and quit as soon as possible, or we can take it as a challenge, and
choose to submit to the burden, and in so doing the burden will become a
blessing. We cannot determine what life
brings to us, but we can determine what we bring to life, and if we choose to
do what we are compelled to do, we can change burdens into blessings. The third thing we know about Simon is‑
III. WE KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS BEARING THE
CROSS.
It is also certain, that though the cross kept Simon from
church that morning, it brought him to Christ.
We believe he found it to be
true that the way of the cross leads home, and that his frustration led to
faith; his embarrassment led to enlistment; his compassion led to commitment,
and his sympathy led to salvation.
There are several reasons for believing this to be the case. In the first place, it fits into a pattern
which is amazing if true. If Simon was
a convert just before the cross, and the Roman Centurion was a convert just
after the death of Christ on the cross, then together with the thief on the
cross, we have three converts at the cross representing the descendants of each
of the three sons of Noah, Sham, Ham, and Japeth. This would be a concrete illustration of the universality of the
cross, and that Jesus did indeed die for all men.
There is more to go on, however, for our verse says that Simon
was the father of Alexander and Rufus.
Why would Mark, who wrote his Gospel for the Romans, say that he was the
father of these two men unless it was because the Romans knew these two
men? There would be no point in giving
these names unless they were well known among the Roman Christians. Nor would these names be known if Simon just
disappeared in the crowd after reaching Golgotha. The others Gospels do not mention the names of these two sons.
This means that the sons of Simon were well known Christians in Rome,
and this is confirmed by Paul in his letter to the Romans where he says in
16:13, "Greet Rufus, eminent in the Lord, also his mother and mine." Where did this outstanding Christian family
come from? Paul had not been to Rome
when he wrote his letter, so he must have met them before they moved to Rome.
If we put all these facts together and see that, not the
Ethiopian Eunuch, but Simon of Cyrene was the first convert from Africa, and he
went back to his home and won his family to Christ. From there they likely moved to Antioch, for in Acts 13:1 we read
of prophets and teachers there, two of which were Simon and Lucius of Cyrene. It was here in Antioch where the followers
of Jesus were first called Christians.
Who knows how much he who bore the cross of Christ had to do with
that. He was the first convert at the
cross, and became a leader where believers were first called Christians. It would be here that Paul would get to know
the family, and later be able to speak of them when they moved to Rome.
There is much we do not know, but these things that we do know
teach us to see that though Simon was compelled to bear the cross for a while
by the soldiers, he chose to bear it the rest of his life for the Savior. That
brings us to the final thing we can know about Simon.
IV. WE KNOW HIS EXPERIENCE WAS RECORDED FOR A
PURPOSE.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
profitable. The story of Simon, though
minor in length, teaches us a lesson of major importance. It teaches us what cross‑bearing
really is. Men have been more concerned
about making up legends about the cross than they have been in learning what it
means to bear it. Legend takes us way
back to the garden of Eden. Adam was
dying, and so his eldest son Seth ran to the gate of the garden, and begged the
angel for fruit from the tree of life.
The angel told him that Adam would be dead when he returned, but that he
should bury him with seeds from the fruit of the tree of life in his
mouth. A great tree grew from these
seeds, which Noah cut down for the king post in his ark, which saved him and
his family. Centuries later Hiram, king
of Tyre, brought it down from the mountains to build the temple of
Solomon. It was not used, however, but
laid in a trench by the wall. Nehemiah
used it when he rebuilt the temple, but when Herod rebuilt it again this tree
was again laying beside the wall.
In the haste of the day of the trial of Jesus no one made a
cross, and so this post by the temple wall was used. The early Christians cared nothing about the actual cross on
which Christ died, but only the meaning of it, and so for several centuries
there is a break in the legend. But
when the church became corrupted because of paganism, it again revived the
legend. The cross was found it was
claimed, and was being sold in small pieces as charms. This is where we get the idea of knocking on
wood. It has been estimated that enough
pieces of the cross have been sold to build a fleet of ships. Today the cross has become, to many people,
nothing more than a piece of jewelry.
We bear golden crosses around our neck or on our lapel as
decorations. There is nothing wrong
with the cross as a symbol like this, but there is something wrong with our
thinking about it. The experience of
Simon teaches us to think of the cross as an identification with Christ, and
not merely a decoration.
When Simon bore the cross of Christ he became identified with
Christ, and bore the same reproach that he did. Jesus said, "Take up your cross daily and follow
me." That means to be identified
openly with Jesus, and if people would mock Christ they will mock you. That is why it is not as easy to talk about
Jesus as it is about the weather or politics.
It is embarrassing and difficult to be identified with Christ in some
circles. I am sure Simon was ashamed as
he picked up the cross and heard the laughter and mocking of the crowd.
Bearing the cross is not the same kind of suffering one goes
through because of some injury or weakness in the body. That is a thorn and not a cross. The cross is only taken up when we are so
identified with Christ that people will feel and act toward us as they do
toward Him. If a person loves Jesus, he
will also love you. If a person
despises Jesus he will also despise you.
This means that Christ expects us everyday to be so identified with Him
that it costs us to be a Christian. It
is easy to be a Christian if we do not bear the cross.
Ray Jordon tells of being in a group in Jerusalem that wanted
to follow the path that Jesus took on His way to the cross. It was hot that day and he noticed that the
leader had an umbrella over his head to protect him from the discomfort of the
blazing sun. It struck him as to the
amazing contrast between this and the real incident. They wanted to follow the path of Christ, but did not want any
discomfort in doing so. It is
understandable, for there would be no profit in being miserable as they
followed the path. But when this
philosophy passes over into the spiritual realm, it is tragic. We want to follow Jesus, but we do not want
it to cost anything. It should be that
we experience some discomfort because of our identification with Christ.
Leslie Weatherhead had an Indian Christian tell of what it
cost to follow Christ, and it put him to shame when he considered how little he
had identified himself with the cross of Christ in such a way that it
cost. This Indian friend heard the call
of Christ in a Methodist church in Madras.
He came from a Brahmin family and his father was the head of the
community. When his father heard of his
decision for Christ he blazed with anger.
He tied him to a pillar in the courtyard of his home. He stripped the turban from his head, a mark
of indignity in the East, lashed his back with whips till blood ran, and let
him stand in the hot sun for hours.
They even poured the contents of the sewage bin over his
head. They put two large scars on his
face with red hot irons. His own mother
died of shock before him, and finally his sister cut him loose, and he escaped
to the hills. He eventually became a
chaplain in the army. Many have
suffered the same thing for crimes, but when it is suffered because one is
identified with Christ, that is cross‑bearing. The story of Simon is recorded for the purpose of challenging
each of us to take up the cross and be identified with Jesus whatever the cost.
7. SIMON THE ZEALOT Based on Luke 6:12‑16
We want to look at an Apostle of whom we would know nothing
if the New Testament did not tell us of his political affiliation before he
became a believer. If a man was called
Simon the Democrat or Simon the Republican, you would not be able to draw many
conclusions about him because these terms are too general. But if he was called Simon the Communist you
would be able to say much more about him, for they have a more specific
philosophy. So it is with the name
Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were a
political party in Israel with a very clear cut philosophy, and a program to
carry it out.
Since the New Testament tells us nothing of Simon but the
fact that he was a member of this party, everything we can learn about him must
come as inferences from what we know of the party. Simon the Zealot is as obscure as Simon Peter is famous. We know nothing about the Apostle Peter's
political background, but that is all we know of Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were radical and fanatical
nationalists who mixed their religion and politics into one of the most potent
mixtures history has ever seen.
The land of Palestine was a country under Roman rule. None of the Jews liked it, but some hated
it, and they wanted to fight this master that had them in its grip. Herod the Great was able to keep the volcano
of their wrath from erupting by skilled diplomacy and sheer power of
personality. But when he died in 4 B.
C. and the territory was divided between his three sons, things began to get
hot. In 7 A. D. a leader rose up in
Galilee where the blaze was hottest.
Judas the Galilean led an insurrection.
They stormed the palace and broke into the arsenal, and embarked on a
revolution as armed rebels.
Judas and his men were no match for the power of Rome,
however, and he was crushed. In Acts
5:37 Gamaliel tells us of his fate. "Judas
the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people
after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were
scattered." Judas did not get far,
but he started something which gave rise to the party called the Zealots. These fanatical nationalists loved their
country more than life itself, and they hated Rome with all the hatred the
human heart can possess. Such passion
of love and hate when mixed lead to zeal bordering on madness. Nothing was permitted to stand in their way. Murder was not only permitted, it was
promoted. They became known as the
assassins. The name Sicarii came from
the Sica, the little curved sword which they carried below their robes, and
which they plunged into their enemies at every possible opportunity.
They were ruthless, and they were hunted down by the Romans and
killed, but their zeal was so great that they did not fear what the Romans
could do to them. Josephus wrote,
"The Zealots have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is
the only Ruler and Lord. They do not
mind dying any kind of death, nor do they heed the torture of their kindred and
their friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord." This zeal and loyalty and love for country
were all qualities to be admired, but their hate for Rome spoiled these
values. Hatred, however good the basis
for it, destroys the hater. The Zealots
did not destroy Rome, but they destroyed their own nation. Fanaticism is self‑destructive. They so hated Rome that they became
suspicious of all who did not hate Rome with their zeal. They began to look upon Jews who paid taxes
to Rome as compromisers and enemies of Israel.
Their battle cry was, "No Lord but Jehovah, no tax but
the temple tax, no friend but the Zealot." Everyone who was not with them
was against them, and so they began to turn upon their own countrymen. Any Jew who entered into an agreement with
the Romans was marked for assassination.
The country homes of rich Saducees were burned and the people were
terrorized. Four sons of Judas the
Galilean continued gorilla warfare until they were killed. A grandson was still at it with no lag in
zeal.
When he and his 900 men were trapped by the Romans he ordered
them to destroy themselves with fire so the Romans would have nothing but ashes
for their victory. This fanaticism
finally led to complete self‑destruction of the Zealots and of the Jewish
state. In 70 A. D. the Romans
surrounded Jerusalem for a final showdown with the Jews. The people were starving, and were in a hopeless
situation. The Zealots were so crazed
with hate for Rome, however, that they began to murder everyone who was for
coming to terms with the Romans.
Surrender was betrayal of God and country they said, and so they started
a civil war within the city. When the
Romans took the city the Zealots were the last to perish. They were in Masada, the last
stronghold. When escape was seen to be
impossible, Elezer told his men to slaughter their wives and children and then
commit suicide. They did it and 960
perished. Only 2 women and 5 children
escaped by hiding. So the Zealots
perished by their own hands illustrating the self‑destructive nature of
fanaticism.
It would be hard to find anywhere in history a political
party more zealous for its cause. It
was from this radical group that Jesus chose one of His Apostles. The fact that Jesus could have both Matthew,
who was a tax collector, and Simon the Zealot on his team reveals how He can
combine all types of people into a unified group by their common loyalty to
Him.
Under different
circumstances Simon would run a blade a through Matthew, and Matthew would live
in fear of Simon, but Jesus makes them partners in the Gospel. A left‑winger and a right‑winger
united in Christ. How are curiosity
would love to pry into the unknown and listen to the debates of these two
men. Simon certainly gave up the
philosophy of force when he followed Christ.
He saw that the power of love is more effective. He had to forsake the sword, for Jesus said,
"Those who lived by the sword shall perish by the sword." He had to give up his hatred for the Romans,
for Jesus said to love your enemies. He
had to chance his mind on taxes, for Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's." Simon
had to make many chances in his philosophy, but we cannot doubt that he still
maintained many of the qualities of the Zealot.
He was, no doubt, in his glory when Jesus cleansed the temple
and used force. He was, no doubt, one
of the spokesman who asked Jesus in Acts 1:6, "Will you at this time
restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Simon was still eager to see his country free and powerful. He had a more universal outlook than he did
as a Zealot, but still he would be a nationalist.
It would be interesting to hear Matthew trying to justify to
him how he as a Jew could have collected taxes for Rome, and how he still had a
lot of good friends in that business.
The Apostles had to have some hot political debates, but they are not
recorded for they have no value. The value
is in seeing how Jesus kept a balance in His selection of the 12. They were not all of one mind on everything,
but often in sharp contrast.
The fact that a man like Simon would follow Jesus indicates
that following Him was no dull and boring thing. It had to be a call to adventure and high purpose to appeal to a
man who was committed to a cause that called for loyalty unto death. Jesus apparently didn't have any political
advisers in making His choices of men to be Apostles. When He chose Matthew He was in danger of angering the Jewish
establishment, and when He chose Simon He was in danger of angering the Roman
authorities. Jesus, however, did not
look upon men as means to an end. He
did not use people and toy with them according to political advantage. He took every man for what he was as an end
in himself, and if it happened that their background and viewpoint was of a
controversial nature, it made no difference to him. If they would heed His call and take up the cross and follow Him,
they were His disciples.
This still holds true today and that is why the body of
Christ is the most mixed group of people on earth. There are disciples of Christ from every kind of race, class, culture,
and political persuasion that can be imagined.
Like the 12, they find their unity in a common Lord. Simon came from and underground organization
to follow Christ openly. Nicodemus and
Joseph of Arimathea were rich Jewish politicians whom the Zealots would have
desired to destroy. But they remained
under ground within the establishment as hidden disciples of Christ. The New Testament reveals Christians playing
a variety of roles in their relationship to Christ and the world. It is important to keep this in mind so that
we do not think our particular relationship is the only valid one.
Rev. Richard Wurmbrand wrote of a bishop Frederic Mueller of
the Lutheran church in Romania. He had
collaborated with the Communist for 23 five years. He was decorated by them and was a member of the Communist
Parliament. Yet all the while he
advised the underground Christian fighters.
It was obviously his conviction that he could do this for the glory of
God. Other Christians would call him a
betrayer of Christ, and rejoice in his death.
Who is right? Is it better to be
a Matthew or a Simon? One collaborates
with the enemy, the other hates the enemy.
All we know for sure is that Jesus called them both to be men who would
be the foundation of His church that would alter all of human history. If Jesus is broadminded in His selection of
men it was because He intended to build a church with a message that would
appeal to all men. Something would have
been missing with a Simon the Zealot in that foundation.
Christ met the test He had to meet if he was to be the great
reconciler. He had to demonstrate His
ability to reconcile men of extreme positions before He could be proclaimed as
the reconciler of God and man. As He
and His 12 Apostles walked about ministering to people He was giving an object
lesson in the power of love to reconcile.
People knew both Matthew and Simon, and you can imagine the impact of
seeing them laboring together as they carried baskets among the 5000 feeding
the hungry masses. Simon was a
radical, but even more radical was the ability of Jesus to unite men with such
radical differences. Praise God that a
man like Simon was chosen to be one of the 12.
8. JOHN‑SON
OF THUNDER Based on Luke 9:46‑56
A farmer in Georgia was sitting on the porch of his tumble‑down
shack. He was ragged and barefoot when
a stranger stopped for a drink of water.
Wishing to be agreeable, the stranger said, "How was your cotton
coming on?" "Ain't got
none," replied the farmer.
"Didn't you plant any?" asked the stranger. "Nope, fraid of boll
weevils." "Well," said
the stranger, "How is your corn?"
"Didn't plant none. Fraid
there wa'nt going to be no rain," came the reply. The stranger confused but persevering asked, "Well, how are your
potatos?" "Ain't got none,
scart o' potato bugs."
"Really, what did you plant," asked the astonished visitor.
"Nothin," said the farmer.
"I just played it safe."
Most people do not play it that safe, but most people are
afraid to take a chance, especially on people.
We fear to risk putting our trust in others because we know how weak and
fallible people are. Jesus knew this
better than anyone, but He took great chances, and put His trust in men who are
very risky candidates for Apostles. Jesus
wanted to play it safe, He never would have chosen John the younger son of
Zebedee. John was not just potential
trouble, he was actual trouble. There
are more negative characteristics of John in the New Testament than any of the
12, and yet he became the great Apostle of love.
John could be called the Apostle who experienced the greatest
change, for he went from the most proud, arrogant, intolerant, and narrow‑minded
of the 12, to the most loving man whose writings have done more to spread love
than any other man in history. John is
a good example of the fact that Jesus did not choose men for what they were,
but for what they could become. Before
we see what John became by the grace of God, let's look at the negatives we
have on him in the synoptic Gospels.
There are no negative facts about John in his own Gospel, for John,
though he was a partner with Peter all his life almost, was a different
character from Peter. John did not
bring out his errors like Peter did.
Peter told of his blunders, but John would rather forget them.
When John wrote his Gospel the other three were already
written and well known. They are so
negative on John that he probably thought there was little he could add, so he
ignores himself all together in his own Gospel. He never even mentions his own name. In only 6 places is he even referred to. In three of the six he is called, "This
man," "That disciple," and "The disciple who testified
these things." In the other three
he is "The disciple whom Jesus loved." He has that very positive distinction, but let's look at him in
the other Gospels.
In Luke 9, for example, we get quite a glimpse into John. In verse 46 he and the others are arguing as
to who is the greatest. We know John
thought he was the best of all, or at least second best, for as we shall see
later, he had the audacity to ask Jesus for a place at his right or left in the
kingdom. In verse 49 we see John
demonstrating his intolerance. He said
to Jesus that he saw a man casting out demons in his name, and he forbid him to
do so because he did not follow with them.
John cannot take all the blame, for the others, no doubt, felt the
same. The point is, we see John as
ideal material for becoming a zealous bigot.
He would have made Christianity so exclusive and narrow that it would
have been horrible to disagree with him.
He would be excommunicating or executing all over the place.
The proof of this in the next paragraph. The Samaritans did not like the Jews, and
when they knew Jesus was heading for
Jerusalem they refused to give He and His disciples any hospitality. This burned John and his brother James, and
his tornado like temper wanted to blow.
John is a victim of prejudice, and he wanted to burn the place
down. He said to Jesus, "Do you
want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" This was John's solution to the problem of
prejudice and social injustice at this stage of his life. Later in the book of Acts we see him with
Peter going to the Samaritans and laying hands on them, and seeing them filled
with the Holy Spirit. John praying down
the fire from heaven to bless the very people he first longed to see consumed
by the fire of wrath.
Some ancient authorities add, "As Elijah did," in
verse 54. John thought he had a
Biblical basis for his bad temper. Just because Elijah called down the wrath of
God, John thought he should do the same.
You the pride and arrogance here that most all of us have to some
degree. We try to find a text or
example in the Old Testament as a precedent for our sub‑Christian
attitudes. We feel justified in being
sub‑Christian if we can find someone who is just in having the same
feelings. In verse 55, however, Jesus
rebukes them, for their spirit is not in accord with His at all. He came to save and not destroy men. John was not thinking of that at all. He was only concerned about his rights and
pride. He wanted to have the power of
God's wrath to back up his pride.
Imagine the danger of a man like John without Jesus around to rebuke and
control him. Jesus had to rebuke him
for arguing about greatness, for forbidding a man to heal in His name, and for
his bad temper. John had some learning
to do to become the Apostle of love.
Jesus knew his character fully, but He took the risk of trying
to train him to be all God wanted him to be.
He and his brother are given a special nickname in Mark 3:17. They are called sons of thunder. Most all of what we say about John applies
to his brother James as well. They
were, no doubt, spoiled rotten. They
probably got everything they ever wanted, and that is why they were such
temperamental hot‑heads. They
had much wealth, and were among the rich of their day. Their father had hired servants, and John
had a large home, for he took in Mary the mother of Jesus after the
crucifixion.
We have a clue also
in John 18:15 that John was of a well‑to‑do family very influential
in society. When Jesus was arrested we
read, "Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high
priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter
stood outside at the door." John
got Peter in, but he would have been better off shut out, for inside he made
his three fold denial. Peter had no
connections like John. John knew people
in high places. John was the only one of
the 12 at the cross, because he did not fear officials like the others, for he
was used to dealing with people on that level.
H. V. Morton in The Steps Of The Master writes, "There is
in the back streets of Jerusalem a dark little hovel, now, I believe, an Arab
coffee‑house, which contains stones and arches that were once part of an
early Christian church. The Franciscan
tradition is that this church was erected on the sight of a house which had
belonged to Zebedee, the father of St. John.
This family, said the Franciscans, were fish merchants of Galilee, with
a branch office in Jerusalem, from which they used to supply, among others, the
family of the High Priest." This
would explain how John knew the High Priest, and could get himself and Peter
inside. Solome, their mother, was one
of the women who followed Jesus and ministered of him of her substance. She asked Jesus to give her boys the best
positions, and this indicates she was a woman of wealth and position
herself.
All of this shows that John and James did have some reason for
their pride. They were in a higher
social class, and they had prospects for being very successful in the secular
world. They figured they should have
the top spots in the kingdom Jesus came to establish. We often hear that Jesus chose poor fishermen to be His
disciples, but this tradition is not supported by the evidence of
Scripture. In Mark 10:35‑45 we read of how James and John came to Jesus
and request Him to do what they asked.
He says, "What do you want me to do for you?" They say, "Grant us to sit one at your
right and one at your left in your glory." They were use to getting places by knowing somebody, and so why
not with Jesus?
Jesus uses the occasion to do some teaching. He tells them that their request is not His
to grant, and verse 41 says the other Apostles were indignant at James and
John. The struggle for power among the
Apostles was just like the struggle among any group of men. Greatness and position is all they could
think about and squabble about. Jesus
teaches them they are acting like the Gentiles who loved to lord it over one
another. He says the whole thing is to
be reversed in His kingdom. The
greatest are the servants, and He closes His lesson with His own powerful
example. "For the Son of Man also
came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for
many."
In Matt. 20:20‑29, Matthew tells us their mother put
them up to it, and so we see behind their own ambition was the family status
and ambition. Not only did the family
of John have wealth and status, but they were related to Jesus according to the
best evidence. In John 19:25 we read
that standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's
sister. This sister is likely the
Solome that Mark and Luke mentioned, and whom Matthew in 27:56 calls the mother
of the sons of Zebedee. Not only John,
but His mother was at the cross. We see
a strong tie of families making John the full cousin of Jesus. All of this led to him feeling he should
have special privileges. It also makes
it clear why John took Mary home with him after the cross.
Leonardo da Vinci apparently thought James and John got their
way with Jesus, for in the Last Supper John is at the right and James at the
left of Jesus. John lived the longest
and received the greatest revelation ever.
He became the greatest prophet of all time through the book of
Revelation. The greatest achievement of
John, however, was his becoming the
Apostle of love. He penned the greatest
verse of Scripture on God's love in John 3:16.
He alone wrote, "God is love." He writes of love in his epistle more than all the others put
together. Love of brethren is a key
note with him who was once the most quarrelsome of all. He became as strong on love as he once was
on revenge. He said those who do not
love are in darkness and do not love God.
He wrote, "If anyone says I love God, and hates his brother, he is
a liar."
John never lost his temper, but he brought it under the
control of love. He could be sharp, but
did so in love. Many are the stories of
tradition of how he loved people, and once risked his life to win back a youth
who became a thief. The stories are
likely true, for no name ever became so popular as John, which means God is
gracious. There is a long list of
Christian leaders named after John.
John Chrysostom, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, John Knox, John
Wesley, John Milton, and John Bunyan just to mention some of the best known.
He saw more real tragedy in his own life as well as future
tragedy in his visions than the rest of the Apostles put together. His first master, John the Baptist was
beheaded. His Lord was crucified, and
his brother James was the first of the Apostles to be martyred. He lived to see all the rest martyred also,
plus masses of other Christians. In
John 21:20‑23 we read of the rumor that got started that John was not
going to die. He did finally die, but
only after outliving 12 Roman Emperors.
But John, who saw more hell on earth than any of the 12, also saw and
gave to Christians the only vision we have of heaven. He was 90 or older and was ready for a literal journey to heaven
when God revealed it to him in spirit.
You wonder how an old man could take all that excitement with horseman,
battles, trumpets, violence, and noises of agony. There is certainly reason to believe that even as an Apostle of
love John was in a positive way right to the end a Son of Thunder.
9. DEFECTIVE DISCIPLES Based on Luke 9:46‑50
It is not without good reason that many people say they never
argue about politics or religion. The
ignorance and intolerance of men in relation to these subjects is such that
they almost always lead to contention and anger rather than helpfulness and understanding. The average person, who does not delight in
verbal wrangling, and who does not enjoy seeing what he feels to be precious
dragged through the mud of controversy, feels that the best thing to do is just
be quiet. The ignorance with which men
attack brothers in Christ is almost unbelievable, and if we did not have
examples of the same foolishness in the Bible we could easily be led to doubt
their salvation. Some have not only
admitted their ignorance, but have bragged about it. One such man said to John Wesley, "I thank God for my
ignorance." Wesley simply
responded that he certainly had much to be thankful for.
Contention has characterized Christianity from its
conception. This may sound like an
awful thing to say about those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace, but it
needs to be said and understood, for the Bible both portrays it and predicts
it. Practically every one of the
Apostles, including Paul, is pictured as being wrong in an argument at some
point. The 3 best known are specifically
mentioned as being out of God's will in their attitudes toward others. Peter, Paul and John were all wrong at some
point. Peter was wrong in his attitude
toward Gentiles, and God had to rebuke him and teach him that Gentiles were not
unclean, but equal with Jews in His plan of salvation. Paul had to rebuke Peter for his
narrowness.
Paul in turn was in a controversy with Barnabas over John
Mark, who was the author of the Gospel of Mark. Paul did not think he was a fit person to travel with them on a
missionary journey, but Barnabas was willing to give him another chance even
though he failed on the first try. Paul
did not agree and would not give in, and so they split up and Barnabas took
Mark with him. Mark proved himself to
be a loyal servant of Christ, and later Paul received him as his fellow servant
in the Lord. Paul was wrong, and if he
had gotten his way we may never have had the Gospel of Mark. John was wrong on several occasions. He was one of the quick tempered sons of
thunder who was ready to call down fire from heaven to destroy those who did
not respond as he thought they should.
He is the one in our text who hindered a man from doing good because he
was not following with them.
The disciples had defects, and the Bible does not attempt to
hide them, but openly reveals them that we might recognize the dangers of
pride, ignorance and selfish ambition.
They are real for all of us, even as children and saints of God. Their defects are recorded that we might
learn how to more quickly arrive at the goal of Christ‑likeness by
avoiding their mistakes. To learn the
hard way by going through the same experiences, causing the same problems, and
needing the same rebukes, rather than heeding the Word of God is one of the
Christians greatest sins. We are going
to examine the defects of the disciples, and not that we might gloat at their
weaknesses, but that we might avoid them and be less defective in our
discipleship. Our text indicates two
reasons why they were defective disciples.
I. DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF
IGNORANCE. v. 46
Here was a group of men who were going to be used of God to
change the course of history. Three of
them had just seen the deity of Christ displayed in his transfiguration, and
yet they are arguing like a group of immature boys over who has the strongest
father. They were debating as to who of
them was going to be the greatest.
There was certainly no lack of pride among them, for each apparently
felt he had some good claim to be the greatest among them. It is difficult for the Holy Spirit to led
men to higher ground when they are already convinced that they are the king of
the mountain. The whole thing could
have been avoided if they had not been so ignorant about what true greatness is
in the sight of God. Their ignorance on
this, and on the plan of Christ led them into this foolish dispute.
Jesus was heading for the cross, and here they are debating
about who will wear the crown. They
expected Jesus to set up an earthly kingdom and make them the rulers of the
world. Not everyone, of course, could
be equal, and so there was a power struggle among them as each tried to
maneuver his way into the seat of the highest office. On one occasion the mother of James and John came to Jesus and
requested that her two sons be seated on His right and left hand. All of this business of gaining power was
based on a false concept of the kingdom of Christ. His kingdom was not going to be of this world, and so all of
their arguing was vain from the start.
They were debating over a matter that was non‑existent, and it had
no part in the realm of reality. It was
all a matter of their imagination and misunderstanding, and yet they spent
their time debating it. Christians
often spend their time debating issues that have no relevance to the kingdom of
Christ.
Nothing strikes me as being more foolish than when
believers will waste their time and energy in controversy over matters of which
they have little to no knowledge.
Often they have strong convictions about things that are mere opinions
and speculation. One exhorter announced
his outline to the congregation and said, "My beloved hearers, I shall in
the first place speak to you of things you know; second of what I know and you
do not know; third, of things that neither of us know." He at least had a balance, but there are
some who specialize in that which no one knows, and they pretend to fill us in
where God has chosen to be silent.
If the disciples had listened to Christ and weighed his
words carefully instead of blindly following their own preconceived opinions
about the kingdom, they never would have gotten into such a foolish dispute. Likewise for us today, if we give heed to
Christ and not the speculations of men we will avoid foolish controversy. There are too many things God has made
crystal clear for us to be wasting time in controversy over petty and obscure issues. The best defense against all error and
fruitless speculation is to know the truth.
Learn what is clearly taught and let others who have time to waste fight
about fantasies. John Wesley urged this
upon believers: "If you desire to
be extensively useful, do not spend your time and strength in contending for or
against such things, as are of a disputable nature, but in testifying against
open and notorious vice, and in prompting real spiritual holiness. Let us keep to this, leaving a thousand disputable
points to those who have no better business than to too the ball of controversy
to and fro..."
Thousands of believers are split over issues dealing with
the return of Christ, even though they all believe in literal, visible and
bodily return. They do so because men
of God, like the disciples, strive for superiority. There are those who believe that holding their particular system
of teaching about the second coming makes them superior to others who have not
been so enlightened. They even forbid
other views to be discussed. They have
already reached the top and are on the highest ground, and so every one else
has to be beneath them.
To strive for superiority rather than for truth is to be
guilty of willful ignorance, and this is a serious defect in any believer. Jesus was very kind in the way He handled
His defective disciples, and we must learn also that you do not help people
overcome defects by crushing them with condemning words, but by enlightening
them as to their error. Jesus rebukes
them by showing them a true concept of greatness. He does so by taking a child and setting him by himself. Tradition says this child was the son of
Peter who grew up to become the famous Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.
Jesus makes this surprising statement in verse 48:
"Whoever shall receive this child in my name receives me." What does this have to do the disciples
dispute over who was the greatest? They
were thinking in terms of power, ability, skill, ambition and places of
authority for themselves, but Jesus directs their attention along a totally
different channel of thought. He is
proclaiming to them God's attitude about what is great, and it has very little
similarity to what they have been disputing about. They were not thinking about service to others, but about being
served by others. Here is the
difference between the secular and spiritual view of greatness. Jesus came to minister and give His life a
ransom for others, and not to be ministered to. He came to give, serve, to accept and to save. He became the servant of all, and in so
humbling himself He reached the top, for God exalted Him and gave Him a name
above every name.
The disciples were on the wrong track, and going the wrong
direction by hoping to be great in their concept of greatness. The only way to true greatness is by way of
humility and service. Just the
receiving of a child in Christ's name is an act that cannot be surpassed in
terms of doing what is truly great, for in so doing one receives both Christ
the Son and God the Father.
Jesus is showing them that they are following a line of
thinking that is contrary to His. The
ambitious man of the world who seeks to be great does not bother with the poor
and the unknown lower classes of society.
He tries to associate only with the rich and influential. He tries to build up his own image. The world's concept of greatness leads to a
division of men into those who count and those who do not. By the use of a child Jesus makes it clear
that from God's view there is no such division. Even a child who cannot add in any way to your prestige is of
eternal value, and is on a level of equality with any prominent
personality. Being great in the eyes of
God is open to all men, and not just to the few, for it consists in concern for
and service to anyone and everyone, and especially to the acceptance of
children. Ministry to children is a
road to greatness that anyone can travel.
We need to avoid the ignorance of the disciples and not think and act on
the basis of the world's concept of greatness.
We ought to have the ambition to be great, and we need to
desire to be somebody important.
Everybody has a hunger to be recognized, and to feel wanted and
significant. Every person wants to be
great in some way, and this is a good thing, but like all desires it can be
perverted and lead to much evil. In a
biography of Mussolini he is seen pacing in his palace bedroom saying, "I
am obsessed by one wild desire. It
consumes my whole being. I want to a
mark on my era with my will. A mark
like this...," and with his fingernails he scratched the back of the
chair, "like the claw of a
lion." He made his mark all right,
and the whole world had to bear the scar.
This self‑centered desire for greatness is just the danger the
disciples were falling into before Jesus made it clear that greatness is not in
rising above others, but in lifting others.
A child lifted by your love will make you greater than any
man who has had to step on others to rise to a place of power. It will make you greater than an greatness
attained by popularity, position or possessions. A child is equal in importance before God to any great
theologian, scholar or preacher. Those
who are wise enough to see it gladly invests their lives in serving youth. Many, however, never learned the lesson
Jesus taught here, and they go on in ignorance as to what true greatness really
is. They continue to strive and fight
for places of prominence and superiority.
People cannot believe the paradox of Jesus that the way to
the top is down. The way to exaltation
is humility, and the way to greatness is to be the least, and to be, like Him,
the servant of all. The disciples were
defective at this point because of ignorance, and this is what led them to
their foolish striving. It is possible
that many disciples of Christ are still defective because of their ignorance
about true greatness. That can never be
our excuse, for we have now heard the word of Christ on this matter. We can go on trying to be great by the
world's standard, which will lead to futility, but it should be our prayer that
we will follow Jesus in finding our greatness in service and not be a defective
disciple.
10. APOSTOLIC INTOLERANCE Based on Luke 9:49‑50
It is not intolerant to expose an oppose error. If a newspaper prints an article naming you
as a spokesman for the Ku Kulx Klan it would not be intolerant for you to write
them and tell them of their error.
Likewise, if a man preaches that God’s Word teaches a man can be saved
by works, it is not intolerant to tell him of his error, and that it is by the
grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ alone that we are saved. It would be the worst of all possible worlds
if toleration meant that truth is to give way to error without resistance.
This would lead to sheer indifference in which there would
be no distinction between truth and error, and all would be completely
relative. Some people are very tolerant
just because the truth means nothing to them, and so they have nothing to
defend. This can never be true of a
believer in Christ, for in Him there is very definite truth and right in
contrast to error and wrong. The
problem that a believer faces in relation to error is two fold. First of all he is in danger of sinning in
his opposition to evil if he uses evil means to do so. The Christian must be intolerant of evil in
himself as well as others. He must
refuse to employ bad manners and false logic in his fight against evil. Paul said, “Be not overcome of evil, but
overcome evil with good.” If we use
evil means to overcome evil, we are in the camp of error whatever be our
end.
The second danger of a believer in opposition to error is that
he tends to think that he has the whole truth, and, therefore, anyone who does
not see truth just as he does is in error.
This is where the vast majority of sinful intolerance enters into the
Christian life. Tolerance does not mean
we accept error, but it does mean we accept that there are more aspects of
truth than that which we know. Not to
admit this is to claim omniscience.
William Gladstone defined tolerance in a way that a Christian must
understand it. He said, “Tolerance
means reverence for all the possibilities of truth; it means the acknowledgment
that she dwells in diverse mansions, and wears vestures of many colors, and
speaks in strange tongues..”
It is interesting that we find the Apostles falling into both
of these dangers and becoming intolerant in a non-Christian way. As to the
first danger of using evil means to oppose evil, you recall how the sons of
thunder wanted evil men to be destroyed immediately, and also how Peter wanted
to fight with a sword those who came to capture Jesus. They were all rebuked by
Jesus for their willingness to use such force against others. Paul understood
that our weapons are not to be carnal but spiritual. If the truth is attacked
with bitterness, hate and violent language, we are not to respond with the same
evil weapons. The disciples had not yet learned this.
Newman Smith was the author of a widely used book, “Come To
Jesus.” Later in a controversy with
Robert Hall, the famous Baptist author, he wrote a bitter pamphlet. He did not
know what to title it, and so he asked a friend for suggestions. His friend
read the fierce pamphlet and said he would call it, “Go To Hell By The Author
Of Come To Jesus.” The inconsistency made him see how obvious it was that he
was not displaying a Christian attitude.
Our text is an example of how the Apostles were also being intolerant by
limiting truth to their own group, and it is this kind of intolerance we want
to examine. We saw how the disciples
were defective because of ignorance, and now we want to see how they were-
DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF
INTOLERANCE.
John’s conscience was apparently bothered by what Jesus had
just taught. He had just said that the
least is greatest, and it made Him think of a man who was casting out demons that
He had stopped because he thought he was not worthy, for he did not follow
them. In other words, he was, in their
minds, unqualified and unimportant. He was the least. The disciples were under the impression that they had a monopoly
on God’s power, and so they forbid this man to carry on in his service to
others in the name of Christ.
Many commentators agree that John feels a sense of guilt
about this incident after what Jesus has said about the greatness of one who
receives even a child in His name. The
man they had stopped was aiding people in distress in the name of Christ, and
now John wonders if they did act to hasty in forbidding him. He brings it out into the open to get an
answer. It might never have been
answered if Jesus had not made his conscience sensitive by revealing his
pride. Pride is what started them
arguing in the first place about greatness, and pride was the cause for their
hindering a man who was doing good in the name of Christ. Imagine this, of all people to oppose the
work of Christ we have the very Apostles themselves.
This has an important lesson for us. Let us never assume that because a man is a
Christian that all he stands for or against is the will of God. If pride and a sense of exclusiveness and
spiritual privilege could lead the Apostles to go wrong, it is not only likely,
but inevitable that the same will be true of all of us. None of us are beyond being intolerant and
even bigoted because of pride. There
are so many who do not dot their I’s and cross their t’s as we do, and it is so
easy to feel that this is more important than serving Christ. It had to be pride that blinded the
disciples, for what other cause could their be for stopping any good work being
done in the name of Christ?
There was likely some jealously mixed with pride also, for
the disciples had just failed in being able to cast out a demon in a young
boy. Their weakness in contrast to this
man’s power would cause them to be jealous, and the best defense of the ego is
to stop the success of others so that your own failure does not stand out. What would it look like, and what kind of
reputation would we get if some stranger, who does not even follow us, has more
power than we do as the disciples of Jesus?
They wanted God to only work through them so they alone would get the
credit. There are parallels of this
today. Christians want to forbid people
to be involved with ministries that are not connected with their
denomination. They are often like Job’s
friends who felt that we are the people, and wisdom will die with us. It could well be that we are guilty of
sinful intolerance. No one has a
copyright on the name of Christ, and so just because people do not follow us
does not mean they do not follow Christ.
Jesus said to John that he should not forbid that man, for
he that is not against us is for us. If the man had been opposing the truth
then it would not be intolerant to forbid him, for then it would be a valid
defense of the truth to do so. Since he
was doing what was consistent with what you are doing in casting out demons,
you did wrong to forbid him. Van Doren
said, “True love approves good, whensoever, and by whomsoever, done.” The disciples were defective at this point,
for they hindered good just because the man was not a part of their group.
Jesus did not say that that man was saved. He just said that He was not against
them. He may have been saved, but the
point is, even if he was not, he was not to be stopped from doing good. Jesus taught in Matt. 7:22 that there would
be those in the day of judgment who would be rejected even though they had done
many mighty works and cast out demons.
Jesus will judge them, but meanwhile, even they are not to be opposed if
they do good. Jesus is trying to
impress on us that we never advance the cause of Christ by hindering the good
work of any man. If a group of atheists
were doing a good service to people, we would be out of God’s will if we tried
to stop it. Let all who do not oppose
the Gospel do all the good they can, and encourage them to do so, for they can
do much for the cause of Christ indirectly, even if they are ultimately
lost. Many unsaved people do much good,
and we are not to oppose it.
One of the best illustrations of how we ought to be in this
area is found in Acts 18. We read there
of how Apollos began to preach the Gospel.
He had not yet completely understood all that he should about the New
Testament. Priscilla and Aquilla did
not condemn him for his shortcomings, but they took him aside and expounded to
him the way of God more perfectly. This
is the only attitude worthy of a Christian.
If you see a man serving Christ in any capacity, even though he is doing
it with inadequate theology, or an inadequate attitude, do not hinder, but
help. Complete his understanding and
encourage him.
If more believers in the history of the church had been
like Priscilla and Aquilla, there would be far more to be proud of, and far
less to be ashamed of in Christian history.
Men have repeated the same mistake as the disciples over and over
again. They have wasted their powers in
fighting with those going in the same direction rather than using their
combined forces to oppose evil. The
history of the Baptists and Methodists on the early American frontier is filled
with rivalry.
A young Methodist pastor was
called on to conduct the funeral of a Baptist person. He was not sure what to do, and so he wrote to his Bishop for
instruction. The Bishop wrote back,
“Bury all the Baptists you can.” This sounds like a joke, but the fact is there
was serious opposition between these two groups, and they fought in earnest. James H. Addison said in all seriousness
that in one area Methodists were gaining strength and now-“The combined powers
of the Baptist and the devil will be unavailing towards shaking the fabric thus
reared.”
In spite of the defects of the disciples being openly
rebuked for the benefit for all succeeding generations, and in spite of Paul’s
admission that even he only saw in part, men have had the audacity and the
pride to demand that all who do not follow them are wrong and should be
stopped. J. C. Ryle wrote, “Thousands, in every period of church history have spent
their lives in copying John’s mistake. They have labored to stop every man who
will hot work for Christ in their way, from working for Christ at all. They
have imagined, in their petty self-conceit, that no man can be a soldier of
Christ, unless he wears their uniform, and fights in their regiment.”
In the light of both the Bible and church history we re forced
to admit that all of us are in danger of displaying the same defect of
intolerance as did the disciples. May God grant us the wisdom to see this
danger and refuse to let it guide our lives and attitudes. Let is listen to our
Lord and follow His spirit and avoid all the foolishness we see in Apostolic
Intolerance.
11. ANDREW THE ORDINARY Based
on John 1:35‑42
Colonel Bottomly was rising to the level of general in the
United States Air Force. He was a proud
self‑sufficient man who needed nobody.
He felt that if you could succeed without God you didn't need Him. As he rose in power he began to feel he
could do as he pleased, and he did. He
bombed across the border in the war in Viet Nam. It was a violation of the rules of war, but he thought he was
above the rules, and he could do what other morals could not do. He didn't get by with it, however, and was
facing a court martial. His whole world
began to tumble in, and he was filled with stress. He called his son who was a Christian. When his son explained how he could become a child of God by
receiving Jesus as his Savior, he prayed right over the phone and became a
Christian.
Here was a famous man who became a Christian because of the
witness of an ordinary an unknown man.
This has been the case with many of the famous Christians of history. They are brought to Jesus by ordinary
people. D. L. Moody was brought to
Christ by an obscure Sunday School teacher.
Charles Spurgeon was brought to Christ by an unlettered man. Peter is one of the most famous names in
Christian history. It is hard to
imagine anyone who has not heard of Peter, but he was brought to Jesus by his
ordinary brother Andrew.
Andrew never did anything wild and spectacular like his live
wire brother Peter. He never leaped
over the side of the boat to walk on water.
He never drew his sword to take on the Roman army single handed. He never preached to the masses like Peter
did at Pentecost. Andrew was a quiet
behind the scenes type of person. He
had no great gifts that make him stand out.
He was just an ordinary guy who loved to introduce people to Jesus. That is about all Andrew ever did in the
record we have of his life. He
represents the majority of Christians who feel ungifted and ordinary.
Some believers like Barnabas are extra‑ordinary
people. They are unique, and they have
gifts that most do not have. It is not
that ordinary people can't be like Barnabas.
They can be like them and imitate some of their best qualities, but they
can never be equal to them. Andrew did
nothing that the rest of us could not do if we choose to do it. Andrew is connected with evangelism, but we
let this word scare us. We think we
have to be very gifted people to do evangelism. This is a failure to see that we are confusing the gifted evangelists
with the ministry of evangelism. All
Andrew did was invite people to come to Jesus.
He was an inviter. He was not a
leader, but a follower but he could invite others to come to Jesus to see for
themselves what He could do in their lives.
We have this mistaken idea that if a person is filled with the
Spirit he will become a dynamic soul winner leaving streaks of lightening in
his path as he blazes across the stage of history. The New Testament reveals no such thing. Andrew was a quiet sort of guy who just
confronted people one on one and said, "Let me introduce you to
Jesus." Andrew knew Jesus was the
Way and so he pointed others to the Way.
He brought Peter to Jesus, and then Peter left Andrew in the shadow, for
Peter was far more gifted. But Andrew
did not fret and complain and feel bad about himself. He just kept bringing people to Jesus. He is the one who brought the lad with his lunch to Jesus, and
Jesus used it to feed the multitudes.
He is the one who brought the first Greeks to Jesus as well.
He was not the kind of guy who could preach like Peter, but
he could point a man like Peter to Jesus.
He could not feed the crowds, but he could point a lad to Jesus, and
Jesus could feed the crowd. He could
not change Greeks, but he could bring them to Jesus who could change them.
Andrew was sort of a middle man. He
linked people up with Jesus and made great things happen. He did not do the great things, but they
happened because he did his ordinary things to prepare the way.
Do you think anything wonderful and marvelous ever happens
without many ordinary things preparing the way? Do you think a space craft soars into the sky with its
spectacular blastoff without a thousand and one ordinary people doing ordinary
things first? Do you think any great
performer could hold you spell bound with their gifts without the labor of many
ordinary people behind the scenes? Do
you think Billy Graham could put on his great crusades without the help of
masses of ordinary people doing all sorts of ordinary things?
Ordinary people doing ordinary things is the foundation for
human progress. In 1848 it was
suggested that a bridge be built across Niagara. It would save miles of travel and solve many problems. But the cliffs were too steep, and the water
was to wild to figure out how to begin.
Then someone got the bright idea of
offering ten dollars to the kid who could fly a kite from one side to
another. The string could then be
connected to a larger string, and then to a rope, and that to a cable, and they
would have a start. The sophisticated
engineers had a field day laughing at such an idea. But one young boy named Herman Walsh flew his kite across the
chasm and collected his ten bucks, and thus a great bridge was begun with an
ordinary boy flying an ordinary kite, and his ordinary string got this extra‑ordinary
project under way. It has been a
blessing to many millions.
Jesus did not choose all Peters, but he choose some Andrews
to be a part of his 12. Our culture
says it is no good to be ordinary. If
that is all you are, then you are not special.
Never mind the fact that of the billions of people on this planet most
are ordinary. The only way to be
somebody is to be the best is the message we often get. This leads parents to put pressure on their
children. David Wilkerson wrote,
"It begins early. The first time
little Tommy hits a home run in Little League, someone starts grooming him for
the big leagues. When Susan gets a solo
part in choir, she's told she is another Sandi Patti. The children's teachers keep telling them that every year in
school is worth so many more dollars of income. The libraries overflow with books of how to take 10 easy steps to
the top, how to get power over others with the right mental gimmicks, and how
to make millions without trying."
The great sin of our culture is to be ordinary. But in the Bible we see the ordinary
glorified, and in Andrew we see a specialist in the ordinary. John mentions Andrew 3 times in his Gospel, and
in 2 of the 3 he is called Simon Peters brother. Don't get him confused with the many other Andrews. This is the Andrew who is the brother of
Peter. Just say Peter and all know who
you are speaking of, for Peter was extra‑ordinary. He stands out as unique, and everybody know
Peter. Andrew alone does not stand out,
for Andrews are a dime a dozen.
Nobody ever said I want you
to meet Peter the brother of Andrew.
Peter's reputation stood on its own, but Andrew had to be more clearly
identified because he was just ordinary.
But remember, he too was one of the 12.
Jesus chose, not only Peter to be a foundation of his church, but he
also chose his ordinary brother Andrew.
Jesus has a place in His kingdom for the ordinary, for they are always
the majority. There are far more
Andrews as fishers of men than there are Peters. There are far more ordinary pines than there are giant redwoods. The redwoods are marvelous and a wonder, but
the ordinary trees are the key to building the houses for people to dwell
in. And so also it is the ordinary
Andrews who are the key to building the church of Christ.
Andrew did not try to imitate his older and more dynamic
brother. He knew Jesus chose him for
who he was. If He would have wanted
another Peter, He would not have chosen him.
He knew Jesus could use the ordinary as well as the extra‑ordinary. Andrew knew he was loved and used by Jesus
just by being himself. He didn't have
to be like somebody else. He didn't
have to be somebody different, or somebody better. He was okay in being who he was‑ordinary Andrew.
If anyone had the right to burn with envy and long to be
somebody else, it was Andrew. He had
the hardest role to play among the 12 Apostles, for he was a fourth wheel that
came with a tricycle. His brother Peter
and the 2 brothers James and John became the inner circle. These 3 Jesus chose to be closer to Him than
the rest. Here was Andrew who believed
in Jesus first before Peter, and he too was a brother of one in the inner
circle, and he too was a partner of these 3 in their fishing business, but he
was left out of the inner circle.
I cannot pretend that this would not hurt me if I was
Andrew. He was so close to the three in
that inner circle, but he didn't make it.
Yet we do not read of a single word of anger, envy, or resentment. Andrew could accept the fact that he was
ordinary and not go all to pieces over it.
He could do so because he knew that as an ordinary Christian he could do
what really mattered, for he could bring people to Jesus. It may not be by preaching to large crowds
like his brother, but one by one he could speak to people and point them to
Jesus. And so Andrew became the patron
saint of personal workers. The world is
not being won by great preachers. Most
of the people they reach are people that have been prepared by Andrews. It is the ordinary Christian who speaks to
others about Jesus who touches most of the people who come to Him.
If Jesus was hard on the one talented man who buried that one
talent it is because his kingdom depends on the faithfulness of the those one
talented people. He cannot reach this
world with unique people. He needs the
masses of ordinary Andrews if the great commission is to ever be
fulfilled. Some unknown poet wrote:
Common as the wayside
grasses,
Ordinary as the soil,
By the score he daily passes
Going to and from his toil.
Stranger he to wealth or
fame;
He is only what's‑his‑name.
Not for him the glittering
glory,
Not for him the places high,
Week by week the same old
story;
Try and fail and fail and
try.
All his days seem dull and
tame.
Poor old plotting what's‑his‑name.
Most of the books are written about the extra ordinary people
like Peters and Pauls of history. But
the fact is, it is the labor of the masses of ordinary Christians that keeps
the kingdom of God going. Take away the
Andrews and all your superstars would fall, for they all need Andrews to
succeed. Billy Graham knows this and
that is why the backbone of his crusades is the Operation Andrew Program. If the masses of ordinary Christians do not
bring people there is very little that Graham can do to reach the masses.
An Andrew has to be a person who can play second fiddle and
love it because he knows that it is essential that somebody does it, and that
it is a valuable part of the whole, even though it does not get the
recognition. Peter was so great and
spectacular that we sometimes forget that Jesus chose His brother too. John Sebastian Bach was so great that other
members of his talented family were lost in his shadow, but they also blessed
people with their gift. Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow so eclipsed his brother Samuel that he is largely forgotten, but he
also was a great poet.
Ezekiel Webster is not even remember because of his famous
brother Daniel Webster. It happens in
every field of life that the ordinary are pushed off the pages of history by
the extra‑ordinary. There are
hundreds of sermons on Peter for everyone on Andrew. Do you think Andrew is somewhere in heaven brooding over his
place in history? Do you think he
regrets being ordinary? He never showed
it on earth, so we can count on it that he does not see being ordinary as a
defect. He sees it as a link to the
vast majority of people for whom Christ died.
Henry Ward Beecher was asked what he thought was the greatest
thing a person could do and he replied, "The greatest thing a man can do
is not to be a theologian or a scientist, but to bring someone to Jesus
Christ." an ordinary man can't be
and do a lot of things like being a great theologian or scientist, but he can
bring others to Christ, and that is truly being great in the eyes of God. We can't all be chiefs, but we can all be
chief winners. That is what Andrew
was. He never became one of the key
leaders among the Apostles, but he was a key influence in the lives of those
who did become the chief leaders.
Andrew had an eye for the individual. Peter fished with the net and drew in the
crowds, but in the midst of the crowds Andrew saw the individual. He fished for men with a pole. Nobody else saw the little boy with the
lunch in that crowd with 5000 men plus women and children. Andrew was the one who noticed this little
guy. He was just an ordinary kid and
Andrew could spot the ordinary. Others
were looking for the big shot, and people with power, and money and dignity. They looked for people who could help them
solve the problem, but Andrew says, "I found this lad with 5 loaves and 2
fish."
The others were no doubt thinking that Andrew can be such a
jerk at times. Here we are having a
major problem and he comes up with a sack lunch. But Jesus honored Andrew's faith in the ordinary. He took that ordinary lunch and he made it
do the job of an extra ordinary catering service. He did the most massive miracle of his career with this ordinary
boy and ordinary lunch.
Andrew was vindicated, for Jesus said by this miracle that he
could use the ordinary. Anybody can
feed 5000 with a herd of cattle and a field of sweet corn and potatoes, or a
ship full of fish and a field of wheat.
But when you do it with a lad's lunch you know that God has entered
history. God gets more glory when He
works by means of the ordinary. When
super gifted people serve the Lord much of the glory gets directed to
them. But when ordinary people serve
the Lord, the Lord gets most of the credit.
Andrew not only chose to focus on the ordinary lad with his
lunch, but he made it career to focus on the ordinary. He went to the Sythians, who were the most
barbaric people of the ancient world.
Nobody else would bother with them, but again Andrew loved the ordinary,
and the result is that he became the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland,
for both of these peoples descended from the Sythians. Out of the Christian history of these people
have come many of the great and famous Christians of history. But this would not have happened had there
not been someone who said that ordinary people are worth reaching. Andrew was that man. By his focus on the ordinary he changed the
course of history in very extra‑ordinary ways.
Nobody but Jesus can know just how a great an impact this
ordinary man has had in history, and in the kingdom of God. All we know for sure is that he is one of
history's most famous ordinary men. The
flag that George Washington flew in 1776 had the crosses of St. Andrew and St.
George in the place of the stars. There
are St. Andrew Cathedrals and the St. Andrew University. There are Christians ministries all over the
world named after this ordinary Apostle whose focus on the ordinary proved that
Jesus loves and uses ordinary people for His purpose.
12. PHILIP
Based on John 1:43‑46
If Simon the Zealot was a right‑winger and Matthew the
Publican a left‑ winger, Philip was a cautious middle of the roader. He had both liberal and conservative
leanings. His background was one of
mixed influence. His name, for example,
tell us something of his home life.
Philip is a Greek name, and when Jewish parents give their baby boy a
Greek name it tells you something about their outlook on life. This is especially evident with the name of
Philip, for this is the name of the ruler over that area when Philip was
born. Prince Philip, or Philip the
Tetrarch, as Scripture calls him, of the Herodian House was reigning when
Philip was born. He ruled from 4 B. C.
to A. D. 34. This was the Philip whose
wife Herod was living with, which caused John the Baptist to speak words of
condemnation.
It was Philip's former wife, Herodius who had John the
Baptist killed. John the Baptist was
the one who pointed Andrew to Jesus, and Andrew pointed Jesus to Philip. This means that Philip was named after the
man whose wife killed the man whose action lead to him becoming an
Apostle. Prince Philip, of course,
cannot be held responsible for the evil conduct of his unfaithful wife. He was well liked as a ruler, and obvious
was appreciated by the parents of the Apostle.
It could be that they benefited by his acts in relation to
Bethsaida. Verse 44 tells us that
Philip was from this city. Josephus
tells us of the Tetrarch's interests in Bethsaida. "He raised the village of Bethsaida, situated at the lake of
Gennesarath, to city rank, provided it with a greater number of inhabitants and
other powers...."
This likely helped the parents of the Apostle in some way‑probably
economically, and in gratitude they names their son after Prince Philip. He was one who sought to balance things
between the Jewish and Greek views, and so the parents of Philip must have been
in favor of this balance and the harmony of the old and the new, and so were
politically middle of the road type people. The evidence that Philip grew up
with this kind of attitude is the fact that when the Greeks wanted to get an
interview with Jesus they came to Philip. He had a Greek name and was obviously
sympathetic to the Greeks. He was cautious, however, and he went to talk it
over with Andrew before he went to Jesus.
He was the type of man who wanted a second opinion before he acted,
which also shows him to be a middle of the road type person.
Andrew was a good friend of Philip, and the evidence reveals
that many of the Apostles had a relationship before they were called by Jesus.
Peter and Andrew, and James and John were two sets of brothers who were in
business together. Verse 44 tells us that Philip was from Bethsaida, which was
the city of Andrew and Peter. John is clearly indicating a connection of these
men, and that they were friends before they became Apostles. Andrew found his
brother Peter in v. 41, and then Jesus went to Galilee and found Philip in v.
43, and in v. 45 Philip found Nathaniel and said we have found the
Messiah. We have a series of founds
here where it is clear that they knew each other. Jesus found Philip after he
talked to Andrew and Peter, and the implication is that they told Jesus about
him. They told him of their friend in their hometown, who was also one who was
looking for the Messiah. They recommended him to Jesus and the next day Jesus
looked him up.
The fact that John is the only one who tells us these details
shows that he was also a part of this group of friends. The other Gospel
writers tell us nothing of Philip but his name, but this author tells us of his
call, of his testing at the feeding of the 5000, of his bringing the Greeks to
Jesus, and of his question to Jesus at the Last Supper. The other writers did
not know Philip, but to John he was part of the old gang that became a part of
this new gang of Apostles of Jesus. It is of interest to note that Jesus
selected a group of men who were already friends and who had spiritual commitments
before he met them. Philip got a place
in recorded Scripture largely because of his friends, and he in turn brought
his friend Nathaniel to Christ.
Verse 35 reveals that Philip was a Bible student. He said, "We have found him of whom
Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote." Philip knew the prophecy of the coming Messiah. It was on the basis of fulfilled prophecy
that Jesus was able to convince His Apostles that He was the Messiah. The fact that He would run to Nathaniel and
say this tells us that this is where Jesus began. He went to Scripture and showed how he fulfilled it. All we read in the text is that he said,
"Follow me." But much more
was said. There is nothing in the words
follow me to prove he was fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament. Jesus had to give evidence and it was
convincing, for Philip was not going to waste time trying to answer the
philosophical question of Nathaniel, which was, "Can any good thing come
out of Nazareth?" He simply said,
"Come and see." The evidence
need only be seen to be believed.
This little phrase of come and see describes Philip's
character for us. He was a very
practical and down to earth man. He did
not go for Nathaniel's mysticism and abstract philosophy. He went for solid visible evidence and
facts. Seeing is believing was his
motto. He was basically a materialist
and had to see. At the feeding of the 5000 we read in John 6:5‑7,
"..Jesus said to Philip, 'how are we to buy bread so that these people may
eat?' This He said to test him, for He
Himself knew what He would do. Philip
answered Him, 'two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them
to get a little.'"
The way Philip quickly calculated things has led to
speculation that he may have been a cook or a manager of an eating
establishment owned by his parents.
Whatever the case, he was a calculator.
He faced the facts realistically, and he concluded that all the money in
their treasury could not begin to feed this crowd.
"Come and see,"
Philip is saying again. "Look at
the cold facts and you will see it cannot be done." He had a vivid sense of the impossible
because he did not figure the power of Christ into his calculation. It is possible to be so practical and realistic
that you never see beyond the physical facts into the realm of spiritual
facts. This leads to frustration and to
failure to attempt anything beyond the strength of visible powers. Leave the unseen out of your calculations
and most everything seems impossible.
Jesus said, "Without me you can do nothing." And so everything in God's will is
impossible if you depend only upon the visible facts.
It 200 denarii worth of bread would not scratch the surface in
fulfilling the need, what is the sense of Andrew introducing the lad with 5
loaves and 2 fishes? Philip must have
laughed at the absurdity of it. Philip
had to learn that a little with Christ can be sufficient, for he is not limited
by the physical facts. Philip was
probably embarrassed by the miracle of Christ, and he probably felt silly about
his calculations. Evidence of this is
in the fact that when the Greeks came to him he went to Andrew. Andrew had an insight into Christ's
spiritual nature that was deeper than that of Philip. Philip knew that he made a fool of himself at the feeding of the
5000, but that Andrew came through with shining colors. Therefore, he played it
cautiously and went to Andrew. Philip
had learned to seek the advice of friends with a different perspective.
Philip still had his seeing is believing attitude right to
the end. In John 14:8 Philip said to
Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." That is all Philip needed to be fully
satisfied. All he wanted was to see
God. He represents the vast majority of
people who long for a concrete materialistic proof of God. He had it, however, and didn't even realize
it. Jesus said, "Have I been with
you so long, and yet you do not know me Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father." Philip needed to listen carefully to the
teachings of Jesus that night. He
needed to develop the spiritual perspective, for Jesus is leaving them and
returning to the Father, and the Holy Spirit will be their guide. Philip would no longer be able to depend on
the physical. After the ascension he
could no longer say, as he did to Nathaniel, "Come and see," for
Jesus would no longer be visible. He
had to rise above his dependence upon the visible.
Evidence that he
struggled with his materialistic character all of his life is in the tradition
concerning his martyrdom. He was
stripped and hung head down, and he was pierced at the ankles and thighs. He refused to tolerate this abuse and leave
vengeance to the Lord. He had to see
his enemies punished to be satisfied, and so he ordered the ground to open and
swallow the people. Jesus appeared and
rebuked Philip, and he restored all the people to life. This is fiction, of course, but it reveals
that even tradition preserves for us the characteristics that were true of him
in real life.
Philip, like all the other Apostles, was unique. He had his own strengths and
weaknesses. He is another proof that
Jesus can and does use people of all different natures. If our presentation of Christ appeals to
only a certain kind of people, we can be sure that we are not preaching a whole
Christ, but one limited to certain tastes and character. A whole Christ will attract everyone, for no
one, however unique, is any different from the 12 that Jesus chose.
13. THE SON OF LIGHTNING Based on John 13:1‑10
Some years back a young girl was caught out in a thunder storm
as she rode her bicycle. She made it to
the top of the hill and then headed down as fast as she could go. When she got home she told a strange
tale. Every time there was a flash of
lightning blue flames ran across her handle bars. Had it not been for the rubber tires on her bike she felt she
would have been electrocuted. This
experience is rare for landlubbers. But
for men of the sea strange happenings with lightening are common. The fiery glow of electricity is often seen
on the masts of ships, and other pointed objects. Pilots see it on the wings of their planes also. This electrical discharge has come to be
called St. Elmo's fire, and it has a
fascinating history. It all ties in
with our subject this morning because many Italian sailors call it the fires of
St. Peter.
In the account of the second voyage of Columbus, written by
his son, is this passage: "During
the night of Saturday Oct. 1493 the thunder and rain being very violent, St.
Elmo appeared on the topgallant mast with 7 lighted tapers, that is to say, we
saw those fires which the sailors believe to proceed from the body of the
saint." Seaman even developed poetry concerning this strange electric
phenomenon.
Last night I saw Saint
Elmo's stars,
With their glittering
lanterns all at play,
On the tops of the masts and
the tips of the spars,
And I knew we should have
foul weather today.
It is of interest that Peter is connected with these phenomena
of natural lightning; not only because of his being a fisherman and a man of
the sea, but because it fits his very nature.
If James and John, two out of the three in the inner circle of Christ's
Apostles, were called sons of thunder, then nothing could be more appropriate
than calling Peter, the third member of this trio, the son of lightning. The Jews have a proverb that says, thunder
and lightning are inseparable, and this certainly holds true with the men
Christ chose as the foundation for his church. Lightning comes before the
thunder, and Peter was given first place as leader of the 12, even over the
beloved John‑the son of thunder.
Peter is like lightning in so many ways. He is as unpredictable. You never know when he is going to strike,
and when he does he follows the path of least resistance just like
lightning. Alexander Whyte says of Peter,
"He was hasty, headlong, speaking impertinently, and unadvisedly...Ever
wading into waters too deep for him...Caring little for conventional propriety,
or for difficulties locking his way, Peter acted on the rule, when in doubt,
speak." Peter's reckless tongue
was like forked lightning, and nowhere do we see it more clearly than in our
text. Peter is the only one of the 12
who was so quick on the trigger that he fired back at the Lord Himself with
heated resistance.
Even in this setting where Jesus was filling the air with the
most beautiful message he ever spoke, Peter is living up to this name as a son
of lightning by creating all kinds of static.
Jesus persisted with Peter, however, for he knew long before Benjamin
Franklin, the lightning can be tamed.
Lightning can be made into a powerful force for good if it is harnessed
and brought under control. We want to
look at the three stages Peter went through before the divine lightning tamer
brought him under control. First look
at‑
I. PETER'S REFUSAL. v. 8
Who but this flaming, impetuous son of lightning would dare to
give this heated response to his master‑"you shall never wash my
feet!" If ever a man was deserving
of being struck down by the lightning of God's judgment, you would think Peter
was well qualified. All ancient
people's looked upon lightning as the tool of God's wrath. Zeus among the Greeks, or Jupiter among the
Romans, or Allah among the Moslems are frequently portrayed as destroying their
enemies with flaming thunder bolts from the sky. In the Old Testament there are references to the Lord's use of
lightning. Psa. 144:6 says, "Flash
forth the lightning and scatter them."
Psa. 97:4 says, "His lightnings lighten the world; the earth sees
and trembles."
Our text says all things were given into the hands of
Christ. This means that the lightning
of God's wrath was also available to him, and he could have met Peter's hotheaded
refusal with a bolt of judgment. Jesus
does not handle things that way, however, for he understands Peter's
problem. Jesus does not deal with us
according to what we are, but according to what we can be when we are committed
to him. Peter is blind and ignorant,
and so he takes this stubborn stand with a good motive. His thinking is that no Lord of mine is
going to wash my feet, for I respect his dignity too much to see it
degraded. His refusal was based on a
high respect for Christ, and we could admire Peter for this if it were not for
verse 7 where Jesus said, "What I am doing you do not understand now but
later you will."
Jesus recognized that what he was doing was unique. It was contrary to all custom. The master never washes the feet of the
servants. This is unheard of in any
land, and so he prepares them by telling them that they will come to understand
by progressive enlightenment. They
would have to submit and obey him first, and later come to an understanding of
what it was all about. The Christian
life is like this because the Lord wants obedience above all else. If we can learn to obey his commands even
when we do not fully understand, we reveal that we have truly made him
Lord. The key to good discipleship is
not understanding, but obedience.
So many people worry about whether a young person fully
understands what they are doing when they get baptized at 9 or 10 years old. Of course, they don't fully understand. I didn't either when I was baptized at 9,
but I understand now. We are baptized
primarily because Jesus commanded it.
It is an act of obedience above all else. To many we might appropriately say, what we do now you do not
know, but you will understand later.
When a person is old enough to obey what they understand is their Lord's
command, they are old enough to be baptized.
If you don't buy that, you are in good company, for Peter didn't
either. Peter made a lightning like
response and thought, I don't understand it now, and, therefore, I will not
obey‑you will never wash my feet.
This is just the problem with lightning. It is all speed and no thought. It is quick on the trigger, but doesn't take
aim. Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet
says,
It is too rash, too
unadvised, too sudden,
Too like lightning, which
does cease to be
Ere one can say it lightens.
That is Peter all over. He doesn't bother to weigh any evidence, or
hear any arguments. His mind is made up
before any facts are presented, and he flashes forth with his dogmatic
refusal. It is not a polite,
"Can't we discuss this issue," or a courteous evasion," let's do
it another time," but a rude, rebellious refusal, "never‑you
shall never wash my feet."
Peter is a real rebel, but he is all the more lovable because
of it. We like non‑conformists
because they usually have the nerve to stand up and be different when everyone
else is afraid to do so. Even when they
are on the wrong path, like Peter is here, we enjoy them for their blunders
make us feel more secure because we would never be so foolish. Peter's blunders are favorite sermon texts.
Preach about the other man,
preacher,
The man we all can see,
The man who drinks and beats
his wife,
The man who lends his hands
to strife,
Preach about the other man,
Not about me.
The fact is, Peter is the
representative man. When we preach on
Peter, we preach on all men, for we are all more like Peter than we care to
admit. We are all defiled with the same
pride that lead to Peter's refusal. It
is not easy for an man to submit to being served by a superior, especially when
you respect that superior. Suppose you
were invited to the home of some dignitary that you greatly admired, and the
hostess noticed that your shoes were scuffed and offered to polish them. Not a man in a million would yield to such
service. We would resist such an offer
with all the dogmatism of the son of lightning. "Never, never, never!
We would not hear of such a thing." Wild horses could not pull us into a position where we would let
a person we greatly respect perform a lowly, undignified service for us.
Put yourself in Peter's sandals and you will better understand
his refusal. You will understand that
it is not only more blessed to give than to receive, but it is a whole lot
easier. It is very hard to accept
charity, but if we pay attention to our own theology, that is what we do
constantly. All we have and are is by
the grace of God. We receive the gift
of life, salvation, guidance, and all gifts as charity. But when Jesus dramatizes this truth as he
does with the feet washing we are shocked, and our pride resists. We have often heard that we can accept Jesus
as Savior and not as Lord, but Jesus goes one step more and says, we can accept
him as Savior and Lord, and still not accept him as servant, and thus, miss the
best of all.
Jesus said to Peter, "If I do not wash you, you have no
part in me." If we do not submit
to his sovereign service, and learn to overcome all the pride and false dignity
that keeps us from bending to serve others, we can have no part in his plan. He came into the world to minister, and his
church is formed to minister. No one is
truly a part of the body of Christ who has not learned this. When Peter heard the shocking rebuke he
quickly changed his mind, and so we look secondly at‑
II. PETER'S REVERSAL. v. 9
Peter reveals his kinship to lightning again by the way he
changes his mind. His never lasted
about 5 seconds. His dogmatic refusal
to ever submit to being washed was reversed instantly to a plea for washing all
over. Peter went from one extreme to
the other in a few seconds. From never
to now with the speed of lightning. You
have to give Peter a lot of credit for this sudden reversal of his dogmatic
stand. Very few men have the courage to
abandon a bad decision as fast as Peter.
He gets into trouble fast, but he also knows how to quickly retreat from
a bad position. He is mighty in his
mistakes, but equally courageous in his corrections.
History is full of men who cannot, like Peter, fail
successfully because they don't have the courage to admit they have made a
mistake. F. W. Boreham tells of the
celebrated doctor Sangrado of Spain who developed a simple remedy for all
sicknesses. He and his assistant Gil
Blas went from bed to bed applying this panacea to all the patients. The one thing that troubled the assistant
was that without exception all the patients died. When he modestly suggested that they should modify their method
of treatment Dr. Sangrado replied, "I would willingly do so provided it would
have no bad consequences. But I have
published a book in which I have exalted this wonderful system, and would you
have me decry my own work?"
"You are right," the assistant said, "It would ruin your
reputation. You must not give your
enemies such a triumph over you. Let us
continue as we are."
Peter made mistakes, but he was not stupid. He never stuck with a mistake when he saw it
for what it was. He was a great man
just because he could retreat as fast as he advanced when he saw he was going
the wrong direction. Jesus wanted that
kind of man at the head of his disciples.
No man is truly great who cannot change his mind when he makes a foolish
decision. When Peter saw that his never
would cut him off from Christ he switched to now immediately. Like lightning he joined the company of
great men who learned to say, "I was wrong.."
In Boswell's famous biography of Dr. Johnson he tells of his
visit to America. And admirer of his
who felt he was infallible could not understand one of his definitions in his
famous dictionary. He defined postern
as the knee of a horse. She approached
him with her problem and expected to get an explanation from some deeply
learned source with which she was not acquainted. To her astonishment the great doctor made no elaborate defense,
but said, "Ignorance madam, pure ignorance!" He was a great man because he could admit
his mistake and retreat from it. It is
no virtue to be faithful to one's folly.
It is a virtue to flee from it.
Peter did just that
with the speed of lightning, and so we learn that even lightning is not all
bad. Natural lightning has its good
side also. It causes a chemical
reaction between oxygen and nitrogen in the air. It forms a substance known as nitric acid. This is brought down by rain and provides
the earth with millions of tons of the finest fertilizer every year. Natural lightning can make a great reversal
from being a fearfully destructive force to become a fruitfully constructive
force. That is what Peter the lightning
like Apostle did. His fruit became
universal because of his great reversal.
The third thing we want to consider is‑
III. PETER'S RENEWAL. v. 10
Peter's reversal actually took him to an extreme beyond what the
Lord required. Jesus said to Peter,
"You don't have to be washed all over, only your feet and you will be
renewed to your state of cleanness.
This feet washing is symbolic of the fact that all Christians need
renewal. This battle to get Peter's
feet washed should make that clear. The
head Apostle's struggle is recorded so all Christians can see clearly that if
he needed it, then all need it.
Studdert Kennedy wrote,
There's nothing in man
that's perfect,
There's nothing that's all complete,
He's no but a big beginning,
From his head to the soles of his feet.
Peter was not a