(Before you read this sermon transcript, keep in mind that I don't stick to the manuscript when I preach and therefore those who heard the sermon heard something at least a little different than what you're reading...if you really want to be impacted by these sermons, you need to be there with our church family and travel together with us as we submit to the Scriptures together. Christianity is not a path to be walked alone; in fact, unless you're on a deserted island with no way off and no way to be with others, it is unfaithful NOT to be in a worshiping community. But enough of that. The following is the sermon).

The Difference between Disciples and Admirers Week 3:

Cross bridge from last week into further thoughts here:

Two options of passivity or violence

Two glimpses of Jesus in Gospel of Matthew (from last week) being confronted by this two way kind of thinking…deeper look at these encounters shows Jesus pursuing a third way; one that rejected both passively doing what you can and hoping for the best and the violent revolution option.

Jesus essentially said, “We won’t raise a ruckus just to raise a ruckus, but when we are told to do something or obey someone that is unjust, we simply say to them, “No, I’m sorry, but no. There is a higher law, a better law, than the one you are trying to make me obey, and I simply can’t obey your law.” And we obey the higher law of God rather than the lower law of human beings.

Now, of course this will lead to persons thinking we’re lawbreakers, treasonous, or cowardly (depending on the case), but the thought of not being accepted shouldn’t scare us since Jesus told his disciples this kind of thing would happen.

And not only did Jesus tell his disciples to expect this kind of thing, he faced that struggle himself. Arrested by the temple guard, sent before Herod, then Pontius Pilate (the Roman governor); conspired against by Jewish leaders, executed by the Romans.

“Dragged before kings and governors (in immediate sense (own people; Sanhedrin) and in long-term sense (Romans, Pontius Pilate, Agrippa, Felix)
- Again I raise the question…if Jesus’ teachings only refer to personal relationships, and the way we interact with governments is by obeying what they command us to do, then why in the world would citizens of the Empire, kings, and governors see the disciples of Jesus as a threat to things as they are?

The answer is clear: Jesus wasn’t just concerned with personal relationships.

Persons disagreeing with this interpretation may then ask if we're familiar with the following Scriptural passages:  Romans 12, 1 Peter 2

Romans 13:1-7
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authorities is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

The Apostle Paul was the author of this section of Scripture. We have been taught, most of us in this room, that these Scriptures mean you do what you’re told, because the government is God’s instrument, and you are to obey.

We can test whether this interpretation is wise almost immediately by asking about Paul’s life:

Acts 21 (Jews agitate against Paul, he is arrested by the Romans, “news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains.”, commander summoned priests and all Sanhedrin to assemble, men conspire to kill Paul, chief priests and elders collude with them, Paul is taken in chains to Caesarea, to Governor Felix, two years Paul spent in chains as Felix kept him until he died, and Festus took over as governor, King Herod Agrippa, the Roman puppet king (a close friend of the Roman Caesar) comes to interview Paul, finds no fault in him, yet keeps him in chains…Paul’s Scriptural story comes to an end in Rome as he waits in chains to testify to Caesar, but the early church proclaimed that Paul was executed in Rome by Emperor Nero after the great fire)

The record stands that Paul did not blindly obey the governing authorities, nor did he start a violent revolution against them. He simply testified to them about the truth, not worrying about what would happen to him. During this time, people saw how dangerous his teaching was for the governing authorities, because people would see that the human authorities weren’t the final say, so Paul was conspired against, beaten, stoned, flogged, and eventually executed by Emperor Nero.

If his message was about personal relationships only, if his message was that we blindly obey governing authorities, he would not have been seen as a threat.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of the foolish. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love your fellow believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

In killing Jesus, the Jewish authorities thought they had destroyed his silly movement, yet Peter and John in the book of Acts 4 were brought before the Sanhedrin and were commanded “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.” If the gospel was only about personal relationships, if submitting to the authorities meant blindly obeying them, then Peter and John would have obeyed this command. Did they?

Acts 5, Peter and the other apostles are arrested. The Sanhedrin commands them, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!”

Wait a second, Peter, I thought you said earlier “submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human authority”? And now you say, “we must obey God rather than men”? These sound contradictory.

Peter was executed in the same terrible period by Emperor Nero, crucified upside-down.

If the message of Peter was that the gospel is only a personal one, that the way we interact with governing authorities is to obey them in everything, why is it that his life stands as a testament against that interpretation?

The lives of Peter and Paul display to us that third way of Jesus; we don’t passively do our jobs, put food on the table, take care of our families, and obey the governing authorities as if they’re the ones in charge. But we also don’t pick up arms against them in violent revolution. It is clear that in following this path, Peter and Paul were considered traitors, dangerous to the governing authorities, and so they were executed.

And this displays the fundamental difference between disciples of Jesus and admirers of Jesus. Admirers of Jesus will be impressed by his miracles, will be impressed by some of his teachings, but admirers of Jesus will see the danger that comes with fully obeying Jesus, so they will find some way to weasel out of doing they were commanded to do.

In our case, there are many Christians who have completely ignored certain sections of Jesus’ teachings, then made Jesus look less challenging to their way of life by saying he was only concerned about personal relationships. They have taught us this way of reading Jesus, and they’ve used passages like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 to make Christians do things that are a direct denial of Jesus’ commands. They are admirers, not disciples, and they have deceived us.

Disciples of Jesus obey Jesus no matter what the cost is. Disciples of Jesus see that Jesus rejected the two options persons demanded he choose between. When they demand that we obey them, when they demand that we swear our allegiance to them, our response is this.

“No, I’m sorry, but no.”

Discipleship has a cost. This is hard teaching, but we can’t highlight the easy parts and neglect the hard parts and claim to be a disciple. If Jesus is our LORD and Savior, then nothing and no one else is.

Now, if you’re STILL not sold on this interpretation of the Scriptures, I’d like to offer a present-day example for you of Christians applying this sort of third-way thinking (whether they’re consciously aware of it or not), and it has to do with the issue of abortion.

Why not obey Roe vs. Wade on abortion? It is the government’s official stance on abortion. If the stance toward government is one of complete obedience, why do Christians, by and large, work to have this governmental position overturned?

Because we believe that there is a higher truth and a higher good than the position of our government presently on this issue. And if we can take lessons from Jesus on how to work for change, we will refuse to stand by and passively obey the government when something is unjust, yet we will also refuse to pick up arms and enforce our position (persons who have bombed abortion clinics in the past)…we pursue the third way, the Jesus way, where when persons suggest abortion is simply a choice, we tell them, “No, I’m sorry, but no.” There is a human life inside your body that deserves respect and commitment from you.

We work together with persons with a common commitment in this area to serve expectant mothers, to give them choices beyond what seems like the easy way out, which is abortion. We work to understand some of the reasons behind why persons have abortions, and we seek to minister to those reasons. We work for God’s justice, whether the law of the land recognizes that justice or not.

Example of Jerry Falwell and the Houses for young expectant mothers

We refuse to be passive, but we refuse to seek violence to make our goal become a reality. And in fact, some choose to disobey the government by peaceful demonstrations at abortion clinics, at political rallies, in town centers, that show other persons in society that we are not silent and we will not blindly obey an unjust law…and Christians are doing this in our society.

So a whole lot of the Christian conversation and action surrounding abortion is showing a healthy perspective on how Christians interact with the law of the land. But the issue of abortion is not the only issue of God’s justice in the world, and we need to apply some of what Christians have learned in civil disobedience regarding abortion to other issues in the world of great injustice. And there are many of those issues.

And as we consider what those issues are, and the issues come into our awareness, and as we consider action with those issues, then we let the example of Jesus guide us as we work for justice.

We will not stand by and be passive and just do our jobs and hope for the best when injustice exists. But we as disciples of Jesus also will not take up arms and believe that violence will solve an issue of injustice.

We will speak truth to power and let our integrity and our courage rule the day; and in speaking up and acting for God’s justice, it very well may be that we will suffer (emotionally and physically), and it very well may be that we will be persecuted, and it very well may be that our commitment to seek that justice may upset members of our family, husbands, wives, parents, children, and our families and friends may disown us, and it very well may be that we may lose our lives…but Christians more than other folks should know that our individual life is not as important as being faithful to God’s work in the world.

King “the universe is bent towards the cause of justice,”

People will hate us, but if they hate us, let’s make sure they hate us for a good reason. If they are frustrated by us, that usually means we’re doing our job well.

(Before you read this sermon transcript, keep in mind that I don't stick to the manuscript when I preach and therefore those who heard the sermon heard something at least a little different than what you're reading...if you really want to be impacted by these sermons, you need to be there with our church family and travel together with us as we submit to the Scriptures together. Christianity is not a path to be walked alone; in fact, unless you're on a deserted island with no way off and no way to be with others, it is unfaithful NOT to be in a worshiping community. But enough of that. The following is the sermon).

Sermon from September 7th, 2008

"The Difference between Disciples and Admirers Week 2"

Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. (own people) On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. (others) But when they arrest you (not if, when), do not worry about what to say or how to say it.

Continue with two ways discussion: passivism and violent agitation

- Persons have used this distinction for thousands of years now as they dealt with life and governments in power over them, saying, "We must either be passive and do our job, try to make ends meet, provide for our families, or we must take up arms in violent revolution." This belief in only two options hasn't ALWAYS been the case, but it has OFTEN been the case in human thinking.

People continued this distinction in considering Jesus as well. He HAD to be one or the other. There's no option other than the two. So which one is he? So they read the gospels and could see very early on that Jesus taught a way of peace, right? So that MUST mean that he wanted everyone to be passive, because he HAD to be either violent or passive. "But being passive means that people will run all over you and never be confronted with their injustice," people would think. "And that doesn't make sense," they thought. So in an underhanded, weaselly way, persons tried to find a way to justify disobeying Jesus, and came up with the conclusion, "Jesus was focused only on personal relationships." You hear that a lot from folks. And if we look into Jesus’ teaching, we can find some sections where that seems to be true; where if someone asks for your cloak, you give them your tunic, or “do not commit adultery,” “do not resist an evil person,” all of these seem to be focused on personal relationships. So Jesus was only talking about personal relationships…


- But Jesus also told his disciples “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” That might sound like a personal relationship thing, but we must keep in mind Jesus was speaking to a people occupied by the Roman Empire, where soldiers of the Empire could demand that the Jews carry their pack for a mile. In essence, here, Jesus is saying, “They think they have power over you because of their position. You show them their power is basically meaningless to you and go two miles to show your freedom.” This would have been shocking to the Roman soldiers if the Jewish people did this, and went above personal relationships to how they interact with the pagan Roman Empire.

- Jesus also told his disciples “Do not swear an oath at all.” And in a Roman Empire where the citizens of the empire swore their obedience to the government and the good of the Empire above other commitments, this would have led to terrible consequences. When his followers came before judges and governors and refused to swear an oath, they would be seen as treasonous, and likely lose their lives. This teaching also goes beyond personal relationships.

There’s two big episodes in the gospel of Matthew where Jesus gets to show the people that he doesn’t fit either of their categories of who the Messiah was, and what he came to accomplish.

In Matthew 17:24 ff, Peter is approached by the collectors of the temple tax. Officials of the Jewish puppet king Herod, trying to pay for the cost of the temple that he had built. They ask Peter, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” Essentially, they’re saying, “Doesn’t Jesus recognize the proper order of society?”

Why would these persons ask Peter this if everyone knew that Jesus was just talking about personal relationships? Of course Jesus would have paid the temple tax, like other obedient people. These officials are thinking, “If common persons don’t pay this tax, then order will fall apart in our society, if they don’t blindly obey us, then our rule is threatened.

Peter answers them, then Jesus challenges him with a mysterious question; “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes- from their own children or from others?” Peter answers, “From others,” and Jesus responds, “Then the children are exempt.” And then he shows his greater power here by saying, essentially, “But these people want their due. Listen, go to the lake, throw out your line, catch a fish, the first fish will have a four drachma coin. Give it to them.” While they are giving them what they’re asking for, Jesus shows the disciples the greater power they are responsible to. Not the officials, but God alone.

Essentially, Jesus is saying here, “Don’t raise a ruckus just to raise a ruckus with the people who govern you. But know where your allegiance lies.” You may not be convinced with my interpretation of this passage, but I’d like to show you how it sketches out some boundaries for the disciples and Jesus colors in the middle later.

Turn with me to Matthew 22, verse 15. Here we have a classic confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees. When we think of the Pharisees, we typically think “self-righteous,” and that was true to a point; maybe that’s the personal relationship side of the Pharisees. But, as we’ve talked about in the recent past here, the Pharisees identified very deeply with the Zealots in their society. They were working behind the scenes to undercut the Roman rule through violent acts of terrorism.

So they come to Jesus here and hope to trap him in his words. Now notice in verse 16 that they sent their disciples to him along with who? (the Herodians) If you remember what we’ve explored here in Matthew in the past, who were the Herodians and what did they care about? (Jewish ruling party, get their name from King Herod, who only had the power that the Romans gave him. If they didn’t like him, they would have killed him and put another King in his place. So Herod went out of his way to show the Romans that he would obey them. Those who followed him then were the ones who said, “We can swear an oath before the Romans to survive, but it doesn’t mean anything because we don’t mean it in our hearts.”

The Herodians were anxious about revolutionaries because then they couldn’t continue to be rich and profit off their own people, and the Pharisees loved the Zealots, the violent revolutionaries, because they hated Roman rule. Do you see the pickle they’re trying to get Jesus in? It’s a Catch-22. Jesus are you passive or are you a revolutionary?

And they ask, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity and you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. (buttering him up, but it’s also a sign of respect; Jesus doesn’t bow down for people who claim to be important. He treats everyone the same) “Tell us then,” they say, “what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

Jesus, knowing their evil intent, spoke. But before we look at what he said, let’s consider the situation here. Knowing that the Herodians went out of their way to show the Romans that they weren’t a threat, knowing that they were the rich in the society and they didn’t want to lose their wealth, what would be their answer to this question? (Yes) If Jesus said “No,” then they would see him as a revolutionary, a threat to their wealth and power, and they would need to eliminate him.

Knowing that the Pharisees went out of their way to listen to and collude with the Zealots, knowing that they were agitating for revolution, what would be their answer to this question? (No) If Jesus said “Yes,” then they would see him as a Roman sympathizer, a threat to their desire for violent revolution, and they would need to eliminate him. So if Jesus answers either “Yes” or “No,” people will shove him into a certain category; he’s passive and needs to be killed, or he’s a threat to our wealth and needs to be killed.

Jesus’ response is classic. He said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

In essence, Jesus is saying, “So Caesar’s powerful enough to have some metal with his name on it, huh? Give him back what is he thinks is his. But Caesar doesn’t own our loyalty. That belongs to God alone.”

Now, I want you to understand the importance of what Jesus is saying here. By telling the people to give Caesar what is his, he is disagreeing with the Zealots that they should never ever ever cooperate with the Romans. Don’t create a riot just for the sake of a riot, Jesus is saying.

But at the same time, Jesus is rejecting Caesar’s claim to be King because only the LORD can occupy that place. To the Romans, Jesus would have been considered a threat to their rule, because their rule was based on blind allegiance.

What I’m saying is that Jesus was being presented with two different options, the violent revolution or being passive, and he rejected both of them. The entirety of Jesus’ ministry was about showing a third way, a different way, for God’s people to live.

This third way is one that rejected violent revolution but refused to give their loyalty to the Romans.

Nero At time of early church. The Roman emperor was believed by citizens to be the Son of God, sent to earth to bring peace and prosperity. Had two terms he wanted to be referred to by. These are both Greek words, the language of the empire, and the first is “kurios.” (LORD) This is the central term Nero wanted to be referred to as, and the way you showed your allegiance to the Roman Empire was confessing Nero as LORD.

The second term is “soter.” Anyone want to take a wild guess at what that means? (SAVIOR)

The Roman emperor was referred to by the masses as “our LORD and SAVIOR.” Ever heard those words before? Caesar gives test of loyalty by officials saying, “Caesar is LORD and SAVIOR. Bow down and acknowledge me as LORD and SAVIOR.” And if you didn’t bow down, guess what happened to you? (CRUCIFIED)

Now, we may not have been aware of this before, but, knowing that Caesar demanded that the people call him "LORD and SAVIOR," it now brings to our attention today how deeply subversive and dangerous it was for the early Christians to call Jesus "LORD and SAVIOR." What that means, essentially, is if Jesus is LORD and SAVIOR, then Caesar is not. Or, if Caesar is LORD and SAVIOR, then Jesus is not. I would encourage you to skim through the New Testament this week, keeping your eyes open for the terms "LORD" or "Savior." Each time these words were uttered, they were deeply dangerous for the author or speaker in an empire that didn't tolerate persons who refused to blindly obey.

(this was the end of our time together, and as you might guess...it doesn't wrap up neat and tidy. That's true, for two reasons. First, we ran out of time and I didn't want to keep people too long (we were ten minutes over even ending here). This was the major reason. But second, life isn't a present with a tidy bow making things all clean and easy; and this teaching of Jesus certainly isn't a neat little package. It demands that we go further than easy answers, and it calls for courageous persons willing to do the hard work of thinking and acting in ways very contrary to the persons around them. This will result in tensions within friendships, people ending friendships with them, talking behind their backs, maybe even disowning them, physically hurting them, or even killing them. Heck, I know of persons who have turned their back on me because of a difference in what we believe, but that shouldn't stop the pursuit of truth).