Sermons

Matthew 21, Devolving Rejection of Christ pt. 3

Intro: Knowing it’s impossible for someone who is an unbeliever (a natural man) to understand Truth, begs: “Why ever bother telling anyone @/X?”

• What are you supposed to talk about?
  • Say what Jesus would say.
  • Is this really helpful?
    • How know what Jesus would say?
    • Or not say in situations?

 

• Expecting to: “Talk like Jesus” surely raises the bar too high?
  • What X would say, is speaking Truth in love.
  • What Jesus modeled over and over again.

 

• When tempted, questioned, accused, inquired of, Jesus always directly or indirectly grounded his responses in Truth.

^ESV  John 8:31-32 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, ³² and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (Joh 8:32 ESV) (Joh 8:31 ESV)

[Quote] Been said: “Don’t fight people, fight for truth.”

• Speaking truth based in humility, Spirit-led heart, otherwise you (not Truth) become the offence.
  • X must be the Skandelon (cff. Matt. 21:42; 1 Peter 2:8; Is. 8:14), people stumble over.
  • Not you.

 

^ESV  1 Peter 2:8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (1Pe 2:8 ESV)

 

• Our mission is faithfulness to the truth.
• Leaving outcomes to the Lord.

 

• Lord performs invisible heart surgeries; we as the Lord’s attending physicians.

 

[TRANS] X is moving through conversations of rejection.    

 

[Prop] Five devolving rejections and five hopeful receptions of Christ.

1. Racketeers vs. Innocents (vv. 12-16)

 

2. Apostates vs. Believers (vv. 17-22)

 

3. Frauds vs. Authentic (vv. 23-27)

 

1. Questioning Jesus’ real authority

[KEY] Tuesday/Wednesday of Passion week; Jesus returned to the Temple.

• Possibly in court of the Gentiles.
  • Day before, X ransacked Temple (cff. vv. 12-17).
  • X, 2^nd David, standing on Solomon’s Porch.
    • Heated, public accusation leveled.
    • X misperceived and under attack.

[KEY] Religious group, unnamed, no less formidable.

• Doubtless under Caiaphas and Annas; serving concurrently @/time.
  • Aftermath @/cleansing temple,
    • W/no doubting X’s demonstrative powers.
      • Clearing 100,000 people for smearing God’s name.
      • Space designated for holiness/”house of prayer.”

 

• X’s power begs question of origin of X’s power.
  • Accused of being demonic.
  • Otherwise from God.

 

• 3 years before, X displayed same power, cleansing temple (cf. Jn. 2:13-22).
  • John 2:18, same level of power, prompting Jews to ask, “What did this sign mean?”
  • No mistaking X’s power.

[KEY] Know X’s headspace having cursed the fig tree is Israel’s hypocrisy.

• Healthy on outside, nothing but leaves.
  • Temple meant as refuge and call for nations and house of prayer.
    • Instead, a scam.
    • Bad witness.

 

• Disciples by contrast called to exercise faith in God, praying view of God’s will (cf. vv. 21-22).

[KEY] Pharisees cannot understand what this means, or who Jesus really is.

• Blind, hardened to X, assuming all he’s done; who he is, is blasphemy.
  • So, they publicly question his authority.
    • Cannot deny him or affirm him.
    • Only recourse: Question his power source.

 

[Appl] Like someone saying, “Where do you think you’re coming from?” “Why do you wave that Bible in front of my face?”

[KEY] Always only 2 bases of authority – both at war – illustrated in this question.

• Man-made religion vs. the Truth.
  • Might seem unrelatable to real life scenarios if you put yourself in Jesus’ situation.

[Appl] You might think, I’m not sure the last time I’ve been in a religious Temple (cult or otherwise), being questioned over my beliefs.

Broadening your perspective, everyone is religious. Everyone, always vacillating between worshipping self or God.

Unbelievers face the challenge of self-validation based on self-made religious tradition. Not all formal, most are not.

 

Most base their goodness “Self.”

 

Secular humanism is appears as a nonreligious worldview rooted in science, philosophical naturalism, and humanist ethics. Instead of relying on faith, doctrine, secular humanists use compassion, critical thinking, and human experience to find solutions to human problems.

 

Also, growing culture of “Woke” religion.

[Illus] I was in Chickaloon, visiting Kingdom Air Corp. addressing their bush pilots training for the mission field. Director was introducing me, telling a story of one of their pilots who went to the village as a missionary. The superintendent (also designated himself as a preacher) in village addressed the group first, and preached a Woke gospel.

At this point in his story, the director of Kingdom Air, stopped and turned to me asking me to define the meaning of Woke.

I said, it is a victim culture, where you come to believe you have always been under oppression from elites. I believe creates a culture of laziness, using excuse of being wronged, so unwilling to work. Woke culture is nothing new having a long history, now rebranded, Woke.

If you bring the God’s Word with its authority, stating all are image-bearers, no matter ethnicity, or hard life circumstances, all born in sin-cursed world, all sinners, all in need of Savior, all accountable to work and provide, for God’s glory. God who calls us his Master.

If you claim the Bible’s message, people will invariably question, “Who do you think you are?” or “By what authority do you say these things?” “Where are you coming off!”

    

1. Questioning the fraud’s fake authority

 

1. Turning the tables

[KEY] X turns the tables, asking a question with a question (v. 24).

• Instead of playing into their hands, X’s tests their spiritual condition.
  • Exposing them.
    • Pulling out their state of heart.
    • In no way, defending self.

 

[Appl] Witness, won or lost in how you either make the accusation about you or Truth.

 

If choose to take bait, making the inquiry personal, even for defensible reasons, you will spiral outside of Christ’s witness.

 

^ESV  Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Rom 13:14 ESV)

 

Key is to be like X and rise above the confrontation.

Goal is never to win the argument but to draw a person’s soul out onto the table, for the Lord to work. He will either soften or harden this heart.

 

“I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I will tell you by what authority I do these things” (v. 24).

1. Taking it down a level

[KEY] X diffuses the intensity by putting the focus on John (v. 25).

• John, forerunner of X.
  • DA Carson: Malachi’s preparatory Elijah.
    • John, affirmed as prophet in “all Jerusalem and Judea was coming out to.”
    • John’s “baptism” was a sign of repentance, which means heart conversion.

 

• Coming for baptism was defecting from religious center.
  • Scribe’s and elder’s traditions, cult.

[Illus] If church went wholesale against the Woke system.

• X’s query is simply one of authority.

 

• X’s authority questioned becomes X’s redirect to John’s authority.
  • John’s authority is same as X’s authority.
  • If acknowledge John’s authority, then you will affirm X’s authority.

[Question] “Did John’s authority to preach the Kingdom of God, preach X as Lamb of God, calling all to repent, come ‘From heaven or from man’” (v. 25).

• Exactly where Jesus wants them to be, face to face with God.

[Appl] Always interesting that Jesus did not confront people in terms of himself.

Think he would say, “Do you realize whom you are questioning?” Why not? Jesus is obviously well within his rights to judge them on the spot.”

The answer is grace.

Offering for them to consider John instead of Jesus was creating a level of margin for people to consider his message rather than their personal offense with Jesus. I

n our case, we do this by bringing people to God’s Word, the truth. Speaking the truth in love to people is our way of removing ourselves from being the offense, while introducing truth.

Easier said than done. The call to make disciples is always within a Word-based approach. Think of how Jesus, when attacked by Satan, referred over and over again to the Word of God. “It is written” “It is written” “It is written.”

Jesus’ philosophy of evangelism is that “if you know the truth, then the truth will set you free.” This is either freeing or enslaving to others based on what’s happening inside someone’s heart. Is God’ granting repentance or not?

[App] Practically speaking, when you make a personal attack or inquiry about the truth, you are engaging in high stake’s warfare. The highest stakes.

We are called to contend earnestly for the faith. To fight the good fight of faith. To destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

We are called to “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh.”

^ESV  Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Rom 13:14 ESV)

All measures are meant to be X to others, taking the focus off of yourself, putting the focus on X.

Bringing people to X is not the same as winning people to X but to bring them before the throne for God’s immediate judgment. Either softening or hardening which should have nothing to do with you. Your job is to get out of the way, with demands yielding to the Spirit’s control. Yes, we desire X to set people free, but have to leave the results to Him.

 

• Building the crossroad

“And they discussed if among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven, he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’” (v. 25). “But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet” (v. 26).

[App] Temptation when people refuse to believe in Jesus, to let them off the hook, believing they are just ignorant.

Temptations to rationalize unbelief. “They would believe in Jesus if they could simply understand the Bible.” The temptation is to blame your approach, your timing, your ability, or inability to communicate the Bible, your presentation being too high browed. All of which primarily are never the case.

Whole organizations, mission’s groups, youth outreach groups, denominations, etc. will water down the Gospel to try to make it understandable, relatable, and non-offensive enough for people to grab onto it.

Let’s strip repentance out. Make it all-inclusive. Make it only grace with no accounting for sin. Never mention Hell or make that agnostic. Or let’s add to the Gospel so there is something inspirational to it.

Gospel is family-life, social justice, Christian nationalism, racial reconciliation, all of which people will easily latch onto which confuse the real message and the true call to follow Jesus, wholesale without conditions.

[KEY] X confronted their sin, when making their question about John’s origin, his basis of authority, which is the same as X’s message.

• Was John from God or not?
  • Exposing motives for fraudulent questioners.
    • Motive, the popular vote from the masses.

 

“If we say, ‘From heaven, he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?” (v. 25).

 

• Words, self-indicting, they understood the logic of what was going on.

 

[Appl] Again, do not underestimate what’s going on inside people when you evangelize them. Weighing implications of believing in X or not. If I give my whole heart to X, then this will cost me what I am not willing to let go of.

 

[Appl] One of the most discouraging settings I have had is when people confess to me full understanding of what X calls them to do and they say, I understand but am not yet willing to do what he says. [Examples in High School friends, to today’s counseling office].  

[KEY] Logical to follow Jesus and believe.

• Logical to believe the message of John, but not willing.
  • Obvious that they put no stock in believing in him.
  • Motives resting on political standing and power.

 

• At the same time, another motive rises to surface, in verse 26.

“But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet” (v. 26).

• Clear, they are “afraid” φοβούμεθα (Mat 21:26 BGT).
  • What so many are unwilling to admit.

 

[Appl] Fearing man is one of the chief reasons people will not follow God’s Word, will not follow Jesus with their life.

 

• The crowds “…all hold that John was a prophet” (v. 26).
  • This version of fearing man was strangely wound up in political popularity.
    • The popular message now was that John was God’s messenger, so maybe not sold on Jesus but fully sold on John.
      • But to hold John as a prophet was one step closer…
      • to holding to John’s message which was Jesus is Messiah.

 

• Leaders, stuck bc/could not undercut John the Baptist.
  • Massive crowd there: (Jews and Gentiles, possibly most public, @Solomon’s portico).
  • Could not deny John.

 

1. Accepting a cowardice response

[KEY] Not wishing this response to come from anyone you truly love but it will come.

• Verse 27 says, “So they answered Jesus, ‘We do not know” (v. 27).
  • This is fear-based cowardice.
  • The question is, “did they or didn’t they not know?”
    • In one sense yes and in the other no.
      • John said he was from God, so they could have given a superficial assent to this claim,
      • Or, they could have wholesale rejected John and Jesus together.

 

• The issue was not intellectual but moral. And spiritual.

[KEY] Dilemma for you is being willing to leave people in their dissonance.

• Exactly where Jesus left them.
  • Jesus’ response to them is “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things” (v. 27).

[Appl] When attacked it is easy to shift into a fleshly state of mind, saying, “I want to win!”

• We are called to live for higher purposes, Jesus’ purposes, not our own.

 

• Jesus’ chief purpose was to glorify his Father and to follow his will, so when personally challenged, he found a way to bring his accusers face to face with their true motivations. Then perceive whether God the Father was intervening.
  • Accusers did not care about Jesus’ authority but their own.
    • By bringing his accuses face to face with truth.
    • They had to deal with what they would win or lose by responding to truth.

 

• They played the coward.
  • And Jesus’ response was to leave them right where they were.
    • Not doubling down (at this point).
    • Allowing them to wrestle with their own dilemma.

[JC Ryle] It is a melancholy fact, that dishonesty like this is far from being uncommon among unconverted people. There are thousands who evade appeals to their conscience by answers which are not true. When pressed to attend to their souls, they say things which they know are not correct.

They love the world their own way, and like our Lord’s enemies, are determined not to give them up, but like them also are ashamed to say the truth. And so they answer exhortations to repentance and decision by false excuses.

One man pretends that he “cannot understand” the doctrines of the Gospel. Another assures us that he really “tries” to serve God, but makes no progress. A third declares that he has every wish to serve X, but “has no time.” All these are often nothing better than miserable equivocations. As a general rule, they are as worthless as the chief priest’s answer, “we cannot tell.”

[Speaking of an unbeliever] We may be tolerably sure, that when he says, “I cannot,” the real meaning of his heart is “I will not”…The ruin of thousands is simply this, that they deal dishonestly with their own souls. They allege pretended difficulties as the cause of their not serving X, while in reality they “love darkness rather than light,” and have no honest desire to change.  

Conclusion: There are incredibly disconcerting headlines these days.

Trans rabbi’s wanting people to make spiritual connection w//Gen Z’s?

Leaving the truth brought to bear on questions like these.

Don’t solve it, just say, let God solve it.