S. Our Lord's First Visit to Jerusalem

OUR LORD’S FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM Scriptures: John 2:13-25; John 3:1-21. TEXT: Jesus went up to Jerusalem. John 2:13. John alone gives the history of our Lord’s first visit to Jerusalem after entrance on His public ministry. Indeed, John is the only gospel historian who was an eye witness of the facts narrated. Matthew, Mark and Luke were not yet disciples. So far as the records explicitly testify, only five of the twelve Apostles subsequently ordained have as yet made the acquaintance of Jesus. Nor does it appear that all these five follow Him regularly as yet. So early in His ministry in this visit to Jerusalem you may count on the fingers of one hand all the important events that have yet occurred 1. That wonderful event at His baptism-the visible descent upon Him of the Holy Ghost, which marked Him as the Messiah, Christ, Anointed One, and thereby accredited His mission. “Him hath God the Father sealed.” 2. His temptation by the Devil immediately following this bestowment of His credentials. Here the Second Adam, not in a paradise of delight, but fasting in a wilderness, with no companions but wild beasts, triumphs over the conqueror of the first Adam. True, this was but the skirmish before the decisive battle which was fought later in that “hour of the power of darkness,” which constituted the only “crisis of this world”; yet was it more than a prelude? It was the promise and pledge of ultimate victory. 3. The witness of Him as the Messiah by John the Baptist, who saw His credentials bestowed (John 1:19-34). 4. The gathering to Himself, as the preliminary step towards permanent organization, His first disciples out of the material made ready for Him by the ministry of the Baptist (John 1:35-51). 5. The manifestation of His glory by His first miracle at the marriage at Cana, of Galilee. These five events, while so few, are all stupendous and significant. To the sight of some they rent from top to bottom the veil of obscurity which years of seclusion had wrapped about the supernatural phenomena of His birth. Never more to these enlightened ones can He be a private man. Retirement and seclusion are ended forever. From henceforward till death drops the curtain He is conspicuously before the public. Each event, in its order, is a revelation whose shining makes Him yet more conspicuous to an ever increasing circle of interested spectators: (a) To John the Baptist when visibly sealed with the Spirit and audibly attested by the Father. (b) To Satan when foiled by Him in the temptation. (c) To the angels who ministered to Him as Satan’s conqueror. (d) To the now transferred disciples of the Baptist when John focused on Him all His own “burning and shining light” while bearing the startling and dramatic testimony: “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!” (e) To His own disciples when He drew them to Himself by supernatural wisdom and bound them faster by supernatural love. (f) To all who witnessed that beginning of His miracles when they saw the instant transmutation of one hundred and thirty-three gallons of water into wine. (g) To His own consciousness as He more and more irrevocably committed Himself to the hazards, labors and responsibilities of so great a mission. To all these He must now ever be the most conspicuous man in the world. But mark how few were yet enlightened, how remote from great centers the scenes of enlightenment. The sealing as Messiah was witnessed by the Baptist only. The temptation was known only by Satan, by Himself and the angels. The wilderness testimony of John identifies only to a very few disciples. The miracle was wrought in an obscure Galilean hamlet. These had not yet brought Him before the nation, much less the world. But now a decisive hour approaches. The passover is at hand. He must attend this long-famous national feast with the thousands of Israel. He must go up to the Holy City. Jerusalem is not the wilderness, nor yet a Galilean village. There is the temple wrapped in the memories of many centuries. There the Sanhedrin, the supreme civil and ecclesiastical court of the nation. There rabbis, priests, and scribes. There the tribes themselves, by hundreds of thousands, are gathered from the ends of the earth in attendance upon the annual feasts and sacrifices. There, too, are Pilate and his Roman cohorts in the impregnable Tower of Antonio. Moreover, at this time the temper of the people is dangerous. Jerusalem boils like a seething caldron. John’s ministry had set the wilderness on fire. All men were musing in their hearts as to the import of this “burning bush in the desert.” How profoundly he had stirred the popular heart appears from the fact that the rulers had deemed it expedient to send to him an official deputation to take down his testimony as to himself. “Who art thou? What sayest thou of thyself? That we may give an answer to them that sent us.” That deputation had but recently returned, bringing the startling report that while John disclaimed being the Messiah himself, he yet positively affirmed that the Messiah had come. He had seen Him. Had baptized Him. Had witnessed heaven’s bestowal on Him of His Holy Ghost credentials. That he, John, great as they might think him, was not worthy even to loose the latchet of the sandals of the one baptized. Who, at such a juncture of expectation, dare to utterly discredit the testimony of such a witness? Are not the people goaded to despair and lashed to fury by Roman insult and oppression? Is not the very air Messianic? Then come these rumors flying on swift wings from the wilderness and from Galilee and filling the Holy City with strange stories of one Jesus! John organized nothing. This young man was an organizer. He already had a devoted following, which was ever increasing. John did no miracle. Report credited this young man with miraculous power. John claimed nothing for himself. This young man made startling claims. He claimed ability to read the heart, of man as an open book. He talked familiarly of God as His Father. He openly avowed a supernatural mission. His bearing was majestic while gentle, winning hearts while imposing respect. He accepted the highest honors as His right. His teaching was simple, direct, heart-convincing, not tortuous, involved and incomprehensible. He speaks with authority and decision, and not as one balancing probabilities and leaning on the crutches of tradition. Who is He, where is He, will He visit the city, what is His attitude toward Pilate, toward Herod? Such were the times. Hence this first visit of our Lord to Jerusalem, after entrance on His public ministry, is one of surpassing interest. The interest then centered in one burning question: “In what character will He introduce Himself and His mission to the Holy City?” To us so long after the event, other questions, equally important, must follow the first, such as (a) Was that particular presentation deliberate? That is, was it predetermined in view of all the possibilities that might have followed a different presentation? In yet other words, was there clearly before Him and rejected by Him another way, as one chooses an alternative? (b) Did later developments of Himself and His doctrines correspond to that introduction? That is, did that first announcement of Himself and His mission forecast all the future, laying down with precision a foundation so exactly broad enough and deep enough in fitting and upholding all subsequent teaching and developments as to furnish a demonstration that from the beginning He built unswervingly in all after life according to a thoughtfully prearranged plan? (c) Finally, were these initial characteristics of His kingdom immutable as well as vital? That is, do they now, after a lapse of two thousand years, best supply the needs of humanity? Are they yet so binding in obligation on those who profess His name that even a modification of them is treason, and such treason as deprives the traitor of power with men and the favor of God - such treason as nails on His brow God’s judgments and burns on His heart God’s curse? These are four questions this sermon proposes to answer. These answers, if true, settle forever the question of His divinity and His title to all men’s adoration. After earnest pleading for divine help, let us reverently address ourselves to a consideration of the several questions in their order 1. In what character did Jesus of Nazareth introduce Himself on His first visit to Jerusalem after entrance on His public ministry? The whole history of the case is in John’s Gospel extending from the thirteenth verse of the second chapter to the twenty-first verse of the third chapter (John 2:13-25; John 3:1-21). Here are only three notable things (a) His purgation of the temple, with the consequent discussion. (b) The working of unspecified miracles, with the effect thereof. (c) The interview with Nicodemus. These events constitute His introduction. Simple as may be the story to any reflecting, philosophical mind, it becomes the more astounding the more it is studied. First, the negative aspects of this introduction, viewed from any standpoint of His mere humanity, are more than startling-they are incomprehensible, inexplicable. It was directly contrary to all popular expectation. It was directly contrary to all popular desire. It was directly contrary to all worldly ambition. There was not a man on the face of the earth wise enough to have anticipated it. It was directly contrary to all human nature. No demagogue, no selfish man, no ambitious man, no mere man as we know man, could have done as He did under the circumstances. He smote the Jew instead of the Roman. He struck the patriot instead of the tyrant, the holy temple instead of the Tower of Antonio. He not only refused to ride into power on a popular wave, but rebuked the tide that would uplift Him. He even refused to commit Himself to the faith His own miracles excited. Second, the positive aspects of this introduction are even more marvelous than the negative. 1. His introduction was strictly according to prophecy, though no contemporary had been spiritually-minded enough to expect the event before its fulfilment. Right where the prophetic lines of light from David, Haggai and Malachi, focus, there He stood illumined. Haggai had foretold the coming of the “Desire of all nations” while the second temple was standing, and had intimated that the glory of this inferior building should be greater than the glory of Solomon’s unparalleled and lamented temple, because the Messiah Himself, and not a symbolic cloud, should stand within its courts (Haggai 2:3-9). Malachi had expressly predicted that “the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.” But that His coming should be as a purgation so terrible that none might abide His coming. As gold and silver are purified by fire, so would He refine in the heat of the crucible the sons of Levi and perfect an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. Instead of delivering them from external enemies, he would be “a swift witness,” against their inward sins and pollutions. David had foretold that in this work of purification so self-consuming would be His spirit that it would be said: “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,” and “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” Malachi had connected with this coming of the Lord this marvelous prophecy: “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.” (See Haggai 2:6-9; Psalms 69:8-9 Malachi 1:11; Malachi 3:1-5.)These are wonderful prophecies. The call for the coming of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple would constitute its glory. That He would come suddenly. That He would come as a purifier. That His kingdom would be internal and spiritual. That His zeal in the work of purification would be a fire that would consume Himself and alienate His own brothers, the children of His own mother. That the temple would be destroyed. That it would no longer be a sin to offer incense (worship) elsewhere. That every spot on earth would be a temple. That the whole world-all the Gentiles from the orient to the occident-would magnify His name. It is impossible to read John’s short and simple story of His first visit to Jerusalem and the consecutive events, particularly the purgation of the temple and the interview with Nicodemus, and fail to see the wonderful fulfilment. We clearly see also the full answer to the first question: In what character did He introduce Himself and His mission? He introduced Himself as divine, as the messenger of the covenant, as the Lord. He claimed authority to purify that Holy Place. He claimed omnipotent power, the ability to raise the temple in three days. He announced His kingdom as spiritual. A new and heavenly, and spiritual birth was essential even for the most elated Jew to see or enter it. That the human side of this regeneration was simple faith in Him. That as an object of faith He must be lifted on the Cross. That in three days He would rise from the dead. That this resurrection constituted the one great sign of His divinity and Messiahship. That God loved all the world and not the Jews only. That “whosoever,” whether Jew or Gentile, accepted Him received eternal life. That whosoever rejected Him received eternal death. That He was light. That no man would refuse to come to the light unless his deeds were evil and he dreaded exposure to the light. That all human destiny and all final judgment turned on man’s treatment of Jesus. What an announcement of Himself and His mission! Let us now consider the second question 2. Was this particular presentation of Himself and His mission deliberate? The term “deliberate” implies not only previous thought, but also the judicial weighing of the argument in favor of alternative propositions, and a decision which, while choosing one course, rejects another. Now, that Jesus of Nazareth had so deliberated, had considered all the possibilities that might arise from pursuing a different line of conduct, had been subjected to the force of all possible motives prompting that other course, had peremptorily repelled these motives, had rejected with emphatic decision all overtures in that direction and had predetermined to do just what He did do. This is as clear as sunlight from one single fact - His temptation in the wilderness. The Devil himself, the arch-tempter of man, with all possible tact and seductiveness, had put before Him the self-pleasing and apparently feasible plan of making Himself the hero and leader of that Jewish patriotism, now at white heat, and by easily gathering an aroused nation under His banner, become more than a second Judas Maccabeus or Joshua, overturn the Herod dynasty, repel the Romans, and on the rising wave of conquest advance to universal empire. He showed Him within reach “all the kingdoms of this world and’ the glory of them.” Just so in the world’s history he has often unfolded to vaulting ambition universal monarchy. Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman chiefs yielded to his seductions in ancient times. Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar and Bonaparte could tell the story of the power of such temptation. It is idle for us to deny that Jesus was so tempted. Vainly may we split hairs in the dispute whether it was a case of “Non posse peccare” or “Posse non peccare.” “He was tempted in all points like as we are.” He had a genuine humanity. He was susceptible to all human impressions and necessarily liable, as a substitute for His people, as a Second Adam, to all possibilities. The temptations were genuine and forceful. His internal purity and moral and spiritual power of resistance constituted the only breakwater against the threatening flood. He must win as man, or fall. It was no fictitious struggle. It was no painted battle. It was intensely real. Over and over again it brought Him to His knees. And once, later, it brought the “bloody sweat” and wrung from His pallid lips the cry: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” and yet later that most awful shriek: “My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” Unquestionably Jesus rejected the temptation to establish an earthly kingdom. Unquestionably he predetermined, before he entered Jerusalem, to run counter to all popular expectations and desires; counter to all worldly policy, ambition and interest, and pre-determined to let alone Herod and the Romans and to establish a spiritual kingdom with spiritual subjects, a kingdom that should not “consist in meat and drink,” should not consist in earthly pomp and pageantry, but a kingdom within men, a kingdom of “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,” a kingdom “not of this world,” coming “not with observation,” a kingdom “the weapons of whose warfare were not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.” He has never understood the life of Jesus who has overlooked the deliberate election always made by Him when alternative propositions or alternative lines of conduct were before Him. The decision of Jesus made Him our great exemplar: “Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the Cross, despising the shame.” Let us now approach the third question 3. Did that first presentation of Himself and His mission forecast all the future developments of both? Or did it lay a foundation so exactly broad and deep, fitting and upholding all subsequent teaching as to demonstrate a complete prearranged plan? A young man of thirty years of age may have decision of character. He may deliberately make an election of alternative propositions. We find among the great conquerors of earth decision of character in early life. But this question inquires concerning a matter too far-reaching and comprehensive for any immature mind. An affirmative answer implies a degree of prescience that itself suggests another question: Was this a mere man? What Jew of His circumstances, what man of His times could have at that age formulated such a plan? But leaving such questions to take care of themselves, we look at the facts of His subsequent life and inquire: What later doctrine finds not here its root? What later superstructure, however heavy, broad and high, finds not here a fitting foundation? Here is the announcement of a spiritual kingdom. Here is regeneration as a prerequisite of citizenship. Here is “God so loved the world.” Here is justification by simple faith in Jesus. Here is condemnation through unbelief. Paul’s highest doctrines are here. Here is the forecast of the destruction of the Jewish polity. Here is death on the Cross. Here is resurrection on the third day. Here is that resurrection as the one supreme sign and verification of His Messiahship and divinity. Here is the forecast of the fall of the wall of partition and the ingathering of the Gentiles. When the last apostle laid in the wall of doctrine the last stone of revealed teaching, underneath that stone was this foundation. So there was prescience. So there was a prearranged plan. So the architect had drafted a finished plan before he began to build and provided the exact place and correlation of every stick and stone. What this answer signifies as to the dignity and character of Jesus of Nazareth I leave you to determine. We come now to the last question 4. These initial characteristics of His kingdom, so announced on His first visit to Jerusalem were they immutable? That is to say, now that two thousand years have passed away, do they yet best supply the needs of humanity? Have they waxed old? Has the nineteenth century outgrown them? Have modern culture and criticism provided something better? Is it now treason to modify them somewhat in view of time’s mutations and latter-day progress? This is a serious question every way. Let us get at it by subdivision. And you, O People of Waco, answer each interrogative detail (a) Shall we cease to preach a spiritual kingdom? Shall we go back to the limitations of place and ritualism? Shall we substitute formalism and hypocrisy? (b) Shall we cease to make the New Birth a prerequisite to citizenship? Shall men now find an open door once closed to Nicodemus? (c) Shall we no longer say, “God so loved the world”? (d) Shall we cease to glory in the Cross, “the Son of man lifted up”? Shall we abandon vicarious atonement? (e) Shall we surrender justification by faith? (f) Shall we establish worldly-minded, pleasure-loving, God-forgetting city churches? (g) Shall we surrender the doctrine of the resurrection? Or in one question: Shall we remodel the gospel? To all these questions this congregation would return a unanimous “No!” Indeed, “the old-time religion is good enough for us.” Never before in this world’s history was there as much spiritual religion as now. Humanity needs just such doctrines as Christ first announced in Jerusalem nearly two thousand years ago. The whole world is hallowed ground. No longer at Jerusalem or Samaria do men confine and localize their worship, but “everywhere incense is offered unto his name” and “from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same his name is great among the Gentiles.” Yes, it would be treason to even modify those initial characteristics of His kingdom. On the brow of every such traitor is nailed the condemnation of God, and in his heart burns God’s curse. And now, gathering up all the details of this discussion, I embody them into one question: Seeing that this Jesus so introduced Himself and His mission to Jerusalem, not forgetting the times and circumstances, and seeing that this introduction was deliberate, having refused an alternative any other man on earth would have accepted, and seeing that thus early He forecast all future developments of Himself and doctrine, and seeing that after nearly two thousand years have rolled away, these initial doctrines yet best supply human needs, then what manner of man was this?