Jesus and His Apostles: Button Pushers

Nobody would dispute that the Lord Jesus was a prolific preacher and teacher. We read in the Gospels that Jesus "went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people" (Matthew 4:23 NKJV). Later, Jesus is daily in the Temple teaching (Luke 19:47). Jesus was often called "rabbi" by his followers, which means "teacher" (John 1:38). In the same way, after Jesus had been raised from the dead and after he had ascended to Heaven, the earliest Church "continued steadfastly in the apostle' doctrine..." (Acts 2:42).

 

So teaching was a big part of the ministries of both the Lord and the Apostles. But what concerns me today is not so much how prolific their teaching ministries were, but how provocative their teaching could be at times! Let me put it another way. In the Scriptures, there are occasions where both Jesus and the Apostles deliberately and self-consciously said things that they know full well will incite an emotional, and often a hostile, reaction.

 

Allow me to cite but a few examples and then briefly enter into some application. In John 6, Jesus is teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum after having fed the 5,000. To summarize, the people were fed and the next day they find Jesus across the Sea of Tiberias and they ask him when and how he got there. Jesus replied, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled (John 6:26). In other words, Jesus says they just want another free lunch. Jesus is already calling out the impure motivations of the people and doing so quite tersely.

 

But it goes beyond that. Jesus goes on to teach the people that he is the true bread that came down from Heaven (6:35; 6:51), and that in order to have eternal life, they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (6:53-58)! Now the Jews had strict laws against consuming blood (Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23), and certainly cannibalism was a no-no. But of course Jesus was speaking figuratively of faith in him as the sole source of eternal life. Nevertheless, he knew that his words would be offensive to the people as a whole, but he still uttered them. In the context of John 6, I understand Jesus to be separating the elect whom God had given him with those who were not his sheep. But my primary point here is that Jesus spoke something that he knew would generate a strong reaction, and he said it anyway. And sure enough, most of the people don't like it: On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (6:60).

 

Jesus does much the same in both John 8 and John 10. In both chapters, during disputes with the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus specifically and unmistakably claims deity. In the first occurrence, Jesus states, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (8:56)  Then the Jewish leaders question Jesus about his cryptic statement: "Then the Jews said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM' (8:57-58) The Jewish leaders tried to stone him, but Jesus was able to escape. But it seems clear that Jesus was well aware of how his words would be received. Yet he fearlessly spoke them anyway!

 

Again, two chapters later, Jesus makes a deliberately provocative statement, unmistakably claiming full deity: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30). And once again, the Jewish authorities react as one might expect, they picked up stones to stone him... (10:31). What follows is Jesus's defense of his deity. But to say it again, Jesus surely knew that his words would elicit such a visceral response. But that didn't stop him.

 

Jesus does so again at his trial. Jesus will once again claim full deity before the Sanhedrin when asked point blank if he is the Messiah, the Son of God: "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked. 'You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?' They all condemned him as worthy of death" (Mark 14:61b-64). Jesus knew what he was saying. he knew the reaction he would receive. And he said it despite it all.

 

But it not only the Lord who doesn't hesitate to speak plainly and provocatively. When one turns to the book of Acts, one finds the Apostles similarly saying deliberately edgy and instigating things, knowing full well that the response will likely be one of rejection. At the beginning of Acts 4, Peter and John are arrested in the Temple following the healing of the crippled man at the Beautiful Gate. But what was it that caused Peter and John to be arrested? Was it that they healed a cripple? Was it because they had gathered a crowd and were preaching? No. It wasn't that. Was it that they proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah? We are getting closer. What really provoked the Temple authorities was the specific content of their preaching: "The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 4:1-2). Don't you think Peter and John knew that preaching about the resurrection from the dead literally on the home turf of the Sadducees (who denied any doctrine of a physical resurrection) was bound to get them in trouble? They knew it and did it anyway.

 

So far we have seen that Jesus, Peter, and John each were not shy about deliberately and fearlessly stating the hard truth, knowing certainly that because of it they weren't likely to win friends and influence people. But what about Paul? Do we find Paul audaciously saying things that were sure to get him into trouble? Indeed we do. I want to highlight three instances.

 

In the first instance, Paul is preaching to the Athenian philosophers in Athens. Toward the end he makes mention of something which he knew the Greeks were not going to like. But Paul throws caution to the wind and openly declares: "'For [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.'" When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.'" (Acts 17:31-32). Much like the Jewish Sadducees, the Greeks had an aversion to the idea of a bodily resurrection. That is why some of them "sneered" as the NIV puts it. The KJV and ESV have "mocked", while the NRSV has "scoffed". But either way, it was not a pleasant reaction, and Paul no doubt knew he had pushed a button.

 

But if you think that is bad, just wait until Paul is arrested in Jerusalem. Paul is arrested in the Temple because some Jews recognized Paul and thought that he was bringing Greeks into the Temple. After being rescued by the Romans, Paul makes a defense before his own Jewish people. After detailing his vision of the Lord Jesus on the Damascus Road, Paul recounts a vision in which the Lord appeared to him in that very Temple in which Paul was standing. Paul boldly states the words of Jesus to him, "I will send you far away to the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21). All was well with Paul's speech until then: "And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, 'Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!'" (Acts 22:22). And note that Paul says this right after the Jews had rioted because of how his attitude towards the gentiles was perceived. Don't you think Paul knew that saying this would infuriate the mob (and it isn't difficult to infuriate a mob)? Yeah. He knew. We can be safely assured of it. But Paul's commitment to the truth outweighed his sense of personal safety.

 

One final example and then I'll get into some application. After Paul's arrest in Jerusalem, he is brought before the Sanhedrin. At a climactic point, the text says this: "But when Paul perceived that part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducess; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection - and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both" (Acts 23:6). Paul was completely aware of the vast theological differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The dissension between them which arose after Paul's statement was calculated. He knew what he was doing. He knew what button to push and he pushed it. And I suspect that he did it because the truth of the resurrection of the dead was too important a truth to ignore for the sake of political correctness.

 

So what can we make of all this? Why does it matter? For one, I believe it matters because as I said just above, the truth of the Gospel must take priority over political correctness. Most of the time, the Gospel is best served by observing social protocol so as not to cause undue offense. But there are occasions where stating the truth plainly is more vital than keeping the peace.

 

Another point of application that can be made is this. Sometimes the only point of bearing witness for Jesus is just simply to bear witness for Jesus, even when you know that you will experience rejection. Sometimes the impression is given that leading the other person to faith in Christ is the ultimate end goal. But actually it's not. Bringing glory to God is the highest end of evangelism. God will take care himself who comes to him by faith. Sometimes, but not always, it is just simply better to state the naked truth and forget the consequences. I also sometimes observe that many Christians and ministries are trying to establish some kind of goodwill between Jerusalem and Babylon before introducing Christ into the equation, apparently thinking that softening non-believers up will somehow make them more receptive to the Gospel. 

I agree that kindness, meekness, and gentleness are hallmarks of Christian conduct. That's hardly controversial. Nevertheless, the Christian message will in the end confront the non-believer in his or her sin and demand a response. Gentleness, humility, holy living, good works, and even powerful demonstrations of the Holy Spirit are all good and necessary attendants to the Gospel message and can increase receptivity. But at the end of the day, the Gospel must stand on its own in the mind of the non-believer, who needs a work of grace to respond in faith to Jesus.

 

But here's a note of caution. In the scriptural examples I gave above, either Jesus or his Apostles were put on the spot. In other words, they didn't just show up in some random place at a random time with bullhorns, banners, and sandwich board signs. Either a miracle or some outward event was happening right in front of them and the Lord or his Apostles had no choice but to speak plainly. In such a situation, straight talk is the best policy. But in most other contexts, great care should be taken to speak the truth with tact, gentleness, and patience. The Gospel is meant to be spoken out loud. Wisdom, the surrounding context, and your audience will usually determine how to best go about speaking it. Amen.