Closet Followers Of Jesus
Sermon
It's strange how easy it is to condemn people if you think of them as a group. Some of the groups which are often open for condemnation are gays, prostitutes, lone parents, youth, and so on. It's as though any member of that group is coloured by the characteristics of the entire group, cannot be seen as an individual and is therefore all bad.
The Bible appears to condemn the Pharisees - as a group. I grew up through my days in Sunday School and church, assuming the Pharisees to be wicked people. Most of the time they certainly receive a bad press in the Bible, and Jesus seemed to reserve his harshest judgement for the Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, and it seems he preferred to spend his time with other groups such as thieves, prostitutes, and sinners, rather than with Pharisees. On those occasions when he did mix with Pharisees socially, such as when he went to supper with Simon the Pharisee, Jesus criticised them.
Yet to believe that the Pharisees were totally bad is to believe a half truth. The Gospels were written in retrospect, long after Jesus died, and each gospel writer had his own agenda. Matthew's gospel was written for a Jewish audience, and he was at pains to point out that the old Jewish religion was misguided and the new Jewish religion, that of Jesus, was right. So he lost no opportunity to point out the wickedness and error of the old Jewish religious authorities. And John's gospel was the latest to be written, at a time when Christianity was beginning to separate from Judaism and emerge as a distinct religion rather than as a Jewish sect, so he too tends to verbally abuse the Pharisees in order to highlight the superiority of Christianity.
In fact, the Pharisees were on the whole, good people. They followed a very strict religious code, and that religion determined their conduct, for it coloured the whole of their life. The Pharisees were never a huge party, but they had a great deal of support from the common people who tended to be very sympathetic to their ideals.
Throughout hundreds of years of war and defeat, the philosophy of the Pharisees had served Israel well. They were very nationalistic, and their exacting views of the law held the nation together. When Israel had trouble maintaining its identity, the Pharisees began schools to educate the young. It was the Pharisees who tithed their income, so that through the synagogue the poor and the sick would receive care. And it was the Pharisees who were the evangelists, who went out to convert Gentiles to Judaism.
The Pharisees worked to define boundaries which would allow Jews to live safely before God. This was the basis of their very strict adherence to the letter of the law, an adherence which frequently brought them into conflict with Jesus who tended to ignore the letter of the law in favour of its spirit. And paradoxically, it was the Pharisees' very adherence to God's law which caused such distortion in their practice of their religion.
But not all Pharisees fitted into this distorted mould. Nicodemus, who is only mentioned by name in John's gospel, seems to have been a good, gentle, open-minded Pharisee, who came to Jesus by night. So often the Pharisees are portrayed as trying to trap Jesus by their questions, but it's clear that Nicodemus' question was genuine.
The Pharisees were expecting a Messiah, but Jesus failed to meet their expectations. He wasn't sufficiently religious. How could anyone who ignored the very law on which Judaism was so carefully built, be the promised Messiah? So at this stage Nicodemus the Pharisee may not have identified Jesus as the expected Messiah. But he did at least recognise him as a rabbi, a spiritual teacher.
Nicodemus comes across as a much more cautious and thoughtful character than Jesus' immediate disciples. The moment Jesus called, they left their nets and their livelihood to follow him, but Nicodemus needed to test the water first. He wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing before he threw in his lot with Jesus.
Is caution such a bad thing? Is it always necessary to plunge straight into something new? People are sometimes led to believe that they should make a sudden and urgent commitment to Christ. But perhaps it's also OK to take things slowly, to consider carefully before making a commitment which might later be regretted. Jesus was very accepting of Nicodemus. He didn't tell him he must decide now or reject Christianity forever, but spent time with him answering his questions and leading him to greater depths. Jesus never put Nicodemus under any pressure to become a disciple.
In fact, it seems Nicodemus never became more than a closet follower of Jesus until after the crucifixion. It was only after the death of Jesus that Nicodemus discovered his faith was so deep that he asked for the body of Jesus to be taken down from the Cross and given into his care. That was a courageous statement, considering that it was his own people, the religious authorities, who had caused the execution of Jesus.
People come to faith and grow in faith at their own rate. There's nothing to be gained by trying to force or persuade people into faith, for in the end, people must make up their own mind. Emotional pressure may well lead to a decision for Christ, but a decision that may not stand the test of time.
Like Nicodemus, those who have not spoken for Jesus are not necessarily against him. Many people are in the Nicodemus position of just looking, of finding out for themselves, of hesitating over making a commitment, of coming to Jesus by night. Jesus welcomed Nicodemus as he welcomes everyone who has genuine questions to ask.
When the time was right, Nicodemus was precipitated into an open acknowledgement of his faith - by the terrible event of the execution of Jesus. God has his own way of using life events to precipitate us into taking steps which we might otherwise never take.
Jesus told Nicodemus that he would have to be born again. What he actually said was, "born from above," but Nicodemus misunderstood since the Greek adverb Jesus used could mean "again" or "from above." Jesus didn't dismiss him because he was stupid, or even draw attention to his mistake, but used the occasion to gently offer Nicodemus further instruction.
What did Jesus mean by "you must be born from above"? Perhaps Nicodemus was a typical child of his religion, a typical Pharisee. Perhaps he followed very closely the letter of the law, because that was how he believed you grew close to God, but he had to learn that a relationship with God was not dependent on the following of the law but was something quite different.
"The wind blows where it will," said Jesus. Similarly, God's spirit can't be boxed in by legalism or by simply following the rules. Like the wind, God's spirit goes where it chooses and often finds out hidden nooks and crannies which are unnoticed by those whose stick rigidly to the rules.
No-one can determine when or where God's spirit will appear. Those who wish to build a relationship with God, need to ask him to come into their lives, then open themselves to all possibilities and take the risk of following where they think he's leading, even when they're not sure whether they've got it right. Then they'll know what being "born of the Spirit" really means.
The Bible appears to condemn the Pharisees - as a group. I grew up through my days in Sunday School and church, assuming the Pharisees to be wicked people. Most of the time they certainly receive a bad press in the Bible, and Jesus seemed to reserve his harshest judgement for the Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, and it seems he preferred to spend his time with other groups such as thieves, prostitutes, and sinners, rather than with Pharisees. On those occasions when he did mix with Pharisees socially, such as when he went to supper with Simon the Pharisee, Jesus criticised them.
Yet to believe that the Pharisees were totally bad is to believe a half truth. The Gospels were written in retrospect, long after Jesus died, and each gospel writer had his own agenda. Matthew's gospel was written for a Jewish audience, and he was at pains to point out that the old Jewish religion was misguided and the new Jewish religion, that of Jesus, was right. So he lost no opportunity to point out the wickedness and error of the old Jewish religious authorities. And John's gospel was the latest to be written, at a time when Christianity was beginning to separate from Judaism and emerge as a distinct religion rather than as a Jewish sect, so he too tends to verbally abuse the Pharisees in order to highlight the superiority of Christianity.
In fact, the Pharisees were on the whole, good people. They followed a very strict religious code, and that religion determined their conduct, for it coloured the whole of their life. The Pharisees were never a huge party, but they had a great deal of support from the common people who tended to be very sympathetic to their ideals.
Throughout hundreds of years of war and defeat, the philosophy of the Pharisees had served Israel well. They were very nationalistic, and their exacting views of the law held the nation together. When Israel had trouble maintaining its identity, the Pharisees began schools to educate the young. It was the Pharisees who tithed their income, so that through the synagogue the poor and the sick would receive care. And it was the Pharisees who were the evangelists, who went out to convert Gentiles to Judaism.
The Pharisees worked to define boundaries which would allow Jews to live safely before God. This was the basis of their very strict adherence to the letter of the law, an adherence which frequently brought them into conflict with Jesus who tended to ignore the letter of the law in favour of its spirit. And paradoxically, it was the Pharisees' very adherence to God's law which caused such distortion in their practice of their religion.
But not all Pharisees fitted into this distorted mould. Nicodemus, who is only mentioned by name in John's gospel, seems to have been a good, gentle, open-minded Pharisee, who came to Jesus by night. So often the Pharisees are portrayed as trying to trap Jesus by their questions, but it's clear that Nicodemus' question was genuine.
The Pharisees were expecting a Messiah, but Jesus failed to meet their expectations. He wasn't sufficiently religious. How could anyone who ignored the very law on which Judaism was so carefully built, be the promised Messiah? So at this stage Nicodemus the Pharisee may not have identified Jesus as the expected Messiah. But he did at least recognise him as a rabbi, a spiritual teacher.
Nicodemus comes across as a much more cautious and thoughtful character than Jesus' immediate disciples. The moment Jesus called, they left their nets and their livelihood to follow him, but Nicodemus needed to test the water first. He wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing before he threw in his lot with Jesus.
Is caution such a bad thing? Is it always necessary to plunge straight into something new? People are sometimes led to believe that they should make a sudden and urgent commitment to Christ. But perhaps it's also OK to take things slowly, to consider carefully before making a commitment which might later be regretted. Jesus was very accepting of Nicodemus. He didn't tell him he must decide now or reject Christianity forever, but spent time with him answering his questions and leading him to greater depths. Jesus never put Nicodemus under any pressure to become a disciple.
In fact, it seems Nicodemus never became more than a closet follower of Jesus until after the crucifixion. It was only after the death of Jesus that Nicodemus discovered his faith was so deep that he asked for the body of Jesus to be taken down from the Cross and given into his care. That was a courageous statement, considering that it was his own people, the religious authorities, who had caused the execution of Jesus.
People come to faith and grow in faith at their own rate. There's nothing to be gained by trying to force or persuade people into faith, for in the end, people must make up their own mind. Emotional pressure may well lead to a decision for Christ, but a decision that may not stand the test of time.
Like Nicodemus, those who have not spoken for Jesus are not necessarily against him. Many people are in the Nicodemus position of just looking, of finding out for themselves, of hesitating over making a commitment, of coming to Jesus by night. Jesus welcomed Nicodemus as he welcomes everyone who has genuine questions to ask.
When the time was right, Nicodemus was precipitated into an open acknowledgement of his faith - by the terrible event of the execution of Jesus. God has his own way of using life events to precipitate us into taking steps which we might otherwise never take.
Jesus told Nicodemus that he would have to be born again. What he actually said was, "born from above," but Nicodemus misunderstood since the Greek adverb Jesus used could mean "again" or "from above." Jesus didn't dismiss him because he was stupid, or even draw attention to his mistake, but used the occasion to gently offer Nicodemus further instruction.
What did Jesus mean by "you must be born from above"? Perhaps Nicodemus was a typical child of his religion, a typical Pharisee. Perhaps he followed very closely the letter of the law, because that was how he believed you grew close to God, but he had to learn that a relationship with God was not dependent on the following of the law but was something quite different.
"The wind blows where it will," said Jesus. Similarly, God's spirit can't be boxed in by legalism or by simply following the rules. Like the wind, God's spirit goes where it chooses and often finds out hidden nooks and crannies which are unnoticed by those whose stick rigidly to the rules.
No-one can determine when or where God's spirit will appear. Those who wish to build a relationship with God, need to ask him to come into their lives, then open themselves to all possibilities and take the risk of following where they think he's leading, even when they're not sure whether they've got it right. Then they'll know what being "born of the Spirit" really means.
