What Did He Do That Was So Bad?
Preaching
Lions And Cows Dining Together
And 111 Other Sermon Ideas
Object:
Purpose Statement: Why did anyone want to kill Jesus?
The idea that anyone would want to kill Jesus is preposterous. He did only good things. Think how he healed people, bringing them immense relief from suffering and inconvenience; how he was concerned for the poor and unfortunate; how he was always kind and loving. Crowds often would gather around him making it difficult for him to find time to eat or rest. On one occasion, he had to get out in a boat away from shore because they pressed about him. He almost had to sneak away to get a break. They loved him. Certainly no one would want to hurt such a good person, the one we call the Son of God. It is true the local Roman authorities were worried, that with his popularity, he might instigate a Jewish uprising against Rome. In such a case, Rome might replace the local government representatives who failed to squelch such a revolt. This would give the Roman leaders motive for getting rid of Jesus. But that is another story. Instigation for his death came from the Jewish religious leaders, and we should consider the things he actually did that disturbed them enough to provoke such violence.
a. He discredited the religious leaders. Reread his castigation of the religious leaders in Matthew 23:1-28. He denounces their corruption, their hypocrisy, and their ignorance in the harshest of language. Pharisees were the respected authorities of Jesus' day and his condemnation of their leadership knocked them off their pedestals. Many of them must have been sympathetic with the Pharisees because of their long tradition in the religious law and their "special connection" with God. Their position and very livelihood was threatened. Imagine how clergy today would react to a personal attack on their authority and position if they were exposed as Elmer Gantrys or similar to some of the fallen television evangelists.
b. He undermined the religious law. Jesus not only broke Jewish Law, but also said things that would seem to weaken its authority, such things as: "The sabbath and law were made for people; people were not made for the sabbath and law." He and his followers did things -- "harvested grain" and healed on the sabbath -- that was disrespectful of Jewish Law, culture, and tradition. When you undermine trust in the sacred, you are meddling with people's faith. Consider the history of translations of our Bible. New translations, such as the Revised Standard Version in the '40s and '50s, constituted blasphemy for many and created significant anger. When historic criticism suggests parts of our Bible are myth, and some passages contradict other passages, the response may be scathing. Knowing this, it seems reasonable the people would be upset when Jesus quotes the Old Testament Law several times (Matthew 5) and proceeds to suggest changes. He was dangerous to their faith.
c. He claimed religious supremacy. Of course, such a claim would give credence to everything he said and did. He accepted identification with the Messiah, which would have been considered blasphemy in his day and warranted his death.
d. Would we be offended? Would similar attacks on our religious institutions and traditions go unrequited? Could we tolerate criticisms of our Bible quietly? Anyone making the claims about himself or herself today that Jesus made, would be considered a charlatan. Any accompanying miracles would be considered phony magic tricks. Yes, we would be offended or disturbed. While, hopefully, we have matured as a society beyond the point where we would harm the messenger, we do not always accept criticism and new truth gracefully. With the help of biblical study, much prayer, and using our imagination, the church needs to consider the unpleasant truths that Jesus might have for us today. It could only be for our good, but would we, too, become angry?
The idea that anyone would want to kill Jesus is preposterous. He did only good things. Think how he healed people, bringing them immense relief from suffering and inconvenience; how he was concerned for the poor and unfortunate; how he was always kind and loving. Crowds often would gather around him making it difficult for him to find time to eat or rest. On one occasion, he had to get out in a boat away from shore because they pressed about him. He almost had to sneak away to get a break. They loved him. Certainly no one would want to hurt such a good person, the one we call the Son of God. It is true the local Roman authorities were worried, that with his popularity, he might instigate a Jewish uprising against Rome. In such a case, Rome might replace the local government representatives who failed to squelch such a revolt. This would give the Roman leaders motive for getting rid of Jesus. But that is another story. Instigation for his death came from the Jewish religious leaders, and we should consider the things he actually did that disturbed them enough to provoke such violence.
a. He discredited the religious leaders. Reread his castigation of the religious leaders in Matthew 23:1-28. He denounces their corruption, their hypocrisy, and their ignorance in the harshest of language. Pharisees were the respected authorities of Jesus' day and his condemnation of their leadership knocked them off their pedestals. Many of them must have been sympathetic with the Pharisees because of their long tradition in the religious law and their "special connection" with God. Their position and very livelihood was threatened. Imagine how clergy today would react to a personal attack on their authority and position if they were exposed as Elmer Gantrys or similar to some of the fallen television evangelists.
b. He undermined the religious law. Jesus not only broke Jewish Law, but also said things that would seem to weaken its authority, such things as: "The sabbath and law were made for people; people were not made for the sabbath and law." He and his followers did things -- "harvested grain" and healed on the sabbath -- that was disrespectful of Jewish Law, culture, and tradition. When you undermine trust in the sacred, you are meddling with people's faith. Consider the history of translations of our Bible. New translations, such as the Revised Standard Version in the '40s and '50s, constituted blasphemy for many and created significant anger. When historic criticism suggests parts of our Bible are myth, and some passages contradict other passages, the response may be scathing. Knowing this, it seems reasonable the people would be upset when Jesus quotes the Old Testament Law several times (Matthew 5) and proceeds to suggest changes. He was dangerous to their faith.
c. He claimed religious supremacy. Of course, such a claim would give credence to everything he said and did. He accepted identification with the Messiah, which would have been considered blasphemy in his day and warranted his death.
d. Would we be offended? Would similar attacks on our religious institutions and traditions go unrequited? Could we tolerate criticisms of our Bible quietly? Anyone making the claims about himself or herself today that Jesus made, would be considered a charlatan. Any accompanying miracles would be considered phony magic tricks. Yes, we would be offended or disturbed. While, hopefully, we have matured as a society beyond the point where we would harm the messenger, we do not always accept criticism and new truth gracefully. With the help of biblical study, much prayer, and using our imagination, the church needs to consider the unpleasant truths that Jesus might have for us today. It could only be for our good, but would we, too, become angry?
