Jesus was addressed as Rabbi, which means Master or Teacher. How good of a teacher was Jesus?
The popular conception of Jesus' teaching is the parables. Most people believe these are simple little stories to illustrate some moral truth. Several years ago, a popular newspaper columnist (who was also a Sunday School teacher) claimed that Jesus was indeed a great teacher because he revealed profound spiritual truths with simple, easily grasped stories that all men could understand. Nothing could be more wrong.
The parables of Jesus did illustrate profound spiritual truths, to that I will agree. But they were not easily understood. Or else, why did the apostles ask him to explain them? They asked why he always spoke in parables and not plainly. His answer was that it was to conceal the mysteries of the kingdom from the masses but to reveal them to his disciples (Matt. 13:10-17).
Nor do I believe that Jesus' teaching was confined to a few parables. He taught by example; he taught by correcting misconceptions; and he taught by reproof when a disciple's attitude was wrong. I wish to illustrate the last statement with the following incident:
And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village (Luke 9:51-56).
No doubt the brothers James and John had in mind the prophecy of John the Baptist who said that the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. They also had what they thought was a valid precedent in the incident of the prophet Elijah who called fire down on his enemies (2 Kings 1:9-12). In their way of thinking, here was as good a time as any to baptize with fire. Of course, one can see their racial prejudice, for the Samaritans were considered offscourings by the Jews.
The attitude displayed by James and John was characteristic of their personality, apparently. Jesus surnamed them Boanerges, which means, "The sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17). Other incidents reveal the two men as aggressive--for example, they desired the best positions in the kingdom for themselves (Mark 10:35-45).
Jesus rebuked them for their belligerent attitude towards the Samaritans. He pointed out that it was better to save men than to destroy them. Well, so he said. And so they heard. But based on my own experience, merely telling one about his mistake has little effect. The chances are very good he will not listen to you. Ingrained traits, no matter how wrong, are nearly impossible to eliminate without some outside help.
Therefore Jesus' lesson did not end that day. As Paul Harvey would say, "and now for the rest of the story."
In the eighth chapter of Acts, we read of a great persecution against the Christians in Jerusalem. Saul of Tarsus was one of the chief instigators, having Christians arrested and put in prison. He was present at the stoning of Stephen, one of the seven deacons that had been appointed by the apostles, giving his consent to his murder. In such a climate, many of the Christians fled for their lives into other provinces of Israel and into Asia Minor. However, they continued to preach the good news of Jesus Christ. One of these was Philip who was also one of the seven deacons.
Philip began his evangelistic labors in the city of Samaria, preaching Christ and working miracles.
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. . .
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8 12-17).
There are some Christian denominations today who teach that one can only get the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands of an apostle, using this incident to support their doctrine. And, since the apostles are all dead, no one today can receive the baptism of the Spirit. Still others believe in "apostolic succession," that is, there must be an unbroken line of "laying on of hands," or ordination, beginning with the apostles and reaching down to the present day. No, a thousand times no! God can't be shut up in petty little rules of that nature. It is quite obvious that doctrines of this sort are designed to permit the "clergy" to seize and maintain power over the people. (Pardon me, but it needs to be said.)
The moral we are to derive from the Samaritan revival is simply that Jesus wanted to convince John of the truth of his statement, "I came not to destroy men's lives but to save them." So, instead of baptizing those Samaritans immediately with the Holy Spirit after their confession of belief and baptism as happened in other situations, the Lord postponed the event until John arrived on the scene to witness it. As John stretched forth his hands over the Samaritans, the Holy Ghost, not fire, fell upon them from heaven. There is no doubt in my mind that John understood very well indeed what his Master was telling him that day.
But the lesson was still not finished. On the Isle of Patmos, John received a series of visions, the "Apocalypse," that is, the "Revelation of Jesus Christ," which he wrote down. The word "fire" occurs 25 times in the Revelation. All but two or three occurrences refer directly or indirectly to the destruction of the wicked--and even these exceptions may be more apparent than real. John does not paint a pleasant picture. He saw the enemies of God being tormented in fire and brimstone unceasingly; and he saw the damned cast into a veritable lake of fire. So far as I can determine, John was the only one to see the wicked consumed with fire. Peter and Paul both stated the fact but nowhere is it recorded that they actually saw it happen (in a vision) as John did.
Once more, I can easily visualize the reaction of John as he saw those horrible things enacted out in the visions. Surely, he must have at last understood what Jesus meant when he said, "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
John was a "Son of thunder." Did you know that the word "thunder" appears in the New Testament something like 12 times, and, with the exception of Mark 3:17 where Jesus gave John that appellation, all occurrences of the word appear in John's writings! Most of those occur in the Apocalypse in connection with the awful doom of the wicked. Did John relish the prospect of the destruction of his enemies?
In chapter 10, John receives a little book out of the angel's hand, which he "eats." It was sweet as honey to his taste--but his "belly was bitter." I believe that little book contained the curses pronounced upon Babylon the Great, the archenemy of the church. As John first understood them, he rejoiced. Later, as the realization finally registered of what that destruction actually meant, he was overcome with melancholy and distress.
Thus did John continue to learn from his Master years after He had ascended back to the Father. The lessons Jesus taught his apostles were those very difficult lessons of basic human relations: mercy, compassion, patience, long suffering, kindness, and gentleness. That he was a good teacher goes without saying. John, whom he nicknamed Son of Thunder, became known as the Apostle of Love.