Evidence for the Deity of Christ
Five Conversational Studies on Matthew’s Gospel
by David Gooding
Matthew's Gospel contains intriguing narratives that reveal many unique references to the deity of Lord Jesus. David Gooding explores these narratives, highlighting the seemingly paradoxical moments when the deity of the Lord shone through, often following Peter's mistakes. He also draws attention to the confession of a Roman centurion, and the Jews' role in spreading the news of the empty tomb, underscoring the varied perceptions of Jesus as the Son of God. By delving into this material, we can have a richer appreciation of Matthew's Gospel and its unique insights into the deity of Christ, thereby deepening our faith and enriching our understanding of the New Testament.
Available Formats
Read
1: The Way of the Lord
Matthew 1:1–4:22
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight."' (Matt 3:1–3)
It is very generous of you to give up your time this Monday morning, my dear brothers and sisters, to come and help me in the understanding of holy Scripture. What I have proposed for our studies is that we could look at the narrative sections of the Gospel by Matthew.
Matthew has a very orderly way in writing down his material, and he has a number of collections of our Lord's teachings. In chapters 5–7, the Sermon on the Mount; in chapter 10, the detailed briefing of the apostles; in chapter 13, the parables of the kingdom; in chapter 18, regulations about the church; and then subsequently in chapters 24–25, the prophetic discourse. By and large, those things have been very thoroughly expounded in the commentaries, so I would like us this week to look at the narrative sections that intersperse those great collections of teaching.
We shall ask ourselves what is the point of the narrative; what are its general themes, if indeed those narratives have any general themes. They might, of course, simply be things that happened, and Matthew decided to include them in between his collections of teaching; but I will start out with the assumption that there may be some general themes that are important for the full understanding of the Gospel. I have set a very heavy programme, but we are not under any laws to complete it, and I am in your hands as to how fast we travel.
Let's begin this morning with the first four chapters with which Matthew opens his Gospel before he proceeds in chapters 5–7 with the great Sermon on the Mount. Notice how carefully he has selected his material. To borrow the phrase that John the Baptist himself borrowed from Isaiah 3, the general theme of these first four chapters might well be said to be the preparation of the way of the Lord. In the Study Notes, I have simply listed for your convenience the eight major stories and the major elements in those first four chapters.1
Historical preparations: Stories 1–4
First, the great preparations that God made in the course of history to prepare the way for the coming of his Son into our world. Matthew will tell us about the tremendous miracle of the incarnation of our blessed Lord: the visitation by God to our planet.
Moral and spiritual preparations: Stories 5–8
In Stories 5–8 we have explicitly the preparation of the way of the Lord, not so much historically as morally and spiritually.
First Matthew gives us two stories relative to the birth of the Lord Jesus.
Story 1: Physical generation
The genealogy of our Lord (1:1–17): preparation of the way of Messiah depending on physical generation along the human chain of our Lord's ancestors—'Abraham was the father of Isaac . . .'.
Story 2: Supernatural generation
The actual conception and birth (1:18–25): preparation depending on supernatural generation—'[Mary] was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit'.
Two stories, then: the first relates to the physical generation that prepared the way of the Lord; the second to the supernatural, but still physical, generation—the natural and the supernatural.
Stories 3 and 4: Opposition
Stories 3 and 4 go together. They tell us that when our Lord Jesus was born into this world he met with opposition.
Human opposition
Story 3: There was a false king upon the throne; his name was Herod (2:1–12). Though he consulted Scripture and professed to be willing to worship the new Messiah, his heart was filled with murder and he became a veritable anti-Christ. That's going to be interesting, in the light of Israel's history, both past and future.
So we have the coming into the world of our Lord as Messiah, called the Christ, David's son; then the human opposition through Herod, who was in his day a great anti-Christ.
Story 4: Then we have the reaction of our Lord's parents to that opposition (2:13–23). They withdrew into Egypt until Herod was dead and the angel instructed Joseph to return to Israel. Being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: 'He shall be called a Nazarene'. His living in Nazareth, therefore, came about because of the opposition.
Stories 5 and 6: The ministry of John the Baptist
Story 5: John is calling the people to prepare the way of the Lord, and to get ready for the coming of the Messiah (3:1–12).
Story 6: John baptizes Jesus (3:13–17).
Two stories, then, about the ministry of John the Baptist.
Stories 7 and 8: More opposition
Satanic opposition
Story 7: The story of the temptation, where now our Lord is opposed not by some human king, but by the devil himself (4:1–11). His purpose was to oppose and, if possible, destroy the Son of God at his coming
Story 8: Then we have the reaction of our Lord to that opposition (4:12–17). When Jesus heard that John had been arrested he withdrew into Galilee. Again, what you might call a tactical withdrawal in light of the opposition.
Two further remarks about those eight stories
Physical descent from Abraham
In Story 1, until you come to the last link everything in that genealogy depends on physical descent from Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob; . . . and Jesse the father of David the king (see 1:1–6). All down those verses, for fourteen generations, everything depends on physical descent from Abraham. Obviously that is regarded by Matthew as exceedingly important, or he wouldn't have spent time talking about it.
But look at Story 5. When John stands to address the people, and calls upon them to prepare the way of the Lord, he tells them quite plainly, 'Do not presume to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father", for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham' (3:9). Now physical descent from Abraham counts for absolutely nothing. Interesting that, isn't it? We've now got two sides of the story.
Quoting Scripture
In Story 3, when the wise men came to Herod, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?' (2:2), Herod consulted the Jewish authorities. They got out the Scriptures, and quoted, 'It is written thus, and thus, and thus' (see vv. 5–6).
Notice that Herod professed his intention of coming to worship the Lord. 'Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him' (2:8).
In Story 7, when the devil came to Christ, our Lord replied likewise by quoting Scripture: 'It is written' (4:4, 6–7, 10). One of the major temptations offered by the devil to the Lord Jesus was, 'I'll give you all the kingdoms of the world, if you will fall down and worship me' (see 4:9).
When we eventually come to those stories, they will be linked in our minds. So this is where I ask you to help me make sense of these facts. We've had only the superficial facts so far, so let's take them in order and allow me to ask you some questions.
The genealogy: why is it important?
In chapter 1, the first seventeen verses of this great Gospel are given over to the genealogy of our Lord: his physical descent from Abraham and David. Why is that important? Some of you have already gone out as missionaries. I'd be interested to know if the first thing you said to the people was, 'Now look here, you must get hold of the genealogy of our Lord. He was descended from Abraham and David'. And if you didn't, who would you find it important to tell this to? Would you tell it to your neighbour next door?—'I'd like you to know the gospel, my dear friend. First you must get hold of this: our Lord was descended from Abraham and David.' Does it really matter? And, if it does, why is it important? Who would you preach this kind of thing to, and what would you be doing if you preached it?
[Audience]: To the Jews. Matthew had to prove to them that Jesus Christ was a son of Abraham—'And in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed' (Gen 22:18).
[DWG]: In other words, the coming of the Lord Jesus was a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and promise?
[Audience]: It establishes his right to the throne, too.
[DWG]: So, this would make sense to Jews. But if you were talking to atheists, and they don't believe the Old Testament, is it worthwhile quoting it?
[Audience]: Is there any difference between the genealogy in Matthew and the genealogy in Luke? (See Luke 3:23–38.)
[DWG]: Ah, Mr Wilson2, sir, I'm sure there is, and I have laboured long sometimes to understand it. What do you feel the difference is?
[Audience]: Would it be that in Matthew it's a genealogy of Joseph, and in Luke it's a genealogy of Mary?
[DWG]: Yes, that would be interesting.
[Audience]: The legal marriage between Joseph and Mary established our Lord's right, as the son of David, to sit on the throne.
[DWG]: Our Lord was born of Mary and Joseph wasn't his father. So, when Joseph marries the Lord's mother, our Lord becomes his rightful heir? You feel that Matthew concentrates on the legal side in the genealogy because it's going to present our Lord as the king; so why does Luke concentrate on Mary's genealogy?
[Audience]: Luke is depicting for us, not so much the king, but his true humanity as the son of Adam.
[DWG]: May I press you a little bit more? If the genealogy in Matthew proves to an orthodox Jew, who believes the Old Testament, the legal right of our Lord to the throne of David, is this Scripture completely relevant to people who don't believe the Old Testament?
[Audience]: I understand that in [ad] 70, when the temple was burned, all the genealogical records were destroyed.3
[DWG]: That's interesting.
When John is talking to the people in Story 5, physical descent from Abraham is irrelevant. 'Don't you begin to say we've Abraham for our father, that's neither here nor there.' Why? Because John is talking there about moral things—the need for repentance on the part of the people—and it doesn't matter who you are. Whether you're descended from Abraham, David or whoever, that counts for nothing in the sight of God. But in the genealogy in Story 1, physical descent is everything, and it seems to me that, even to our atheist friends, the matter is of great evidential value.
Anybody who's got the wit can invent a philosophy; you don't have to be all that clever. Some of them are a little bit crazy; but if you're a Wittgenstein or a Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche or somebody, you can invent a system of philosophy. And if you want to, anybody can start a religion. Simon Magus started a religion (Acts 8:9–24). No end of folks have started a religion. Anybody with a bit of imagination and advertising ability, who's not slow in coming forward and praising themselves and so forth, can start a religion.
You see, if Christianity were a philosophy, the evidence that it is true would lie here in one of these aspects. However great and clever you are, you cannot arrange to be born of the line of David or as a descendent from Abraham. Israel is a fact among the nations whether you believe the Old Testament is inspired or you don't. It is a matter of history: you can read the prophecies about Abraham's seed and David's son many times in the Old Testament. It was written before Jesus Christ was born, and nobody can deny the fact that he is descended from that special movement in history. That seems to me to be one fundamental evidence of the truth of Jesus Christ our Lord. It reminds us at the very start that Christianity is not just a philosophy or a religion. Christianity is the final flowering of this tremendous movement in history that is Israel, and in particular the line of David.
If my atheist friends say, 'What evidence have you that Jesus Christ is the Messiah?' I ask them if they have read Genesis. If they haven't, I say, 'If you haven't read the evidence, how can you say that you're prepared to be scientific and interested in history? Why don't you start reading and collating the historic facts with the actual fulfilment in Jesus Christ our Lord?'
That seems to me to be very important, because nowadays in our modern world we do have a tendency, at least in some circumstances, to treat Christianity as though it were merely a religion, and in modern Britain very often as ethics. We even have the Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher] quoting the Bible, which I suppose isn't a bad thing for Prime Ministers to do. But, you see, when people regard Christianity as ethics, then they say, 'Well, the Muslims say the same, and the Hindus say the same, and anybody with any sense in their heads, they all say the same. We should all try to be good and do good, and we should recognize how all religions are really saying the same thing.'
But Christianity isn't just a religion, is it? It is a full flowering of this tremendous movement in history, and one of the evidences for the existence of God.
The three divisions in the genealogy
Why does Matthew feel it is important to tell us that from Abraham to David there were fourteen generations, from David to the exile fourteen generations, and from the exile to the coming of Jesus the Messiah fourteen generations? I say very reverently, 'So what?' Have you ever got anybody by the collar and said, 'Now, look here, you must get hold of this: there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David'? Have you ever done that?
[Audience]: It's amazing that the Jews haven't thought about that. They know the story of creation in six days, and on the seventh day God rested. They know only too well the law of Moses: 'six days you shall labour' (Exod 20:9); and that on the seventh they should rest. Now Matthew has six sets of seven generations. When Christ came at the start of the seventh, you'd have thought they would have expected it—and it's now been six thousand years up to our day. As you say, you can't choose to be born a Jew. Neither can you choose what generation to be found in, so it's significant that the Lord came at the commencement of the seventh generation. It's an amazing thing.
[Audience]: Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba certainly weren't of the very best reputation, but then you have Ruth who was the exception.
[DWG]: She was a Gentile, wasn't she?
[Audience]: Weren't all four women Gentiles?
[DWG]: Oh, do you think Bathsheba was a Gentile, perhaps?
[Audience]: I thought she was, but I may be wrong.
[DWG]: She was a Hittite. And what would you deduce from that? Is some principle involved?
[Audience]: It demonstrates the grace of God, for one thing.
[DWG]: Mr Wilson points out that some notorious sinners are omitted; and then some who were 'afar off' are included.
We've had the importance, then, of the physical descent: the genealogy establishing one of his credentials; and the importance of the natural generation from Abraham through David to Joseph.
[Audience]: Before we move on, would you like to show us the significance of the three sets of fourteen?
[DWG]: I think I would start, perhaps, by looking at the moral and spiritual reasons why Israel's history is divided.
What was God doing with Israel?
1. From Abraham to David
He put Abraham and the nation through tremendous experiences. It wasn't just a question of physical generation, was it? Abraham was the father of Isaac, but behind that physical generation lies a tremendous lesson that God taught Abraham, and has taught millions of folk ever since. First and foremost, it was the basic lesson of justification by faith, and eventually justification by works and the promise of the inheritance. So it wasn't just a question of physical generation. Having called Abraham out of sheer idolatry, God started a new thing in the world that hadn't been there before: the Hebrew nation. He now began to build into that nation certain major truths about justification by faith and how to be right with God.
I suspect all of us would praise God incessantly for the lessons that he has taught us from that period. The time in Egypt and the question of redemption; the laws of holiness in Leviticus and access into the holiest of all; the warnings of the apostasy in the wilderness; entry into the land under Joshua, possessing the land, having rest of soul; and then the tremendous climax of David the king. Why didn't Messiah come then? Hadn't God taught his people enough lessons? Why didn't David turn out to be the Messiah?
Abraham's seed, Isaac, was a prototype of the Lord Jesus, but he wasn't the Messiah. The great promise to David was, 'I will give you a son, and I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son' (see 2 Sam 7:12, 14). Solomon was only a prototype, and a very poor one in some respects. If David had turned out to be the Messiah, that would have been a very lowly view of the Messiah. A little kingdom of a few hundred square acres in the Middle East, and a king with an old fashioned spear pushing Philistines into the Mediterranean, and things like that. It was preparing Israel's mind for the coming of Messiah, and obviously more lessons had to be learned before they would be ready to conceive of what the Messiah would be. When our Lord came, some people saw the Messiah as nothing other than a super-duper King David, with a stronger chariot and a longer spear, who would go round slitting people's throats and setting up a kingdom.
Some folks still have that concept. Liberation theology says, 'Yes, arm the guerrillas in the name of the church, and go round killing the rich if need be.' Barabbas was probably one of them, and the two thieves who died on the cross weren't simply house thieves, if the term is to be understood as Josephus uses it. They were guerrillas, political activists. In some countries, the church still supports that kind of thing and feels it is the way forward. In the end you've got to use violence and break the structures of society in order to bring in the kingdom of God. They still model themselves on what David did; very literally killing his enemies, but there's something more about Messiah than that, surely?
2. From David to exile in Babylon
At first things on the whole were up and up, with some small lapses. And then it all went down. There was some recovery, but the later kings were poor specimens and the whole thing ended in disaster in Babylon. Why did God allow the Davidic monarchy to be completely swept aside and carried away to Babylon? How can that be a preparation for the coming of the Messiah?
[Audience]: It shows the terrible inadequacy of the other kings.
[DWG]: Yes, of course it does that. But when I talk to my colleagues in university for instance, or even to some Jews, I think I would go on and take my cue from the big prophets, in particular Ezekiel.
I had tea last Wednesday with an elderly Jew in Belfast. He was brought up in Vienna under a Rabbi who taught the Jewish community in Vienna to drop all their Jewish distinctives and live like Gentiles. He said to me, as he often does, 'If it weren't for you Christians, we could have let all this Jewishness go. Why be Jews? It's you Christians who insist that there's got to be Jews, because you are dependent on the Jews, aren't you? With all the trouble for the state of Israel in this modern world, why can't we scrap the whole idea of being Jews? It's you Christians that have kept it up.' He was quite annoyed, actually.
As you know, there are millions of Jews in the world who have been communists and atheists, and to this present day the majority in Israel are not believers in God. Then, if you talk to some people about the Jews, you get their backs up. 'Look what they're doing to the Arabs and the folks in Palestine at the moment. All this idea that one nation is God's favourite, who can possibly believe or accept it?'
What reaction do you find among your unconverted friends when you say, 'Jesus is of the seed of David, a Hebrew, and this Old Testament history is important'? I find a lot of my friends don't like it at all when I say that Israel are the people of God, specially chosen to bring in Messiah as the Saviour of the world. As evidence, my normal attitude to them would be to repeat what the prophets like Amos said: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities' (Amos 3:2). Israel aren't God's spoiled favourites. Think of the fearful sufferings of Israel. The Old Testament prophets are more severe on Israel than any Gentile anti-Semite could be.
God says through Ezekiel that all the nations one day shall know that the reason why Israel went into captivity was not because they weren't his people, and their claim was false. It was because they were his people, and their claim was true (see Ezek 36.) As the chosen people of the real living God, when they sinned he judged them and exiled them to Babylon. When we consider the historical side of the nation of Israel, that seems to me to be a very important part of our evidence for the truth of Christianity.
As you have said, that second period of Israel's history was allowed by God to show their complete inadequacy, and therefore the need of a Saviour. In the end, all that God had done from Abraham to David was ruined by their sin. When all the Israelites were thrown out of Babylon, wouldn't that have been a good time for Messiah to come?
3. From the exile to the birth of Christ
[Audience]: God had started with this plan of taking Israel and making them his people, but they'd so totally failed that he wasn't able to complete the job he'd begun. But in their restoration he'll continue that work, and bring them back in grace.
[DWG]: There's a passage in Ezekiel that runs like this. 'It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord [God]; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel' (36:32). Why will God then restore Israel? Because he has a lesson to teach the nations, to demonstrate to them that Israel are his people after all. They have a unique role in history. It was because of their sins that he removed them to Babylon. It wasn't just that the Babylonians won because they had bigger and better armies; it was because God chastised them for their sins, and to demonstrate that he shall restore them again. In the early history of Israel, through all that time from Abraham to David and from David onward, it was God's demonstration to the nations of a divine intervention in this world.
Imagine if you asked Mr Gorbachev, 'What do you think of the Old Testament: do you believe that God called out Abraham, and Israel are God's chosen people?'
'No they aren't,' Gorbachev would say. 'They may have got that idea into their heads, but look what became of them. The Babylonians absolutely smashed them. In the end what counts is who has the biggest army and the biggest atomic bomb. All this notion that God has had a divine plan in history is daydreaming nonsense.' That's what Gorbachev would say, and millions in the West would say the same thing.
'Israel had to be restored,' says God through Ezekiel, 'to demonstrate to the nations that they went into captivity because of their sin; not because the other nations were especially strong.' They will be restored to show that God is going ahead with his purpose. When the Lord comes, I imagine that Israel will finally be restored for the very same reason: to demonstrate to the world that this great movement is of God. So, if you could show that Israel's history in the Old Testament was a mistake after all, and they weren't the people of God like they thought they were, Christianity would fall.
A lot of folks say, 'We don't bother with the Old Testament. It's enough that Jesus came and taught us the golden rule, to do to others as you would have them do to you. You can take the truth of Christianity even without Israel.'
No, you can't. The great statement of the gospel in Romans 1 says: '. . . the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh' (vv. 1–3). Exit Christianity, if it is not true that the Messiah was descended from David. It is that important.
[Audience]: God is continuing his purposes and will fulfil them.
[DWG]: I was in Czechoslovakia about a month ago and the man in charge of the local religious affairs decided to come to the meeting. I don't think he wanted to learn anything more about the Scriptures than he knew before, but he was coming professedly to make me welcome. He sat himself on the front seat and gave me a whole spiel of welcomes. When my translator found out that I was going to talk about the Lord's coming and the end of the world, he nearly had a stroke. 'Please don't, please don't. Nothing about the Lord's coming or the end of the world.' I had to change what I was going to say. He explained to me afterwards that the communist authorities in Czechoslovakia hold that all this talk about Israel is political. Any talk of Israel and Armageddon and so forth, is an excuse in America for stockpiling atomic bombs against the Russians. All this about Gog and Magog coming up against Israel is anti-Soviet propaganda.
Communists perceive that if this Old Testament story about God's choice and purpose for Israel in the future is true, it carries very big implications for an atheistic interpretation of life. If you look at the story of Israel in the Old Testament and also in secular history, one of the biggest and most traumatic events during the period of the return was the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes. According to Daniel's prophecy, he would set up the abomination of desolation (Dan 12:11). In 167 [bc] he desecrated the very temple of God by erecting an image of Zeus, sacrificing a pig on the altar, and introducing prostitutes into the temple courts. The apostate high priests were hand in glove with Antiochus Epiphanes and his government to turn Jerusalem into a Hellenistic state and deny the specificities of Israel's faith, that Israel was special and Jehovah was unique among the gods. According to them, Jehovah was just another name for Baalshamin.
It was a time of serious apostasy in Israel when the high priests themselves were hand in glove with secularism. Circumcision and possession of holy Scripture were banned, and idolatrous shrines were set up along the streets. If Jewish women had their children circumcised and the authorities caught them, the woman and the child would be thrown over the walls on to the rocks below. The idea was to turn Israel into a Hellenistic city, and the temple of the Lord at Jerusalem into one more idolatrous shrine. Israel claimed that they were the chosen people of God; they served the living God, who was himself present in that temple in Jerusalem. What now comes of their claim, when Antiochus Epiphanes thus desecrates the temple and nothing happens to him?
It was a fearful time, and am I right in saying that the New Testament borrows the language originally used of Antiochus Epiphanes for the great figure that will come in the future? '. . . the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God' (2 Thess 2:3–4). Just as it happened in that third part of Israel's history, when Israel had come back to the land but the Messiah hadn't yet come, so it will happen again when Israel and her leaders make their covenant with the man of sin. It seems to me that it is a prototype of the days yet to come, and the Messiah will not come until the end of that period either.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have been so kind to come along. Thank you very much for your help and contributions. In chapters 1–4, Matthew has been telling us of the things that went into preparing the way of the Lord, showing Messiah's credentials and the opposition against him. As we are dealing only with the narrative portions, tomorrow we shall move on to chapters 8–10, to the series of miracles. What are they doing there? What is Matthew trying to get across? It seems to me to be talking about the nature of Messiah's authority.
[Audience]: Might I just make one comment?
[DWG]: Yes.
[Audience]: When Jerusalem was taken back under Israeli rule in 1967, the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem wrote a remarkable article for Time magazine. He pointed out the difficulties for rebuilding the temple. For it to happen, he said, there will have to be divine intervention.
[DWG]: That's very interesting in light of this initial setting of Matthew. When the true Messiah was born, there was an impostor on the throne. Herod was an Edomite, an Idumean. With the Scriptures in their hands, the authorities were able to advise Herod where the Messiah would be born, but they weren't interested to go and find him. God brought Gentiles with only a star to guide them. They had no Scriptures. While Israel were on the side with Herod, the Gentiles came and found the Messiah. The result of Israel's apathy and standing with Herod at that stage was a small example of the whole horrible story of the genocide of Israel. In order to maintain his own position—to stop this Messiah, and keep Scripture from being fulfilled—Herod was prepared to massacre innocents under two years old. The infant Lord was taken down to Egypt, but it led to Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more (see Matt 2:18). It's reminiscent of that period in Israel's history when mothers and fathers had to see their male children being thrown into the River Nile.
How then shall we find hope in our Lord as the true Messiah?
Israel have yet to recognize him. When I talk to my friend Otto Goldberg in Belfast, he says, 'Where was he when Hitler was gassing six million of my fellow Jews? Anyway, your Jesus is too soft. All this business of forgiving your enemies; you ought to hit them hard when they hit you!' My friend nearly got sent to the gas chambers himself.
What is the way forward? What kind of government and what conditions would you want? Here comes John the Baptist preparing the way of the Lord. Israel did not recognize that the meek and lowly Jesus who suffered at Calvary was their Messiah; nor was he the kind of Messiah they would want. As our Lord said, 'I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him' (John 5:43). To show them that Jesus is indeed their true Messiah anointed by God, and his government is the kind of government that can bring peace to our world, they must first learn the terror of the antichrists, the Herods of this world and the future man of sin. It's interesting to watch events as the stage gets nearer.
In Britain some of the upper crust are getting alarmed, because they've discovered that certain bishops of the Anglican church no longer believe the Bible or the fundamentals of the faith. Partly to show their disapproval, the Prime Minister has ennobled the Chief Rabbi, who now sits in the House of Lords. It's a very interesting phenomenon. Whereas many of the theologians doubt whether God exists, the Jewish Rabbi stands both for the existence of the true God and for the morality of the Mosaic law; though he is still in a minority amongst his people, as the vast majority of Jews are in absolute unbelief.
What happened in Antiochus Epiphanes' time shall be repeated. Matthew's pattern for Messiah's first coming was his natural and supernatural credentials and the opposition that he met; and so it will be again in the future.
Our Father, we thank thee for thy holy word. It stimulates our minds and reaches our hearts; but we praise thee that it is true—these are the true sayings of God. We thank thee for the witness of thy purposes in history. We thank thee for every prophecy fulfilled in thy dear Son. We praise thee for the confidence it gives us that all the prophecies that are in him shall eventually be fulfilled, and as our world hastens on to its terrible crisis we praise thee for the blessed hope that we shall see the Saviour.
Confirm the faith of thy people through thy word, and grant that through the comfort of the Scriptures we may have hope. Make us, we beseech thee, more effective witnesses to the Godless world that lies around us. We ask it through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
1 See Appendix for Study Notes.
2 Mr. T. Ernest Wilson (1902-96), missionary in Angola 1923-1961.
3 The audio quality of many of the questions is not always clear enough to be able to transcribe them in full.
2: Christ and the Authorities
Matthew 7:28–10:42
Thank you my brothers and sisters for coming once more. This morning the portion under consideration is Matthew 8–9, though we may take a glance at chapter 10.
The great collections of sermons and teaching in the Gospel of Matthew are very well known, so what we are doing, as I said yesterday, is looking at the narrative portions to see how they fit into their context, and if they have any leading themes that would help us in our understanding of the word of God and its application in our preaching.
The theme of authority
Now, it seems immediately evident to me that there are two themes running through chapters 8 and 9, and one of them is the theme of authority. Look first at the summary two verses with which Matthew concludes the tremendous Sermon on the Mount: 'And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes' (7:28–29). It is the authority of our Lord Jesus immediately contrasted with the authority of the scribes.
As you know, the scribes in Israel were not particularly the men who copied out the law; they were the expert interpreters of the law, and therefore the people invested tremendous authority in them. But crowds have an uncanny way of being able to distinguish between preachers, and here they were immediately struck by the element of authority in our Lord's teaching. We know from history that the scribes were in the habit of issuing their opinions on the Talmud and the Mishnah, and the Gemara and the Tosefta, and things like that, in the names of former rabbis, rather than in their own names. Our Lord was not; he spoke by his own direct authority, and as we now begin to read these chapters of narrative you will notice how often that term reoccurs.
This is the centurion talking to our Lord Jesus: 'I too am a man under authority' (8:9). He gives examples of the ways he could use his authority to get his soldiers to do this, that or the other. Notice the little words, 'I too', because the centurion had perceived in our Lord Jesus someone who could exercise supreme authority.
Or look at the story of the paralytic in chapter 9, which is also recorded by Mark and Luke: 'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .' (9:6). Some English translations use the word power, but it is the same Greek word, exousia: 'that the son of man has authority'. But see verse 8, where Matthew gives us the reaction of the crowd: 'When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.' In Mark, the reaction of the crowd is given as, 'We never saw anything like this!' (2:12). In Luke, 'We have seen extraordinary things today' (5:26). But here in Matthew, we have this matter of authority repeated: 'When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority'—and then the startling phrase, 'to men' (9:8).
Finally, the opening verse of chapter 10 tells us how our Lord delegated authority: 'And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority . . .'. Now, historically, you will not need me to tell you that this is an exceedingly important concept. Perhaps we're so used to talking of apostles that we don't sit down and scratch our heads and say, 'What on earth is an apostle?' And now, here in the Gospel's historic record we notice that one of the elements of what it means to be an apostle is our Lord's delegated authority (10:1–4).
The theme of following
But in these chapters, along with that theme of authority, it seems to me that we have another theme, which is its correlative. Standing over against our Lord's authority comes the response of the people, and then of his disciples, denoted by the word, 'follow'. As we go through the many instances of this verb in these two chapters, we shall notice that at first it is used in the literal, geographical sense. For instance: 'When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him' (8:1).
We've just been told that they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and their natural reaction was to follow him. That is, they literally walked down the mountain behind him, and kept on walking through the streets wherever he went, perhaps to hear and see more.
It is an interesting study to ask ourselves where in these chapters the literal sense of following begins to pass over into the metaphorical: into the moral and spiritual sense of following the Lord. That is the kind of following that is open to us, for we can no longer follow the Lord geographically. But we sense it in our hearts that to acknowledge the authority of the Lord and the authority of his teaching, is to set up an inevitable reaction. We discover that we are expected to follow that authority, and we want to do so.
In chapter 9, lying central to this part of the Gospel is one verse that has Matthew's own personal signature, like a signature on a painting. How does he describe what conversion means to him? He tells it in terms of this verb, follow. 'As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him' (9:9).
No one would doubt the genuineness of the conversion. It doesn't mention the verbs, believe or trust. It doesn't tell us that Matthew was born again or received eternal life. It doesn't even say he repented; though all those things doubtless were involved. Can you see it happening from Matthew's point of view? He was sitting at the tax booth when this figure, the meek and lowly Jesus, passed by. With divine authority, he said, 'Follow me', and in that moment the chains that bound Matthew to his doubtful occupation fell off, and he got up and followed the Lord Jesus.
So this term follow starts off being geographical. It was so with Matthew: he got up from the table and literally followed Jesus down the road. But you're not going to be content with it merely as a geographical thing, are you? It involves something immensely deeper.
Look with me then, to see how frequently the term is used. 'When Jesus heard this, he marvelled and said to those who followed him . . .' (8:10). So you're thinking of the crowds who are walking down the road behind him. When you come to verse 18, he announces a journey: 'Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side.' Then a scribe comes up to him and says, 'Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go' (v. 19). Still geographically, I suppose, going across the sea; but our Lord begins to lay down terms for discipleship (v. 20). 'Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." And Jesus said to him, "Follow me . . ."' (vv. 21–22).
We now become aware that following the Lord Jesus is not simply a matter of walking down the street, coming down the mountain, just running with the crowd after this new wonder. It begins to involve very serious evaluations of life; a willingness to leave what hitherto had been important, and refocusing life's duties and responsibilities. All of that was involved for these two men, if they would literally follow the Lord. And even if we can't literally follow him down the road, don't we begin to perceive that following him in the other sense is going to involve us in similar readjustments in our sense of life's responsibilities and values and priorities? In Matthew's conversion the verb is used in both senses.
But look back now to chapter 8. The journey having been announced in verse 18 is begun: 'And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him' (v. 23). Well, they still do, don't they? There isn't a better description of discipleship: where he leads us, we must go. Whatever the storms or opposition, we'll confront them on the journey; whatever the decisions about what to leave behind, his disciples, by definition, will follow him.
In chapter 9 things seems to go into reverse. 'While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him . . .' (vv. 18–19). What an extraordinary statement. By itself you wouldn't make much of it—Jairus had to show the Lord the way to his house. But what a spectacle: the Son of God following somebody else. It falls to us sometimes to lead the Saviour to things in our lives and homes that are not as they should be, and not as we would like them to be, and the Lord will wait for us to lead him to those situations.
Finally, for the moment: 'And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David"' (9:27). How difficult he made it for those men to follow him. Can you picture them in your mind's eye? Two blind men crying out to him as he was going along the street, 'Lord, have mercy on us,' and he appeared not to take any notice and kept on walking. Here they were, shuffling down the street, feeling their way and bumping into many obstacles and people; why did the Lord make following such a difficult thing for those blind men? You can answer those questions for me in the course of our later discussions. But now just let me observe one more general thing.
Here on this sheet you have a very rough table of contents. All of us ought to be persuaded to go to the stake for the authority and inspiration of holy Scripture, and I hope God will give us the courage to do so. I don't think I'd go to the stake for saying that this is the only possible analysis of this part of Matthew. It is merely a working device to help us to get a bird's eye view of the contents. You can rearrange it how you please.
At the head of each column you will notice that this matter of authority is raised.
In column one, 7:28–8:4: 'He was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.' When the leper was cleansed, our Lord sent him to the priest to offer what Moses commanded. Moses was the inspired authority on the matter, and when it came to leprosy the priests were the authorities in the land. When it was diagnosed, they made the final decision as to when, if ever, it was cleansed. So, when our Lord cleansed the leper, he doesn't say, 'You needn't bother to go and see the priests.' Acknowledging the authority of the priests, he sent the leper to them.
In column two, 8:18–22: Matthew records the announcement of a journey, which fills the next paragraph: 'Now when Jesus . . . gave orders to go over to the other side. . . . a scribe came up'. Being a scribe, he was an authority on the interpretation of the law, but when he said, 'Master,' he was acknowledging a superior authority. So, it's still this matter of authority.
In column three, 9:1–8: Matthew points out that some of the scribes were there when the paralytic was brought in. As the expert theologians, when our Lord pronounced forgiveness upon the paralytic, they said that he was speaking blasphemy.
So, in column one we have our Lord in the context of the priests, who were authorities in certain areas of Israel's religious experience; and in column three we have our Lord in the context, not of the priests but of the theologians, who charge him with blasphemy. To demonstrate to them his authority to forgive, he uses his power to cure the paralytic and get him walking.
In column four, 9:14–26: there comes a different authority. John the Baptist made and continued to make disciples even after the advent of our Lord. John was not merely a preacher; he was a movement. John's disciples regarded his teaching as authoritative, so that when the Lord Jesus came along and they noticed how his disciples behaved, they began to scratch their theological heads. 'Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"' (9:14). The Lord Jesus seemed to allow his disciples a much less strict discipline.
In column five, 9:35–10:15: there's now the question of apostolic authority. That is an important topic, which we see not only from the Gospels but eventually in the writings of those inspired apostles. When necessary, Paul will stand in his full dignity and speak not merely as a preacher or an evangelist, but with authority as an apostle appointed by the Lord. To receive an apostle is to receive the Lord Jesus, and to reject an apostle is to reject the Lord Jesus.
Demonic activity and a clash of authorities
At the end of each of these columns, please notice two things. First, the recurrence of the emphasis upon demons.
In column one, 8:14–17: our Lord cast out the demons from those who were demon possessed.
In column two, 8:28–34: when they landed on the other side of the lake at the furthermost point of the journey, they were met by two demoniacs who were so fierce that no further progress could be made along the road.
In column four, 9:32–34: there was a demon oppressed man who was mute, and when our Lord cast out the demon, the Pharisees in their anger and envy said, 'He casts out demons by the prince of demons' (9:34).
In column five, 10:24–42: our Lord reminds the apostles that when persecution comes, if the master of the house is being called Beelzebul, the prince of demons, they mustn't expect to be called by any more flattering title.
It doesn't take many seconds to perceive that in these chapters there is a clash of authorities. There is our Lord's authority; and what is ultimately the highest authority, so to speak, on the other side. Not only the demons, but the prince of the demons. The sad and sorry thing is that it wasn't the thieves and the adulterers who ascribed our Lord's authority to the devil himself; it was the religious leaders in their animosity and pride.
Now, that raises a fundamentally important point about the nature and quality of authority. Lots of men have had authority in this world. Alexander the Great died when he was 33 and many of his brilliant generals became emperors of various parts of the ancient world. But even after his death, so masterful was Alexander's authority that it was said of one of them that he could never pass a statue of him without shuddering. Hitler had great authority, didn't he? And of course, in some senses the devil has got great authority too. The scribes and the Pharisees had great authority, and, if you'll tell nobody I said it, even in the history of local churches men have risen up with great authority.
The basis and nature of the authority
Who is going to submit their life to the authority of another without first asking what is the basis, and what is the nature of that authority? It seems to some of our Jewish contemporaries that we have committed ourselves to the authority of an impostor and a blasphemer. How would you defend yourself against that charge? As you see from the foot of two of the columns, Matthew quotes from the Old Testament.
In column one there is a quotation from Isaiah 53:4, which Matthew obviously thinks is appropriate to sum up these acts of supreme authority in our Lord's ministry.
In column three our Lord justified himself to the Pharisees who criticized him, and denounced them by quoting Hosea 6:6.
These things should alert us to the fundamental question of the basis and nature of authority. As I speak to you now, and as you preach, it is with a sense of authority, is it not? You've been preaching for decades and exhorting people by the thousand to heed the gracious invitation that stands central to Matthew's Gospel, 'Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light' (11:28–30).
That, of course, is a kingly word, as you see from passages like 1 Kings
- When all Israel gathered to the newly crowned Rehoboam, they said, 'Your father made our yoke heavy. Now therefore lighten the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke on us, and we will serve you' (v. 4). The young gentleman took advice and instead of making the yoke lighter, in the end he decided to make it ten times heavier. He split the nation from stem to stern. What things you can do by making yokes too heavy.
Up against that our Lord uses the royal metaphor, 'Come to me . . . take my yoke upon you.' With no 'beating about the bush', how do you persuade people to willingly accept what is, after all, a yoke of government? In light of the commission that ends Matthew's Gospel—'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you' (28:19–20)—how do you go about disposing the hearts of your congregations to become disciples in the first place, and then to follow the Lord Jesus and bow to his authority and fulfil his commands?
I kind of imagine that Matthew is telling us some of these stories with a twinkle in his eye, not absolutely convinced that he is simply recording history. I think perhaps he's got his long eye on us. It could be that he's advertising the Lord Jesus and the nature of his authority in order to persuade us to accept it, while faithfully giving us to see what it will involve for us as disciples.
The story of the leper
These sessions are described as conversational Bible readings, so forgive me all that long screed. Now I would like to hear from you. You needn't take any notice of my analysis: it is merely a practical device for giving us a bird's eye view of the contents of this part of the Gospel.
In column one, after certain examples of our Lord's healing ministry, you get an Old Testament quotation summing it up. And then in column two you have a journey: the journey is announced, it begins, and then the journey gets to the other side. With the return journey, other things come to be discussed. I would simply like to know what you normally say about these stories when you preach from them, as I'm sure you have, no end of times. In their context, how would you be faithful to Matthew's emphasis? What do you normally say about the story of the leper, for instance (8:1–4)?
[Audience]: I suppose we could think of leprosy as a type of sin, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.
[DWG]: Yes, that's lovely. Leprosy being a picture of sin; sin causing distance and estrangement; and our Lord cleansing our sin. The actual means our Lord used to heal him is interesting, isn't it? If you saw a paralytic, the immediate thing you'd do is to stretch out a hand, and say, 'Let me give you a helping hand.' Our Lord didn't do that. He just spoke the word and the man got up. And even if we could heal a leper, wouldn't we heal him first and then touch him? Do you think our Lord was right in touching a leper when the law forbade it? What was the authority of Moses on these things? By touching this leper, was our Lord taking no notice of the authority of Moses?
[Audience]: It was a demonstration that the leprosy could not remain in the presence of this greater authority.
[DWG]: Isn't that a gospel message to start with? The law could diagnose you as unclean, but it couldn't clean you. Then, if you should happen to get cleansed you thanked the priest, but he couldn't clean you in the basic sense. He could tell you what sacrifices to offer, but he couldn't cleanse you. Oh, what marvellous authority Christ had. That's a gospel message that would warm your heart, isn't it? You're preaching an authority that is so much bigger than Moses. Not only can Christ tell you authoritatively that you are unclean, he can actually cleanse you.
You can see what the world is now becoming. They tell me that AIDS is going to be a worldwide epidemic. What a dirty old world it is, but we're all tinged with uncleanness and we naturally cringe when somebody comes and exposes it. But the wonder of the gospel is that someone who is sinless and clean can touch us, and instead of contracting 'leprosy' himself, he can banish the uncleanness. If anything could dispose you to accept his authority, I think it would be along that line, wouldn't it?
I'll ask the same question again, but the other way round: this is the opposite side of the coin. Tell me, in touching the leper, was our Lord letting down the standard of Moses? Was he saying that Moses was perhaps a little bit too strict on these things, and now that we understand the psychology of these matters we shouldn't be quite so strict? Witness his compassion for the leper.
[Audience]: The priests diagnosed cases of leprosy in the Old Testament. After Christ had cured the leper, he said, 'Go and show the priest', so the priest became a witness of the healing.
[DWG]: That seems to me to be a very important matter. Our Lord was upholding the authority of that priest, and of the law that was behind him. He's not saying, 'We've come to a more gracious age; God is more loving than he used to be and these things don't quite matter so much now.' He's not undercutting the priest, and it seems to me we still need to do the same. 'Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law', says Paul (Rom 3:31). There is a lot of hot air in many a Sunday sermon. They quote John 8:11, 'Neither do I condemn you'—as though our Lord wouldn't be too hard on a little bit of adultery every now and again.
[Audience]: He went to the cross for it.
[DWG]: That's the gospel, isn't it? Infinite compassion, superior authority, and yet upholding the law. If Christ doesn't uphold the laws of cleanliness don't go to heaven, because heaven itself will turn into the slum that earth has become.
The centurion's servant . . .
That was very helpful. Now, let's move on. Tell me what you normally say about this centurion and his servant (Matt 8:5–13). It's obvious that we have two authorities here.
[Audience]: Thinking of that centurion, my eyes just filled with tears. There are so few people in the world who recognize the Lord. How beautiful his faith was.
[DWG]: Yes, surely. And his faith was in what? He didn't say, 'Lord, I believe that you can forgive my sins.' His faith was founded in our Lord's authority. He saw it as a veritable gospel message. That seems to be important. You see, sometimes we can preach our Lord's authority and it becomes a very forbidding thing. People shrink back in their seats and say, 'If I become a Christian, I've got to submit to that rule. I don't mind the forgiveness of sins bit, but after that I'm not sure.' Whereas, if we were like Matthew we should start off by preaching Christ's authority as a veritable gospel message. It was absolute life to this centurion's servant, wasn't it?
[Audience]: Is there a sense in which an individual needs authority?
[DWG]: Oh, I believe so.
[Audience]: Sometimes young people are trying to kick over the traces, and they really need authority; they want authority.
[DWG]: In Britain, that's a phenomenon to be observed. In the last decade many young people have left ordinary assemblies and churches because they want freedom, and those assemblies and churches were too authoritarian. They formed house churches, and before they knew where they were they had the most rigid, strict pyramid authority that you'd ever meet. Each person was under a 'shepherd' who told them exactly what to do, who to marry, where to go, what job to have, what country to live in. It was the most extreme form of authority, and a lot of people like that because it relieves them of responsibility.
I used to find it in Spain. Young Catholics would come and talk to me, and sometimes I would point them to Romans 14, that there are certain matters which God leaves to our own conscience before the Lord. I thought they'd like that, and say, 'This is marvellous, compared with Rome.' But no, they didn't like it at all. Fancy having to make up your own mind, and bear responsibility for it at the judgment seat of Christ. It was more preferable to go to the priest and get his opinion. If he was wrong, he would have to take the blame for it. Isn't that essentially what Shakespeare's Hamlet meant when he said, 'Conscience doth make cowards of us all'? If it's left to our own conscience to decide, then often we don't like it.
Is there anything else to be said about this centurion? What aspect of the gospel is it? In the case of the leper, it is about the uncleanness of sin and our Lord's superior authority and willingness to cleanse: 'I will; be clean' (8:3). With the centurion, is this also the uncleanness of sin?
[Audience]: The helplessness of sin.
[DWG]: Yes, and how would you preach our Lord's authority in that context?
. . . and the healing of the paralytic
[Audience]: With the paralytic he forgave his sins first, and then he caused him to walk.
[DWG]: Yes, that's chapter 9: an authority that not only tells you what to do, but can give you the power to do it. That's also different from Moses, who told you what to do, but the trouble was he couldn't give you any strength to do it with.
[Audience]: The centurion was also an outsider. He was a Gentile, and yet he was brought into the blessing of God.
[DWG]: Yes, surely. Notice this authority, reducing the distance. The leper was at a distance, and the centurion as a Gentile was at a distance. Our Lord's comment upon it was, 'I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness' (8:11–12). The Gentiles discover the gospel of the authority of the Messiah, while the Jews reject it.
We've had these two examples of authority, but we mustn't stop too long about this. Our Lord was able to cleanse, 'I will; be clean' (v. 3): upholding the law, but superior to it. And if the priest had been an honest man, he ought to have rejoiced with all his heart, and said, 'He's not come here to undercut my authority, and I must admit he is a greater authority than I am.' Not all the priests came to that decision, did they? I've known priests of another sort in Spain. When the young people were going to dances and getting drunk, and all sorts of other things, they didn't bother their heads. But when they got converted and started to live clean lives, they got sorely upset. Curious!
Peter's house and healing those who were sick
Allow me to say a very simple thing about 8:14–17, and about the quotation from Isaiah at the end. This is not profound at all, but I speak now to my brothers, and I have no right because most of you are older than I am. You've preached a beautiful sermon, and then you go out to lunch, but you don't necessarily sit down as the great authority to be waited on, do you?
Authority should be linked to serving others
Peter took the Lord home to lunch. I don't know what his wife said to him, bringing a preacher home to lunch, when his mother-in-law was sick in bed, the household was all upside-down and there was tension in the air and fever around! I am delighted to say our Lord didn't sit there discussing the millennium; he went into the bedroom and took her by the hand. He had authority to bring calm to the servant who had become weak and over anxious and restless and feverish, perhaps as a result of too much work. What a delightful touch this is. His authority first in the home; and then later at sunset, when he cast out demons and healed the sick.
I shall not need to prove to you that the quotation Matthew gives from Isaiah doesn't refer to the atonement. We cannot claim healing through the atonement. What we can claim through the atonement is redemption of the body, which is a very different thing. But what an example here of our Lord's ministry: 'He took our illnesses and bore our diseases'. He comes alongside us in our weakness and puts his shoulder under our load. That's authority for you, and what a magnificent authoritative Lord he is.
The lesson will not be lost upon elders and leaders. How do we show our authority? It is an authority that attaches to elders, for instance. I speak with easy responsibility because I've never been an elder. Our blessed Lord, the supreme authority, was marked by this in his ministry: he came and put his shoulder under the weight and carried the weakness and infirmity. What a gospel message authority is, rightly preached. It's the thing you'll preach to the unconverted, the unclean, the powerless, or to the Christian servant who has become feverish, and to the multitude of the sick and demon-possessed.
The cost of following the Lord
If those first three paragraphs of chapter 8 have been giving examples of our Lord's authority and its graciousness in the sense of his 'easy yoke', what do these final three paragraphs represent? (8:18–22; 8:23–27; 8:28–34.)
I would make the suggestion that between them they put the other side of the story. Authority and the following of discipleship have many aspects, don't they? The crowds were immense, but after the miracles there came a point when our Lord gave a command to depart to the other side (8:18). What did he do that for? Leaving the enthusiastic crowds, he suddenly announced this journey across the sea. It may not have been the purpose, but there was one result as he walked to the quayside to get into the boat. When the people saw he was going, two men (vv. 19, 21), plus another twelve (v. 23) decided to follow.
True discipleship isn't merely receiving from the Lord's hand the gift of cleansing, the gift of power and the gift of peace. When that has happened, the next stage will be our Lord inviting us to follow him on the journey across life's sea. That's what a disciple is: a learner. To learn about the Lord, you must follow him.
Lessons to be learned as we leave the shore (8:18–22)
Two would-be disciples come. One of them has a foot almost on the boat, but neither man is quite sure whether to commit himself one hundred percent. 'We're going to follow you, but there are certain conditions before we let go completely.'
Our Lord's technique, if I may use such an ugly word, was deliberately to leave. There appears to be a certain voluntariness now. Will people want to follow, or will they be content to stay? The lessons have long since been preached about the creature comforts you may lose if you decide to follow, and the fact that there are no prior authorities. There is no question of, 'Let me first do this, or the other,' or anybody having a prior claim. There is no prior claim to that of the Lord Jesus.
Lessons in mid-stream (8:23–27)
And then as we cross life's journey, there is the lesson of our Lord's authority over wind and waves. We have to learn it, if we want peace of heart in the storms of life, don't we? Who is this Jesus? Does his authority extend to the physical powers of the universe? If they don't, we're in a very poor way.
Some people think that if they don't follow the Lord, and don't acknowledge his authority, they will achieve more freedom. That is nonsense. If there's no God, where are they? They are on the journey of life in a little boat on the ocean of time, ultimately at the mercy of wind and wave, cosmic rays, atoms, microbes, viruses and mindless forces. And if there's no God, it is these mindless forces that ultimately control people.
We do journey rather a lot, don't we? I don't know how many thousands of miles we do, going round the sun once in a day; and how many more we travel every year through space on our little boat called earth. What seasoned travellers we are! And the old sun itself is going through the sky, so we're doing a kind of corkscrew through space. Do you know, it's a flimsy old boat, isn't it?
What is it in the end that determines life? Here's a young mother of thirty-five who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. What will the secularist say to her? Perhaps, 'You're a victim, a prisoner of the mindless physical forces of the universe.' I don't call it freedom to be told that some mindless little virus has got into me and is in process of destroying me, and when it has it won't have the brains to know what it's done. Call that freedom?
Oh, what a thing it is to discover the one who has authority over the physical elements of the universe, and even if he allows the boat to go down he still remains sovereign and in control.
Lessons at the furthermost point (8:28–34)
When they landed, the road became impassable because of demonic opposition, which also seems to me a parable of the path of discipleship. If you start following the Lord, sooner or later his satanic majesty will try to make the road impassable. Doubtless, you who are missionaries have seen it on the field many times. Young converts assailed by all sorts of powers until it becomes impossible for them, and mature believers suddenly finding themselves up against a tremendous opposition that ultimately is satanic in its origins.
Our Lord has authority, not merely over the physical elements in the universe but over the spirit powers, otherwise our journey to glory would become impossible. The solemn, absolutely heart-stopping thing is this, that when he had turned out the demons the local people came around and begged our Lord to depart (8:34); and he departed (9:1).
Someone says, 'I thought he was God incarnate. I thought he was the ultimate authority in the whole universe.'
Yes, he is. But the nature of his authority is such that if his creatures ultimately say, 'Go,' he will go, for he is not a tyrant. Whilst it is indescribably majestic, it is also indescribably solemn.
We must now leave any further discussion on these two chapters and then move on tomorrow to chapter 11.
Shall we pray.
Father, we do bless thee for the coming into our world of thine authoritative Son. All power is given to him in heaven and on earth, and we praise thee for the gospel that this is to our hearts.
Lord, now we ask of thy grace that, having long since begun to follow thee, we may nonetheless follow more nearly as the days go by. Prepare us, we do beseech thee, for the lessons that still await us on life's journey, that we may follow undaunted to the end. So appear to us, blessed Lord Jesus, in all the grace and the delight and the gospel of thy Father, that we, in turn, may preach thee and thy authority to the world around.
Remember our younger brothers and sisters. With one thousand and one voices calling them hither and thither, grant us the grace so to expound thy word and so to present thy Lordship that they may be drawn to follow thee, blessed Lord Jesus Christ, in pathways of unqualified obedience.
We thank thee for this time of fellowship together, and ask thy parting blessing and thy peace. Amen.
3: Establishment of the Kingdom and the Final Judgment
Matthew 11:2–13:52
The narrative portion of Matthew that falls to us today is in chapters 11–12\4, though we shall allow ourselves permission to extend our view to chapter 13, which contains the collection of teaching that goes along with it.
This part of Matthew is famous for the gracious invitation that our Lord gives, 'Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest' (11:28). Doubtless all of you have many times expounded those verses to Sunday school and Bible classes, preached the gospel and instructed believers from them.
Now, as usual, I start by surveying the major themes of this section of the Gospel; and it seems to me beyond any doubt that one of them is the question of judgment.
What the Lord Jesus taught about the coming judgment
First of all, the judgment itself. I know you may argue that this is not peculiar to chapters 11–13. You will have observed long since that all the major collections of teaching in the Gospel of Matthew end with a reference to the judgment. That is true of the great Sermon on the Mount, where in chapter 7 our Lord reminds us of the coming time of storm: 'On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness"' (7:22–23). 'On that day' is a solemn reference to the judgment to come, thus ending the three chapters of the famous Sermon on the Mount.
Yesterday we had no time to examine the teaching collection that lies in chapter 10. It is concerned, of course, with the briefing of the twelve apostles as they went forward on their ministry; but it goes quite beyond the immediate circumstance of that early missionary journey. As our Lord briefs his disciples and his own people at large for their evangelistic activities, three times at various stages in the briefing he repeats a solemn announcement prefaced by the words, 'Truly, I say to you'.
'Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town' (10:15). 'When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes' (v. 23). Finally, 'And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward' (v. 42). So, as our Lord briefed his disciples for their evangelistic mission, he reminded them solemnly of the great backdrop against which we always preach, and the final authority for what we say and do.
You will remember yesterday we were considering the dominant topic of authority in chapters 8 and 9. Notice now that, as our Lord delegates authority to his apostles and sends them out to preach, he solemnly reminds them that the coming judgment, when the wicked will be judged and the faithful rewarded, is the ultimate authority that forms the background to all that we say and do.
It is so also in our passage today. The teaching that goes along with the narrative of chapters 11 and 12 is the collection of parables in chapter 13. You remember how that chapter ends with an explanation of the parable of the Weeds, where the weeds are gathered, made into bundles, and cast into the fire (13:36–43). Similarly, with the parable of the Net (vv. 47–50). When it is dragged to the shore the fish are taken out and sorted, and the bad fish are thrown away.
In the fourth great section of Matthew, the collection of teaching that goes with the narrative is to be found in chapter 18, and ends with the parable of the Unforgiving Servant (vv. 21–35), where the servant, who had been forgiven but refused to forgive his fellow servant, has his forgiveness withdrawn and is put into prison, not to come out until the final farthing is paid.
When it comes to the next major section in chapters 24–25, I won't need to point out that the great Olivet Discourse and the parables that conclude it fasten our attention on the judgment to come.
Now, if you find all that exceedingly solemn, I beg you to notice that I didn't write the Gospel of Matthew, and if you would rather that I entertained you with something more pleasant, then you must suggest a topic yourselves on the next occasion.
The question of available evidence
In chapters 11–13 that form the centre of this Gospel, the topic of judgment permeates not only the teaching with which the section ends, but also the narrative as well. Look at 11:20–24, where our Lord begins to upbraid the city where most of his mighty works were done because they did not repent, and he affirms that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment. Again in verse 24, 'But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom than for you.' Or look at 12:36–37, 'I tell you, on the day of judgement people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.' And again, 12:38–42, when certain of the scribes ask him for a sign, and he refuses to give one except the sign of the prophet Jonah, he observes in verse 41, 'The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it.' He repeats the warning in verse 42, 'The queen of the South will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it.' As we have just observed, along with those explicit and exceedingly solemn references that fasten our attention on the coming judgment, we have also the parables in chapter 13, notably those of the Weeds and the Net.
We may notice a little more detail on this topic. In 11:20–24, not only is the judgment referred to, but the procedures of the court are described. Our Lord points out that at the judgment, one of the major questions that will be raised by the prosecution is the question of the amount of evidence that the defendants had at their disposal. It is a common notion that at the final judgment people shall be judged according to their works, and that is very true. But we must not lose sight of this other element of the judgment. The prosecution will raise the question of the amount of evidence that was available on earth to the defendant.
Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum are warned by comparison with Tyre and Sidon and Sodom. Our Lord affirms that if the amount of evidence that was available to Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum had been available to Sodom, the men of Sodom would have repented. Therefore, the gravity of the sentence upon these three Palestinian cities will be heavier because of the greater evidence that was put before them, and therefore their greater sin in refusing it.
Witnesses
Similarly, in 12:38–42, notice an interesting and exceedingly significant detail of the procedure of the court. Witnesses shall be called, for it is nothing but absolutely just and fair.
The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the court to give their evidence against the accused—the verb 'stand up' being a quasi-technical term in Hebrew. Case law shall be cited and the men of Nineveh shall stand up and condemn this generation. A mere Jonah had come, and what a tiny miracle, comparatively speaking, had attended his preaching; yet the men of Nineveh had repented. But as a nation, with the evidence of a 'greater than Jonah', not only of his teaching, but his death and burial, and finally his resurrection, the generation of our Lord's day eventually hardened their hearts and officially rejected him.
The queen of the South shall also be called in evidence. Having heard of the wisdom of Solomon, she came from the uttermost parts of the earth just to hear it. I don't know, ladies and gentlemen, how far you would have gone to hear it. But when it comes to the judgment, some people shall find the queen of the South ranged against them in the witness box, for they had the witness of the incarnate wisdom of God available to them and they couldn't be bothered to cross the street to come and listen to it. These are exceedingly solemn things, aren't they?
People's own words
And then, another form of evidence that shall be brought before the court. 'I tell you, on the day of judgement people will give account for every careless word they speak' (12:36). They shall be held to what they have said. Then, in the parable of the Weeds (13:24–30, 36–43), and the parable of the Net, with its good fish and bad (vv. 47–50), metaphorical terminology is used to describe the actual sentence that shall be passed, and judgment in the sense of the penalty that shall be imposed.
Does God still provide evidence?
But if the final court will thus very seriously concern itself with the question of evidence, that leads us on to another sense in which the matter of evidence lies to the very fore in chapters 11–12. If we are called upon to believe that Jesus is the Christ, to accept the gospel that he offers us and the claims that he made, is there any evidence now for us to consider, or does God just require us to believe in the dark?
I was talking not so long ago to a young Christian gentleman in a communist country. In the course of the preaching I had been speaking about Christian evidence, so I said to him, 'Tell me, do you do much with evidence in your preaching here in this country?'
'Oh, no, no,' he said. 'We don't want people to believe because of their intellect. We rely more on the witness of our Christian lives.'
I said to him, 'It's marvellous, when our lives can speak so loudly for the Lord that others will enquire.'
In that particular country, one of the chief means that God uses is the evidence of the lives of the people through their work in schools and in their universities, not only with the government but with individuals.
I said, 'That's very good, but what would you make, then, of the Gospel of John?'
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30–31)
I pointed out that the word used for miracles here, as we all know, is 'sign', which conveys the idea of evidence. Miracles are evidence that God is putting before people on the basis of which they can make up their minds about the fact that Jesus is the Christ. Of course, they'll need to go further, and consider not only that fact, but, having come to faith in that fact, to take the next step and believe in him and receive eternal life.
I said, 'It seems to me as if God himself is offering us evidence. What do you think? When it comes to anybody believing that Jesus is the Christ, do they do it on the basis of evidence, or is it a step of faith in the dark.'
'Oh,' he said, 'they do it as a step of faith in the dark.'
'That's very interesting,' I said, 'but if there's no evidence either way, how would you know at that moment whether you were believing in God or the devil?'
'You'll find that out later on,' he said, 'when you believe the Saviour and it works.'
If you had the opportunity, I think you might say it a little differently from my friend in the communist country. As I read this passage of Matthew, it brims over with discussion of the evidence that Jesus is the Christ. If men and women are going to be called into question at the final judgment for what they did with the evidence, then the evidence must be available for them to consider here and now.
The evidence provided for John the Baptist
So, to go over a few things very briefly, you will notice that chapter 11 begins with John's question, 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?' (v. 3). Our Lord didn't say, 'John, you have to learn to believe in the dark, my good man.' No, no. He did some miracles, and sent John's disciples back with evidence to comfort John's heart that Jesus was indeed the Christ.
When the evidence is rejected
Then there follows a long discussion between our Lord and the crowd, on the evidence of John's ministry that the nation ought to have accepted and in the end rejected, and the evidence of our Lord's own ministry.
At the end of that, our Lord enunciates the principle that wisdom is justified, either by her children, according to some manuscripts, or by her works (v. 19). That is, the greater than Solomon is here; he is demonstrating the wisdom of God, both in his teaching and in his acts, and stands at the bar of men to be assessed. Will they justify him and say, 'This is the very wisdom of God incarnate: you can see it because of this, and this and this evidence'? Or will they reject that wisdom and denounce it as folly?
Isn't that the central issue? I shall be all ears to hear from you how, in your respective fields where you labour for the Lord, you help people to see that our Lord is indeed the wisdom of God. Or do you say, 'No, I don't bother to do that. I follow 1 Corinthians 2, that it's no good talking about wisdom to the unconverted. Wisdom is for those who are already converted.'
So, what do you say to them? I've heard sermons on the love of God; the love of the Lord Jesus and his grace and power. I'm looking forward to a sermon on Jesus as the incarnate wisdom of God. There is a great section of the Old Testament that is technically called wisdom literature. Even in Old Testament days, it was part of God's self-revelation to men, and encapsulated in it our Lord is wisdom incarnate. As he stood at the bar of men's judgment, there were those who perceived that he was the wisdom of God, and believed in him. There were those who maintained the very opposite.
In Matthew 12 the Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of unlawful behaviour, when they pluck and eat ears of corn on the Sabbath (vv. 1–8). And similarly in verses 9–14, they again attempt to accuse him of unlawful behaviour, when he heals a man with a withered hand. They go further in verses 22–32, when he heals a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute. The question is raised by the crowd, 'Can this be the Son of David?' (v. 23). The Pharisees say, 'No, the very opposite is true: he casts out demons in the power of the prince of demons.' In the end, you have to come to a decision about Jesus Christ, don't you? Either he is the wisdom of God incarnate, or he is the very devil.
When the Pharisees came to their final conclusion, and maintained that they believed that Jesus was of the very devil, it interests me to notice what our Lord did. He didn't simply say, 'Oh, leave them in their folly. They're not worth talking to. If men can be so deliberately perverse, don't bother to argue with them. Turn on your heel, shake the dust off your feet and stop talking to them.' No, no! When the Pharisees charged him with being in league with the devil, chapter 12 reports that he responded with a whole series of arguments designed to expose to them that they were being utterly perverse. They were denying their own basic values, calling black what in every other circumstance they would have called white.
Why did our Lord bother to do it to them? You see, if those men persist in that accusation, long before the final judgment comes they put themselves beyond hope. If you call the Holy Spirit the devil, what hope is there of any light ever getting through to you? Rather than letting them go to their eternal damnation, imagining that they are being so marvellously logical and so holy, our Lord thinks it worthwhile, as a last attempt to reach them, to show them that they are being utterly perverse in their decision, and false to their own basic standards.
It is a most solemn example of what, perhaps, the final judgment will be like. Before consigning men and women to perdition, God will show them how foolish and blind their judgments were; but also how, in order to knowingly reject Christ, they rejected their own values for which they pretended to stand.
The problem when judgment seems to be delayed
These are very solemn matters, my brothers and my sisters. Let me hasten to come just to one other problem. The leading question in this section of Matthew is the one that John addressed to the Lord Jesus: 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?' (11:3). It would seem that when John was in prison he suffered from doubt.
But perhaps you rise to his defence, and say, 'No, he didn't. Who are you to say that the greatest of all the prophets suffered from doubt? He didn't suffer from doubt at all. He believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but the problem was that Jesus didn't seem to be doing much about it.'
John preached that the Messiah was coming, and when he came he would do two things. 'He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire'—that is, he will bring forgiveness and regeneration and the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who repent and believe. But then John also preached the other side of the Messiah's ministry: 'His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire' (Matt 3:11–12). The Messiah would also judge: John preached that the axe was already laid at the root of the tree.
If you went through a garden and saw an axe lying at the root of a tree, what would you suppose? You'd say, 'Well, the gardener's going to have this tree down very shortly now.' 'Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees,' says John (v. 10). 'You'd better start repenting.'
But then John looked around and thought he saw a heap of chaff up in the palace; for there was King Herod himself, living publicly in sin. In the name of Messiah, John denounced him and called upon the man to repent. He didn't repent, he went on with his sinning. And worse than that, he put John in prison. If you had been John, what would you have expected the Messiah to do now?
It wasn't merely a question that the food in prison wasn't very nice, and John wanted to get out. The whole question of the reputation of Messiah was at stake. If Jesus was the Messiah, come to fulfil Old Testament prophecy and execute the judgment of God on this evil and purge his threshing floor, burn up the chaff and establish the kingdom, he'd just have to deal with Herod, wouldn't he? Surely, he has no option; he must come and let John out of prison. But he didn't come.
Those are the very fundamental questions, my brothers and sisters. Is he the Messiah, after all? You've never had any doubts on the question, have you?
I studied Hebrew at Cambridge at one stage, or attempted to. One of my fellow students in the class was a certain John Rayner, who is now Rabbi in a great synagogue in London. He lost both his parents in the Holocaust, and he used to say to me, 'David, your Jesus is not the Messiah. The Old Testament says plainly that when the Messiah comes he'll put down evil, and Jesus has done no such thing. And don't you start talking to me,' he'd say, 'about a supposed spiritual kingdom. That's only what you Christians invented after you were disappointed that Jesus didn't fulfil the Old Testament.'
How would you have answered those things? I wish I could have known then the little that I know now. It seems to me that in this central section of his Gospel, Matthew is not merely concerned with judgment. He is concerned with the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah and the eventual judge, and therefore how he will put down evil.
It used to be a common question during the war. If there's a God at all, why doesn't he stop the war? I've told you about Otto, who still asks these questions. They're real questions aren't they? If you maintain that Jesus is the Christ, the fulfilment of Old Testament, how do you explain that he did not put down evil?
Perhaps these chapters in Matthew give us a hint of the timetable for Messiah's establishment of his kingdom and putting down evil. Let me call your attention to the little word 'until' (Matt 12:20).
As the Pharisees conspire to kill him and our Lord quietly withdraws from the synagogue, Matthew nudges us in the ribs and says, 'He's not running away, or abdicating his claim to be the Messiah. In the face of evil, he is deliberately adopting the tactics announced in Isaiah: "a bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory"' (see Isa 42:3–4).
In the parable of the Weeds, the servants come and say, 'Do you want us to go and gather them?' 'No,' says the master, 'let both grow together until the harvest' (see 13:28–30).
We know of course, from further reading of the Old Testament, that it was never God's intention for the wicked to be dealt with at the first coming of the Lord Jesus. Long centuries ago, Psalm 110 set the time frame: 'The [Lord] says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool"' (v. 1). The first coming of Christ included his death, burial, ascension and sitting at the right hand of God until the time came for his enemies to be put under his feet. The fact that he didn't deal with evil at his first coming is not evidence that he wasn't the Messiah, but strong evidence that he is, and he was fulfilling the programme laid down in the Old Testament.
Forgive me, my brothers and sisters, for going on so long. Would anyone like to start, by telling me how you normally put across the lovely verses of the invitation:
Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt 11:28–30)
What do you normally say about it?
[Audience]: If I may refer back to the final judgment first. In Luke 4:18–21, the Lord made a distinction with Isaiah 61:1–2, when he didn't go on to say, 'the day of vengeance of our God.'
[DWG]: Yes, that's right. In his programmatic sermon in Nazareth he read as far as, 'to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.' Then he closed the book, and said, 'Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing', and mercifully not the next phrase, 'the day of vengeance of our God.'
There's a very superficial view that goes like this. The way to put down evil, and bring in the age of peace that we all long for, is as follows. You divide the world into two groups, the goodies and the baddies. You take a sword or other device and cut the heads off all the baddies. Then you are left with the goodies and you have your Utopia. Of course, it's a little bit difficult to decide who the goodies and the baddies are. I mean, if you're a capitalist, the baddies are the communists; and if you are the oppressed workers, then the baddies are the capitalists. But other than that, all you have to do is to destroy the baddies and you're left with the goodies. It's a little simplistic, isn't it? If the Saviour had taken a sword and cut the heads off all the baddies, how many would have been left?
[Audience]: None.
[DWG]: None. It was never God's intention that the Saviour should put down evil at his first coming. Rather that he would proceed as a sower going out to sow. By sowing the word—not by the sword—men and women should be faced with the evidence and offered the opportunity to receive it before the final judgment eventually comes.
And what is more, once they have received the Saviour they are given the opportunity to demonstrate the reality of their faith in a world where Satan attacks more than ever, and is allowed to confound the issue and sow weeds. Their faith in God must be demonstrated to be genuine faith in God, and not merely a form of cupboard love. It seems to me that this question of the timetable for Messiah setting up his kingdom and for putting down evil is not an arbitrary thing.
It is in the very nature of God's ways and wisdom that the first coming should offer the evidence and the possibility of atonement, redemption and forgiveness. When the gospel is preached, people should have the opportunity to survey the evidence, see its wisdom and receive it. Only then, when they have finally rejected it, would the Lord intervene and put down evil by his judgment.
[Audience]: When the Lord was on earth, would those people have had a knowledge of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Nineveh and so on? They should have had. But what about people today who are where the gospel has not gone, and the Bible, the word of God, and the history of Sodom and Gomorrah and Nineveh is unknown? Is it therefore the preacher's job, the missionary's witness, to speak of these things?
[DWG]: It sure is.
[Audience]: I had a very unusual experience—the only one like it in my whole life. In 1939, just about six months before the Japanese took over our area, I was up the mountains in a very remote area, preaching and distributing literature with Chinese friends. An old man invited us to come and have tea and oranges and watermelon seeds, and sit down and chat. He said, 'Now, what are you doing? What is this you're talking about?' We told him the story of the Lord Jesus, and he said, 'That is wonderful. All my life I have asked the venerable one of heaven to forgive my sin. I've not lived a violent life. I have tried my very best to be good, but I realize my own shortcomings. I've not worshipped heaven and earth; I haven't worshipped the ancestors; I'm not a Buddhist, nor a Daoist, nor a Confucianist. I have asked the 'venerable one' of heaven [they have that term] to forgive my sins, but I have been troubled until you tell me now the basis on which he could forgive my sins.' I haven't met anyone else who ever thought like that. There may be, though.
[DWG]: You are the experts, my brethren and sisters. I personally take comfort from this sort of thing, for the God of heaven does consider the amount of evidence that people have. It's not necessary, is it, to have one hundred percent complete evidence before one believes? The death of Christ covers backwards and forwards.
Now, I've told you about half a dozen sermons or more. Permit me to say, if I may, that I think you're a little bit niggardly with yours!
[Audience]: I was just going to say that there's a terrific little book written by a lawyer, J. N. D. Anderson, an Englishman in Manchester; you probably know him. It's called The Evidence for the Resurrection. He treats it like a trial, showing all the evidence, and then he builds a picture of the truth of the resurrection. It corroborates what you are saying about evidence.
[Audience]: It's Romans 1, isn't it? 'For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them . . . So they are without excuse' (vv. 19–20). God has provided evidence even to the heathen nations.
[DWG]: What then do you make of the references to the question of revelation? For instance, the great invitation, 'Come to me . . . and I will give you rest' (Matt 11:28), is based on the Lord's claim, 'All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him' (v. 27). Do you find any problem between the idea of evidence and the question of revelation? 'I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children' (v. 25). Does that mean that God does a selection and bypasses all the wise and understanding and reveals it to little children? It's too bad if you are wise and understanding; or could any of us qualify as a little child?
[Audience]: Would you say that chapter 12 is the watershed? 'But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him' (v. 14). From that point on, the Lord's ministry seemed to change. They had seen the evidence of the miracles in chapters 8 and 9, and they'd heard him teaching and preaching (11:1).
[DWG]: Oh, surely. In the literary structure it is absolutely central to the book, and this generation was now in danger of committing the unpardonable sin. With the evidence of the Holy Spirit working through the Saviour, they were calling that Beelzebul (12:24). I think we have to take our Lord's assessment of his contemporaries seriously. He said, 'This is an evil generation' (see v. 45).
Now, of course, all of us are evil in one sense, but even the Jewish Rabbis recognized that there were certain generations in the course of Israel's history who were peculiarly wicked. They talked about the generation in the desert, who apostatized in the wilderness, refusing to enter the promised land, and regarded them as being particularly and extremely sinful. Our Lord takes the view, even more so, of his own contemporaries. He says, 'so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah' (Luke 11:50–51). They were peculiarly evil because they had rejected the supreme evidence.
[Audience]: John the Baptist had preached about the Lamb of God. I'm sure to him that meant the Passover lamb. When he was in prison could he have forgotten that? Or in his suffering had it become dim, and he was now expecting the Lord to come and put down evil?
[DWG]: Well, I myself think that the confinement in prison raised for him, not questions of personal discomfort, but theological questions—'Are you really the Messiah?' I know some people object to that, and they say that John was only questioning the timetable. He was a little bit perplexed that Jesus wasn't openly saying, 'I am the Messiah'. But there are very few occasions when our Lord actually said it publicly, are there not? So some suggest that John was getting a bit upset about this, and hit upon a strategy for gently pushing our Lord to commit himself. He waited until there would be a mighty great crowd around the Lord Jesus, and sent a few of his disciples to ask him, 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?' (Matt 11:3). He'd have to say yes or no, and commit himself: 'Yes, I am the Christ.'
But if you take that view you haven't got very far, because now you have a John who didn't altogether trust our Lord's timetabling and tactics. And if Peter could disagree with our Lord, perhaps under pressure John could too. Prisons look very different on the inside from what they do outside. It's easy for us to sit in comfort, but it's a different story when you're in a concentration camp, and you've prayed and prayed and prayed, and the enemy says, 'Where is your God now?'
When a believer has doubts
Has anybody got any comments about chapter 11? Jesus had sent the disciples of John back with the evidence from Isaiah that our Lord was fulfilling this part of the programme, and one day he would fulfil it all. Then Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: 'What did you go out into the wilderness to see . . .?' (v. 7). What is the point of that?
I do find our Lord's gracious gentleness with people who are doubting a marvellously comforting thing. John is tempted through his sorrow, but the Lord doesn't treat him as though he were some terrible scoundrel. He gently told the men, 'Go and tell John what you hear and see', and he reminded them of the evidence in his miracles (11:4–5).
Sometimes my seniors used to sing the hymn that you don't hear sung so much now: He is not a disappointment! | Jesus is far more to me.5 Well, I may have sung it with gusto, but it's not always been one hundred percent true. Have you never prayed and been disappointed when the Lord didn't answer? Well, happy you are if you've never been stumbled. Have you never had an intellectual difficulty? Well then, you are happy indeed. You are to be congratulated on your happiness. Sometimes, I have to confess, I have been disappointed. My own fault, of course; in spite of all the tender grace of our Lord in ministering to our disappointments, and helping thus to overcome our stumbling blocks and to carry on believing.
The crowd's reaction to the Messiah
If you will allow me to say it, I think our Lord was being a little bit ironic here, when he started to talk to the crowds about John. Now he is chiding them for their reaction to the evidence. According to earlier chapters in the Gospel, hundreds of them had gone out to John and made a big splash by getting baptized. Do you remember the enthusiasm? But by this time, they weren't for accepting Jesus. What had gone wrong? John had said that Jesus was the Messiah, and they had got themselves baptized by John, but why didn't they believe in Jesus?
Jesus turned round to them, and he said, 'There's a question I want to ask you. You know all that business a year or so ago, when you went out into the wilderness? Well, I've been wondering, what exactly did you go out to see? A reed shaken by the wind, perhaps? There are thousands of reeds in the wilderness; that's not why you went. You don't just go out into the wilderness for nothing; what did you go out for? Oh, I know: to see a man dressed in fine clothes. But you'd have to go to a palace to see that. What did you go out for?'
I fancy their faces were getting redder. When John had said that the Messiah was coming, they thought John was the fulfilment of Isaiah 40, so they had gone out to him in the wilderness and got baptized. But now they were trying to forget it because they weren't prepared to accept Jesus. Why do you think that was? Perhaps they had wrong notions of what the Messiah would do? They didn't mind a Messiah who would give them a few extra acres of land and a new chariot or two. But they weren't interested in a Messiah who wouldn't fight the Romans and bring social reform and political freedom.
I think our Lord is now probing their consciences by reminding them that they did indeed go out to see a prophet, because they believed John was the fulfilment of Isaiah 40, the greatest of all the prophets. But then, if John was the prophet, why didn't they accept Jesus?
He ends up by comparing the crowd to a lot of children talking to their friends. '"We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn." For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon." The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!"' (Matt 11:17–19).
They were like an arbitrary lot of children. They didn't want John, dressed in his funny clothes, shouting his head off about the wrath to come. They said that he had a demon. When the Son of Man came, he preached a delightful message and received sinners. He was their friend, but they didn't want him either. They said that he was a glutton and a drunkard. They wouldn't have the wrath of God, and they wouldn't have the love of God.
I can remember attending some tent meetings in Cambridge. It was the last night of the campaign, and the preacher had very solemnly warned the people about the need to accept the Saviour and believe the gospel, because of the coming judgment. Afterwards I was asked if I'd come and speak to a certain gentleman. He was still sitting in his seat and fuming like a volcano. He was a lawyer. 'All this bawling about the judgment to come. I feel bludgeoned,' he said. 'I'm one of those people who want to draw mankind by the love of God, but he's standing up there bawling at us about judgment.' (He did shout a bit!)
So I said, 'I wonder what tone of voice John the Baptist used, when he said, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"' (Matt 3:7).
I'm afraid the lawyer got even more angry; so that wasn't the wise thing to say. Anyway, another friend invited us both to supper. The lawyer graciously accepted, and said he just had to go and attend to some business, and then he would call at the house and have supper. On the way up to the house, I said to my friend, 'We'll stop all this about the judgment and talk about the love of God; but you'll see that he won't want that either.'
We got into the home, and presently the subject came up again. I said, 'Yes, the love of God is marvellous: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). When we believe, we have eternal life and God assures us that our sins are forgiven.'
'Nonsense,' he said. 'I don't believe you can be sure of forgiveness of sins and eternal life.'
I said, 'Yes, you can, because the love of God is so great.'
'You can't. No one can know.'
So I opened the Bible and read 1 John 5: 'These things are written that you may know that you have eternal life' (see v. 13).
'Oh, shut that old book,' he said.
So, he didn't want the wrath of God. He said that he wanted to talk to people about God's love; but he didn't want the love of God either, just like the Jews of our Lord's generation. They didn't want John, nor did they want Jesus. 'You are like a lot of children,' said our Lord, and it wasn't too long after that, that he used a very much more serious metaphor: 'You brood of vipers!' (12:34).
Thank you very much once more for your presence and help.
Shall we pray.
Lord, we thank thee for thy word. The solemnity of it grips our hearts. We bless thee, nonetheless, for thy judgment. We thank thee that the jewels of the new Jerusalem are real. Its joys shall be founded on thy divine justice. We thank thee now that, as sinners saved through the atoning death of Christ, we are therefore safe from all judgment and penalty and wrath to come. We thank thee for thy wrath against sin, and bless thee to know that in the death of our Lord thou hast not forgotten even the slightest one of all our sins, and each one has received its due recompense of reward.
We thank thee, Lord, for thy Son: for his authority and his ability to make thee known. Sovereign of the skies, we do praise thee that thou hast been willing and able to reveal thyself to us mere babes. In Jesus Christ thy Son, we have the very wisdom of God.
We thank thee too for the Holy Spirit, who has come to make known that hidden wisdom, which none of the princes of this world knew. Thou hast revealed things to us that were never seen or heard, nor have entered into the heart of man. In our turn we do beseech thee that thou wilt so reveal thy Son to us, that we may not be stumbled in him, nor in his ways with us. Sometimes they are clear, and sometimes, we confess, they are clouded to our sight.
And we pray, Lord, that with strength and faith thou wilt give us grace and wisdom how to present the wonders and the treasures of the wisdom of God to our fellow men and women, so that they may come to worship our Saviour too. We thank thee for this hour, and may thy blessing be upon us this day, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
4 Unfortunately, we do not have Notes for this section.
4: The Deity of Christ—Peter—And the Church
Matthew 13:53–18:35
A very good morning to you. It's very stimulating to see your presence, and thank you for coming.
We are due to consider the narrative section of the Gospel of Matthew beginning at 13:53 and extending through chapters 14–17. It is a very, very long section, so once again we shall only be able to deal with some of its leading themes. The collection of teaching that Matthew has put along with this narrative comes in chapter 18, and we shall not be able to resist the temptation to look over the fence from the narrative to the teaching.
This passage in Matthew contains stories that lie very near to the heart of the Lord's people, because they have meant so much to them in the course of the real experiences of life. If you feel a compulsion bursting within you to say something about it, don't be inhibited. Do feel free to break into any context, stop the flow of the thought, or anything at all. Don't bottle up inside what you want to get out.
Whose Son is he?
For my part, by way of introduction I would like to point out that, as usual in these writings by Matthew, the leading theme comes in the opening paragraph and raises the question of the person of Jesus: Whose Son is he? And that leading theme predominates throughout the rest of the section.
So we are told in 13:53–55, 'And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his home town he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son?"' Well, of course, we know better; but here we listen to the crowd, and some of the initial reactions to our Lord's teaching, his wisdom and his words. Notice exactly who the people are. They are from his own town, Nazareth. To them he was Joseph the carpenter's son, his mother was Mary, his brothers were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, and he had sisters still living there. 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?' Here they are, wrestling with the evidence, trying in their little minds to reconcile the two phenomena.
Matthew's repeated emphasis on the deity of the Lord Jesus
In chapter 14 you have what you don't have in the other Gospels. Following the story of the storm on the lake, Matthew tells us how Peter asked to be allowed to walk on the water as the Lord Jesus was doing, and was encouraged to do so by the Lord (vv. 28–29). He promptly sank and had to be rescued. But then, when they had got into the boat and the wind ceased, those in the boat worshipped Jesus, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God' (v. 33).
In 16:13–16, we have Peter's famous confession. Our Lord Jesus asks them, '"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."'
In 17:1–8, we have the transfiguration: 'He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him"' (v. 5).
And then again in chapter 17, the incident when those who received the temple tax came to Peter. '"Does your teacher not pay the tax?" He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" And when he said, "From others", Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free"' (vv. 24–26). We shall later ponder the implication of the analogy as far as it affects the person of the Lord Jesus.
So then, on that evidence I suggest to you that this section brings before us very particularly the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus.
Matthew's repeated emphasis on Peter
Secondly, we cannot escape, surely, the tremendous emphasis that this part of Matthew puts upon Peter. Just let me take you through some of the occasions where Peter is mentioned.
In 14:28–33, that incident in the story of the storm at sea. Now, the other Gospel writers have the story of the storm at sea, and how Jesus came to his disciples walking on the water. Only Matthew has added the incident when Peter answered and said, 'Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.' So that whole incident about Peter is peculiar to the Gospel by Matthew.
Then, 15:15, 'But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us."' Only a tiny little detail, but it is Matthew, and only Matthew, who says that it was specifically Peter who requested this explanation of the parable.
Look again at 16:16–19. The first three Gospels have this incident, of course, and a confession of the Lord Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God (see also Mark 8:27–29; Luke 9:18–20). But now in verses 17–19, we have something that is peculiar to Matthew: 'And Jesus answered [Peter], "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you [singular, Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."' Another whole incident, therefore, peculiar to Matthew; concerned very directly, specifically and importantly with Peter.
In Chapter 17 Matthew has what other Gospel writers have, but it's no less important for that. Then, halfway through the transfiguration scene, 'Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah"' (v. 4). A terribly inept suggestion to make, and it was brushed aside by the coming of the cloud and the voice from the glory that said, 'This is my beloved Son . . . listen to him' (v. 5). And when the cloud passed, Jesus was found alone.
Finally, in 17:24–25, the question about the temple tax, which was also raised in Mark 12:13–17 and Luke 20:20–26. But notice Matthew records how this time it was to Peter that they said, 'Does your teacher not pay the tax?', and it was Peter who said, unthinkingly, 'Oh, yes, of course'. He then had to be corrected by the Lord Jesus, because of the serious implications of his mistaken idea.
Two things, therefore, are prominent in this section of Matthew: 1. The deity of the Lord Jesus—if I might so phrase it, the discovery of the deity of the Lord Jesus; and 2. The matter of the prominence of Peter. They come together very pointedly in chapter 16, where Peter is specially commended when he confesses the Lord Jesus as the Son of the living God, and the Lord says that flesh and blood didn't reveal it to him, but his Father. Then he talks about 'this rock', and delivers to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (vv. 16–19).
Why are these two prominent themes interlocked in the Gospel of Matthew? Not only in the famous confession in chapter 16, but also in chapter 14? It was the incident of Peter walking on the sea and sinking and being delivered, and then coming into the boat with the Lord Jesus, that finally moved the apostles to confess, 'Truly you are the Son of God' (14:33). And of course it was Peter's unfortunate suggestion on the Mount of Transfiguration that drew from the divine glory the confession and the protest, 'This is my beloved Son . . . listen to him' (17:5). And again, it was Peter's statement that the Lord Jesus was responsible to pay the temple tax that led to the correction, and indirectly to the assertion once more of our Lord's Sonship (v. 26).
So, why this interlocking of the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus, and the prominence of Peter? Well, we can answer that a little bit by observing the third thing that is prominent—at least important—in this part of Matthew.
The distinctive witness of the church
In chapter 16 comes the first mention of the church, and the promise of the Lord Jesus to build his church (v. 18). Whatever you take the foundation to be, let's concentrate for the moment on the promise of the building of the church and the first mention of it in the Gospel.
The collection of teaching that Matthew has put along with this narrative comes in chapter 18, and I did tell you that we should not be able to resist the temptation to look over the fence from the narrative to the teaching. Our Lord there gives direction for the government, control and discipline of believers in the church. Historically, perhaps it is easier to see the connection between chapter 16 and chapter 18. What doctrine of the Christian church makes it distinctive from Judaism? Well, it's not belief in the one true God. Although of course the church stands for the oneness of God against all idolatry, it was given to the Jew to witness to the one true God, the transcendent Creator, against all the idolatry of the ancient Gentile world, and still to this present day. But if that was the distinctive witness of the Jew, the distinctive witness of the church is obviously to the deity of the Lord Jesus: that is the absolute foundation of the church.
Take another little perspective on this fourth section of Matthew. Yesterday we were considering the third section, and found that it raised the great problem of evil, and the question of whether Jesus is the Messiah or not. The Old Testament had prophesied that when the Messiah came, he would not only bring salvation to the repentant and believing, he would execute the wrath of God and put down evil.
How could Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't put down evil?
John the Baptist preached that the Lord Jesus was Messiah. He would baptize believers with the Holy Spirit, and burn up unbelievers with unquenchable fire. But then, that raised a problem that troubled John the Baptist. Our Lord certainly blessed the people with salvation, but he made no apparent attempt to burn up the wicked. How, then, could he be the Messiah? So John sent special messengers to ask if he was really the Messiah or not? We found the answer to that problem from the Lord Jesus. While the Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would do these two things—baptize with the Holy Spirit, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire—it was never God's intention that our blessed Lord should destroy the wicked at his first coming, nor establish the kingdom of God at that time by burning up the wicked. How could it ever have been his intention to burn up the wicked, and so establish the kingdom of God, before Calvary had made the forgiveness of their sins possible?
No, the Old Testament itself had said what the programme would be. The Messiah would be born of the Virgin in Bethlehem, he would die, be buried and rise again. He would ascend to heaven and be commanded by God to sit at his right hand, which is where the Lord Jesus is now enthroned. But the Old Testament said that there would be a period between the incarnation, resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and when he would come to judge: 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet' (22:44; cf. Ps 110:1).
And Matthew repeats it. 'He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory' (12:19–20; cf. Isa 42:2–3).
There would be an interval for sowing the seed and building the church
And our Lord went on to say what the timetable would be for the setting up of the kingdom, and how it would be set up. First of all, at the spiritual level by a sower going out to sow; and finally enforced by the coming of the Son of Man, the burning of the tares and the destruction of the bad fish (ch. 13). Therefore, there is to be this interval between his ascension and his coming to judge; and in the very next section Matthew tells us what happens in that interval while the sower is going forth to sow. It is the foundation and formation of the church.
The church is built upon this fundamental confession, which is the distinctive witness of the Christian church—the deity of the Lord Jesus. Not only is he the Christ, the Messiah, but he is also the Son of the living God (16:16). There is no reason to be perplexed as to why Peter is so prominent in the story. According to this record, Peter was the first man to stand up on little planet Earth and officially announce the great discovery that Jesus is the Son of God.
Being offended in relation to Christ
One more thing, and then we will revert to the topic of the deity of Christ. A cluster of words is to be found recurring in all four of the major movements of this part of Matthew. Look at the first paragraph of column one on your sheet.6
As the men of his own country tried to understand his mighty works and wisdom, and somehow reconcile that with the fact that they knew him to be the son of the carpenter, we are told that they were offended—the King James' Old English for 'stumbled' (13:57). The verb is skandalizo. They were stumbled about his person: 'Whose son is this?'—it was a scandal to them.
In the first paragraph of the second column of your sheet, when the Lord gave his teaching about the laws of cleanliness and so forth, the disciples pointed out to him, 'Do you know that the Pharisees were offended . . .?' (15:12). Same verb, scandalizo. It was a skandalon to them.
Now look at the third column on your sheet in paragraph two. When Peter rebuked the Lord Jesus, and suggested to him that he ought to avoid suffering, our Lord rebuked him: 'Get behind me Satan! You are an offence [skandalon] to me' (see 16:23).
And then finally in the fourth column, paragraph two. Our Lord, having necessarily pointed out that he was under no obligation whatsoever to pay that temple tax, then proceeded to pay it for himself and for Peter, lest his refusal to pay should offend the public and become a skandalon to them.
As we hear the word skandalon and place it in the context of the deity of the Lord Jesus and the matter of his cross and suffering, we think at once of 1 Corinthians 1. The preaching of the cross is to the Jew a skandalon, as also is the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God. It is the biggest skandalon the Jews have to face as they hear the claims of the Christian church.
We'll let that do for a brief survey of some of the major themes. Once more I would point out that I wouldn't go to the stake for the handout in front of you. We must believe every word of this Bible and be prepared to go to the stake for it, but this is merely a convenient table of contents, and better analyses could doubtless be found. It just points out one or two things.
The main sections are determined by the geography of our Lord's travel
You'll notice the four geographical things: the men of his own country; Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem; what happened up in Caesarea Philippi; what happened in Galilee. You will see how, in the first section and the third section, there is a journey across the sea, and each time the journey comes to its conclusion you see what happened on the other side of the sea, and so forth.
Evidence that led the disciples to recognize the Lord Jesus as the Son of God
But let's not stay about those simple matters. Let me come now to question you and raise with you, if you would be so kind, this matter of the deity of the Lord Jesus in this section of Matthew. It seems to me that among other things, Matthew is telling us very simply the amazing story of how these first Christians came to realize that the man at whose side they walked on the streets of Nazareth, the man who travelled in the boat with them and slept on the pillow, was none other than the Son of God.
What an awe-inspiring, breathtaking discovery, suddenly to wake up to the fact that the man at your side is God's incarnate Son. We've believed it for so long that we almost take it for granted. Let's make the effort this morning to put ourselves into the shoes of the men who began by not knowing it, walked with Jesus Christ around Palestine and hadn't realized it. Let's then ask ourselves what kind of experiences had led them to think that Jesus is the Son of God.
You say, 'There's an easy answer to that, Mr Preacher. Chapter 16 tells us that they didn't do any thinking at all, because our Lord said, 'Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven' (v. 17).
So that's how it happened? Suddenly the Father revealed it and they knew? Is that being fair to history, do you think? One morning Peter woke up in bed and a divine voice said, 'Jesus is the Son of God, Peter.' And Peter said, 'Is that so? Well, I believe it if you say so; but who is Jesus?'
Well, of course not. It surely required divine revelation, but divine revelation wasn't made in a vacuum, was it? The divine Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Son of God, but it was a Jesus whom Peter had already begun to get to know, and Matthew is telling us some of the incidents that led not only Peter but the rest of them to confess Jesus as the Son of God.
Matthew tells us to look at what happened when there was the storm on the lake, and at the conclusion of that tremendous experience one and all cried out, 'Truly you are the Son of God' (14:22–33). So the Father's revelation was not made in vacuum. It was made on the basis of certain experiences that the disciples had already had of the Lord Jesus. As they pondered the significance of those experiences and began to think and to wonder, God by his Holy Spirit revealed what the implication was, and they came to confess it.
At this moment if I were to ask each one of you, 'Why do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?', I wonder what you'd reply off the cuff as the number one reason?
If you asked me, I'd tell you that my Dad and Mum told me he was. That's where I first heard it, and I read it in the Bible. If you've got Christian parents that's a very good reason for believing, and then you're taught it in Bible class and Sunday school. As the years have gone on, of course, you can't avoid thinking, 'I read it in the Bible; but who wrote the Bible?'
You say, 'That man Peter wrote great sections of it, and Matthew wrote some more.'
Oh, I see. Well, how did Matthew come to know that Jesus is the Son of God?
If we ask questions like that, we're probing back into history, aren't we? For ours is a historic faith, and we're now reading about the men who first in history came to realize that he is the Son of God. What convinced them? I do hope you're going to help me this morning. Perhaps it would be an idea to look at some of these incidents: the storm on the lake; Peter walking on the water; and then the confession that led to, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'
Let me say one more thing before we start. I was talking like this in an assembly once, about evidence for the Son of God, when a dear brother came up to me and said, 'Don't you think it's dangerous to ask people to think about what the evidence for the deity of Christ is?'
I said, 'How could that be dangerous?'
He said, 'Suppose they started thinking, and the evidence wasn't good enough.'
Isn't the evidence good enough?
[Audience]: Didn't Peter take this up at Pentecost, as he spoke to the crowd? He starts off, 'Jesus of Nazareth,'—which was their view of him; but then he goes on to say, 'a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst . . .' (Acts 2:22).
[DWG]: Yes, surely this is evidence. And it's important for our young folk, isn't it? If I've read John's Epistle aright, the secret of overcoming the world is ultimately not a lot of rules, or prohibitions and exhortations, though they have their part to play—the secret of overcoming the world, says John, is our faith (1 John 5:4). Our faith in what? Our faith that Jesus has forgiven our sins? Well, no, though that's true enough. Our faith that Jesus is the Son of God. You see, if he isn't the Son of God, we don't have forgiveness of sins anyway. On what evidence can I know and be sure that he is the Son of God? And what do you teach your Bible classes as evidence that Jesus is the Son of God?
[Audience]: Well, it's in the Gospel of John, isn't it? He wrote, 'so that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing [we] may have life in his name' (20:31).
[DWG]: Yes, the signs were recorded as evidence.
[Audience]: His very words were signs.
[DWG]: Oh, surely sir. And Mr Wilson was going to say something.
[Audience]: There's a remarkable passage in John 6, when the Lord gave his tremendous address on the bread of life. At the end of that long chapter of 71 verses we are told that many of his disciples turned back, and Jesus said to the Twelve, 'Do you want to go away as well?' Then Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God' (see John 6:66–69). It's exactly the same confession as in Matthew 16. Is John 6 before Matthew 16 chronologically?
[DWG]: Well, it comes in John after the feeding of the five thousand, doesn't it? And in Matthew after the five thousand and the four thousand (16:9–10). So how much after the feeding is the question. What do you think, sir?
[Audience]: Well, it is a tremendous passage.
[DWG]: Yes, indeed. It is John's equivalent of this; so that all three Synoptics and John have that confession.
In Matthew's story of the storm on the lake (ch. 14), if we can take that to begin with, Matthew has that peculiar appendage of Peter walking on the sea. When he got back into the boat, they all confessed, 'Truly you are the Son of God.' How did it lead them to that conclusion? Is it merely a historical lesson of how they began to discover it, or could you apply the lesson to us? I mean to say, have you ever discovered the deity of Christ by walking on water? Or sinking in it, and getting saved?
[Audience]: Is it not because they saw Christ's supremacy over the elements?
[DWG]: It is a remarkable story in this context, because if you notice what it actually says, when they first saw the Lord Jesus they thought it was a spirit, an apparition (14:26). Being really practical fishermen, I suppose they had no difficulty in thinking that a spirit could walk on water, because spirits are rather insubstantial. They don't weigh very much, so at least they could walk on water. Then the voice said, 'Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.' Peter answered him, 'Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water' (vv. 27–28).
Wait a minute! Do you agree with the logic of that—'If he could do it, so could I'? Wouldn't you have expected the story to say, 'Peter, Peter, what are you thinking of now? Of course I can walk on water; I am the Son of God incarnate. You can't walk on water. What a blasphemous suggestion, to think you could do what I do.' What did Peter mean, 'If it is you, command me come to you on the water'?
[Audience]: If Jesus was really the Son of God, he could demonstrate it by giving Peter the power to walk on the water.
[DWG]: By the fact that he had the power to make Peter walk on the water?
[Audience]: They all thought it was a ghost. Was Peter saying, 'Is this really you physically, or am I seeing a ghost?'
[DWG]: Yes, and perhaps he thought, 'If you are the Jesus I know, a real man of flesh and blood, and you're walking on water; well, I'm a man of flesh and blood too.' It is a great mystery, that the real man Jesus was able to walk on water, thus proclaiming him to be the Son of God. When Peter stepped out on to the water he discovered the Lord's power, as Son of God, to make him walk, and then to rescue him when he was sinking. Would anybody here admit to ever having such an experience, and having been confirmed in their faith that Jesus is the Son of God?
[Audience]: Didn't Peter call on the name of the Lord (v. 30)?
[DWG]: He did. What I'm getting at is to ask whether the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus is merely a doctrine that you've come to believe in your head, or whether it is a reality that we can come to prove in our experience.
Christ expects his followers to be effective
As we pass by that, I wonder if I might call attention to another one of the themes that goes through this part of Matthew. While the disciples were on a boat going across the sea, our Lord was up a mountain praying. As we've just seen, he came to them walking on the water, and taught them, or at least Peter, to do the same.
In the previous paragraph of chapter 14, he asked them to feed the multitude, and they'd said that it was impossible. 'There's no need to go away,' he said. 'What have you got? Loaves and fishes? Right, bring them to me.' He didn't just call down bread from heaven that landed by the side of everybody at that great picnic: he used his disciples to convey the miraculous food to the people. He did it again in the feeding of the four thousand (15:32–38).
After the transfiguration he had rebuked four of his apostles because they could not cast out the demon (17:19–20). Why couldn't they? Ought they not have been able to do it by calling upon the power of the Lord Jesus?
The nature of the Christian church
In the teaching section in chapter 18, he says to his apostles, 'For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst—and because I am in the midst, what you ask will be done' (see vv. 19–20). Do you think it could be possible that our Lord was already beginning to teach them what the Christian church would be? What is the Christian church?
You say, 'It's a society that's founded on the common belief that Jesus is the Son of God.'
Is it only that, ladies and gentlemen? Or is the church of God to the very present day a group of people who not only believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but stand personally in touch with the living Son of God, who is now glorified and 'gone up the mountain' to intercede for us (see Rom 8:34)?
What I'm wondering to myself as I sit here is whether in these stories and incidents our Lord was beginning to prepare his apostles, not only to know that he's the Son of God; not only to know that he's going to build his church on that basic confession; but what it means to be members of that church, in touch with the risen Son of God, and able in some sense to use his power.
Yes, Peter can walk on the water like the Lord; yes, Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yes, where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus they act, so to speak, as his plenipotentiaries and their requests can be granted. If that's anything at all of a foreshadowing of what the church is, what a tremendous thing it must be. It's not just a meeting, is it? It's not just a club. It's where our belief in the deity of the Lord Jesus is meant to be a living experience of what it is to be in touch with the power of the living Lord.
The nature of our Lord's teaching
So now, let's come to that second great movement, the second column on my sheet. Here we see that the Pharisees were offended at his teaching. In the first column the men of his own country had been offended by the question of who he was. 'Is this the carpenter's son? Well, if he is, then how does he do all these miracles?' (see 13:53–58). Now, in the second column, the offence is over his teaching (15:1–20). Let me suggest to you that the belief that Jesus is the Son of God carries with it a certain assessment of his teaching. When the Lord Jesus taught, the Pharisees objected most severely. They said he was not of God; he was breaking the law, he was breaking the traditions; his teaching was bad and evil and unclean. And our Lord had to argue the case with the Pharisees that it was nothing of the sort, his teaching was perfectly wholesome.
The apostles had to decide who was right, and at first they were a little bit bewildered, because they didn't quite understand what the Lord Jesus had said. To fall foul of the teaching of the synagogue was to run the risk of eventually being excommunicated, so Peter asked him to explain the parable to them (v. 15). 'Lord, I didn't quite get that, and the Pharisees are very upset. Did you really mean what you said? That's a rather tough statement, you know, cancelling all their traditions like that. What exactly did you mean by what you said?' This question of the authority of the Lord Jesus turned on the question of his teaching, and they had to weigh up what the Pharisees taught and what the Lord Jesus taught, and ask themselves which was the true representation of God.
Evaluating what is right
What would you say, ladies and gentlemen? Historically speaking, what has convinced you that Jesus Christ is right—that his teaching is better than the teaching of the Pharisees, or Mohammed for that matter?
[Audience]: His teaching went to the spirit of the law. They were looking to the external traditions. The Lord went beyond that: 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them' (Matt 5:17).
[DWG]: Yes, that's right, and he rebuked them because their teaching wasn't really according to Scripture at all. It was mere human invention. It looked holy, but was utter nonsense, actually. Because, as our Lord pointed out, 'it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person' (15:11). All this insistence on washing your hands before you eat, it's all right from a hygienic point of view; but when it comes to spiritual teaching it doesn't get at the real problem, because the real problem is not external but internal. Washing your hands will never cleanse your heart, and it's the heart that's the trouble.
In areas of Christendom where they've gone back into Judaism, and they put a lot of importance on holy water and other such things, you've sometimes got to argue the case for the plain teaching of the Bible as it came from our Lord and his apostles, as against the traditions of an apostate church with all its superstitions. Can you imagine a young person in Spain, say, or in Poland, hearing our Lord's teaching about the new birth and justification by faith and so on, and waking up to the fact that it contradicts what the Church has taught for generations? They'll have to make a choice between the teachings and evaluate which is right.
Why did the Lord pay the temple tax?
Now let me ask you a few questions regarding that incident of the temple tax in 17:24–27. 'When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the tax?"' (v. 24). Am I right in thinking that was the temple tax, or not? Was it some other tax?
[Audience]: If it wasn't the temple tax, what other tax was there?
[DWG]: Some people say it was a tax imposed by Rome.
[Audience]: Our Lord wouldn't have considered himself a son of Rome.
[DWG]: No, he wouldn't would he? So, if we agree that it was the temple tax, what was wrong in Peter saying that his master should pay it?
[Audience]: He was the Lord of the house. You don't pay tax to yourself.
[DWG]: I see; it was because he was the Son of the house. Yes, he was indeed, and is that the immediate argument? '"From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" And when he said, "From others", Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free"' (vv. 25–26). The God of that temple doesn't exact taxes from his Son. Surely not.
But, am I not right in thinking there was also another big question about the temple tax? What was the temple tax for? According to Exodus 30, why did the Israelites have to pay a temple tax? They had to pay it as a ransom for their souls, did they not? Read it out, please, in a loud voice.
[Audience]: 'The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the [Lord], to make an atonement for your souls' (v. 15 [kjv]).
[DWG]: So the Israelite had to pay the half shekel as a ransom for his soul, and Peter says that the Lord had to pay it. That's interesting, isn't it? It had been revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Son of God, but he hadn't got round to thinking too much about it, nor had he worked out the implications just yet.
It's like Mary, you know. She had been told that her son would be the Son of God, and she believed it, didn't she? And then, when she lost him and found him in the temple, she began to rebuke him. She was very much like the rest of us. One minute believing the deity of Christ, and then the next minute holding other views that would, by implication, contradict it.
If we really believe the deity of the Lord Jesus, we shall have to do some hard thinking about all its implications, and, when it comes to holy Scripture, never more so than nowadays. Alas for colleges and academic institutions of theology that profess to believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus, and hold views about Old Testament Scripture that by implication suggest that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. Alas for people who will merrily tell us that our Lord was mistaken over the second coming. Was he really? If we believe the deity of the Lord Jesus, we had better think about the implications, and Peter hadn't thought too far. Fancy saying, 'Oh yes, of course my master pays a ransom for his soul.'
Now, tell me, if the Lord Jesus wasn't obliged to pay the tax to his Father's temple, and certainly not obliged to pay a ransom for his soul, why did he pay it?
Suppose I were a modernist theologian for a moment, and said to you, 'the very fact that Jesus paid the temple tax as a ransom for his soul shows he admitted that he himself was a sinner and needed to be redeemed', what would you reply?
[Audience]: Is it not almost a parallel to the Lord's attitude relative to John's baptism?
[DWG]: Expand that a bit, sir. That's a very interesting parallel.
[Audience]: The baptism of John is a baptism of repentance, and John wasn't happy with baptizing the Lord, because he recognized his sinlessness. And yet, in order to identify himself with the people, the Lord insisted on the baptism. This, perhaps, is similar to here: in order not to offend, he identifies himself with the people.
[DWG]: There is one practical reason at the very surface, surely. If he had refused to pay, a lot of ordinary people who respected him as a prophet, but didn't know he was the Son of God, would have said, 'If the prophet Jesus thinks it's not necessary to pay the tax, I don't have to pay it either.' He could have stumbled them by appearing to say that the Old Testament law was to be disobeyed.
But there's also the deeper reason you've mentioned. At the baptism, though he was sinless himself, when he saw the crowd of people repenting of their sins and standing in the mud of Jordan, he went and stood beside them. Either he was confessing himself to be a sinner—and he certainly wasn't—or this is the marvel beyond all marvels. The sinless Son of God has come to stand 'in the mud' with us as sinners, and take our place. He did it supremely at Calvary, didn't he, as the waves and billows went over him (Ps 42:7)? With no claim upon him, lest he offends he pays the tax for himself, and for Peter as well. In the very payment of it, he confirms who he is, for he says to Peter, 'Go to the sea and cast a hook, take the first fish that comes up, and you'll find it's got a coin in its mouth' (see Matt 17:27). This is the Son of God, omniscient in the whole universe: he knows where every shekel or dollar has got to, doesn't he? He had no need to pay tax to his Father's house nor a ransom for his soul, but he paid it, and ours as well.
Why do you believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus? I think I hear you say, 'One of the reasons I believe it is because I've never met anybody else who said that he had come to die for my sins.' I don't think Mohammed said it, and I don't think the Buddha said it. Nobody except Jesus Christ has ever said that he'd come to die for my sins.
Emphasis on food
Well, here's another question that I'd like to put to you. In this fourth section of Matthew, why do you think there is such an emphasis on food and feeding? In the early chapters there is much about food and feeding, isn't there?
Look at the second story in column one (Matt 14:1–12). That's about a banquet at which all kinds of food were provided. There was the physical food on the table; and then there was the food in the sense of the entertainment. It was very doubtful entertainment, aimed at all the appetites it shouldn't have been. And the final dish was the head of John the Baptist on a plate. That's one king with a banquet.
The third and central story of column one is of another king at a banquet, as he fed the crowd (Matt 14:13–21).
Then look over to the second paragraph in column two, and it's about food too (Matt 15:21–28). When the Canaanite woman comes and pleads with the Lord that he should heal her daughter, he said, 'It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' And she said, 'Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table' (vv. 26–27). And the next story in column two is once more about feeding (15:32–38). Well, the first paragraph in column two had been about food, hadn't it? Whether you should eat without washing hands, and whether the food that goes into your stomach defiles you or not (15:1–20). And when you come to the last paragraph in column two, 'What happened on the other side of the sea': that turns out to be about food as well (16:5–12). The apostles had forgotten to take bread, and when they heard our Lord say, 'Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees' (v. 6), they began to get worried, like some people do.
The preacher is merrily preaching and he makes some chance remark about food, which sets someone thinking, 'Oh, what about the potatoes? I think I left the potatoes on and they're burning'! Or, 'I've got the preacher coming to tea, and I've forgotten to buy some sugar.' And the rest of the sermon is obliterated.
And so it was with the apostles. They catch hold of this word 'leaven', and they think to themselves, 'Oh, we've got no bread, what on earth shall we do? We've got to the other side, and we've nothing to feed the Lord with.' He had to say that he was talking about leaven in a far more important sense: the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
What is all this about food, and why is it so important in this context of the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus? You may care to put the answer on a postcard and send it to me one of these days!
But finally I must ask you what you make out of those two stories: Herod, a woman and her daughter (Matt 14:1–12); and Christ, a woman and her daughter (15:21–28). I don't know what it all means, but I've listed some of the obvious things. In the first story Herod didn't want to kill John. He'd already decided not to kill him and put him in prison because it wasn't politically wise to kill him. But his adulterous wife had this banquet and she sent in her daughter to do some questionable dancing. When she got Herod in the right mood, he said that he'd give her anything up to the half of his kingdom. Her mother told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a charger. The king couldn't go back. He was very sorry, but he had to go through with it and give the woman what he had never intended and had never wanted to grant her. She had got the better of him, hadn't she?
In that second story in column two there came a woman, asking for help for her daughter. The Lord apparently didn't intend to give her anything and he ignored the woman. And isn't it Matthew who says that the apostles came and said, 'Send her away, for she is crying out after us' (15:23)? Then she came and knelt before Jesus, and said, 'Lord, help me.' But he says, 'It wouldn't be right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs.' But she made him do it, didn't she?
What do you make of those two stories? You could perhaps send another postcard when you get the opportunity to think more about them, because it's been a long day and now we must close.
Shall we pray.
Our Father, we bow reverently to praise thee, and to worship thee for revealing to us babes what has been hidden from the wise and prudent. Without reserve and without question we can gladly confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. How we praise thee for these historical evidences that our faith is not founded in myth, but in actual history. And we thank thee for the experiences of these early Christians who were brought to faith in the Lord Jesus and in his deity. We thank thee, Lord, for all life's experiences through which thou hast taken us that have shown us that the deity of Christ is no mere theological doctrine, but a living reality. And we thank thee for the power of the Lord in those times when without him we would have sunk without trace, and all we have attempted for thee would have gone by the board completely. For all those occasions when we have felt his powerful hand raising us and carrying us across life's waters; for these realities we do bless thee this morning, and thank thee for the ever deepening conviction of the reality of our Lord's deity.
Help us in our public testimony, we do beseech thee, as assemblies of the Lord. May they be places where his presence is known, and the authority and power of the Lord Jesus experienced. Lead us into the deeper understanding of the wonders of his Sonship until, like the apostles on the Transfiguration Mount, we see his face shining as the sun, and all other and lesser things depart.
So we thank thee and praise thee that, as surely as we have sat here and thought about the risen Lord, he has been with us and heard our thinking and our praises. One day we shall see him face to face in his coming kingdom of glory, for which too we praise thee. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
5 Author unknown.
6 The Deity of Christ–-Peter–-And the Church (13:53–18:35).
5: The Death, Burial and Resurrection of the Son of God
Matthew 26:1–28:20
Well, my dear brothers and sisters, thank you once more for coming, and thank you for attending so assiduously throughout the days of this week. If I have needed your help in past mornings, I need it ten times more this morning, because in this part of the Gospel by Matthew we approach the holiest of all, and we may well feel that logical analysis must give way to a spirit of worship. Nonetheless, with 'the shoes off our feet', if we submit our minds to the form of the inspired record of these holy events, deeper understanding will surely lead to an enrichment of our worship.
I shall begin by just running over the contents of chapters 26–28 with you, and call your attention to the way the Holy Spirit has ordered the narrative in a series of trilogies, and what I mean by that will best be seen by turning our attention to the text. It appears to me that in the major sections you will find: 1. a short paragraph stating a theme or a question; 2. the major incident; 3. another short paragraph which reverts to the theme of the first paragraph, and in some way answers it.
Matthew 26:1–16
1. A court of Caiaphas (Matt 26:1–5)
We are told: 'Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people"' (vv. 3–5). So they had a problem: how to take Jesus and kill him, which they proposed to solve by their ingenuity and craft.
2. Simon's House in Bethany (Matt 26:6–13)
Our attention is then transferred to the house of Simon, and the incident of the anointing of our Lord by a woman: 'Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table' (vv. 6–7).
3. Judas agrees to betray Christ (Matt 26:14–16)
When that is over, we revert to the question opened in verses 1–5: how they might somehow take Christ. They think out some ingenious plan, but their question is solved for them: 'Then one of the twelve, whose name was Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.'
So the lovely story of the anointing of our Lord in Bethany forms the centrepiece; and at the beginning and the end we have the question of the arrest of the Lord.
I shall not run through all of them, that would be too tedious; but look at section three:
Matthew 26:31–56
1. Prophecy: all shall be offended and sheep scattered: Peter denies it and so do all (Matt 26:31–35)
As our Lord leads his apostles out towards the Mount of Olives, he quotes a prophecy to warn them: 'You will all fall away ['be offended' [kjv]] because of me this night. For it is written, "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered"' (v. 31). But they all stoutly contradict the Lord Jesus, and Peter says, 'Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away' (v. 33). Our Lord has to repeat the warning: '"Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.'
2. The agony (Matt 26:36–46)
Then the section turns with the account of the agony in Gethsemane.
3. The arrest (Matt 26:47–56)
And finally to talk of the arrest in the garden.
Notice how that paragraph ends: '"But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled' (v. 56). And as you read it, you can't help but remember how it began, and what they had said an hour or two earlier, as recorded in verses 31–35.
We'll take one further example. Let's look at the last paragraph, section nine.
Matthew 27:62–28:20
1. Attempt to seal tomb (Matt 27:62–66)
When our Lord had been buried, we are told that the chief priests and the Pharisees came to Pilate and requested that the tomb should be sealed in case the disciples were to come and steal away the body, and then put about the story that Jesus was risen from the dead. And if that happened, the chief priest said, 'the last fraud will be worse than the first' (v. 64). So Pilate gave them permission and said, '"You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.' They were sealing the stone in order to prevent a story getting abroad that Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb.
2. The resurrection (Matt 28:1–10)
Then the middle paragraph tells the story of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
3. The two accounts of it (Matt 28:11–20)
And finally the two accounts that were circulated about what happened. The resurrection burst the seal wide open, and the Pharisees came up with their story of what happened. That is very interesting, because the first people to tell the world that the tomb of Christ was empty were not the Christians but the Jews. I sometimes think that God has a certain sense of humour. Then, and only then, did the Christians tell their account of the story. Jesus had risen, and gone before them to Galilee, and there he gave them the great commission to spread the story of his resurrection to the very ends of the earth, and our hearts are full of worship.
I merely make these suggestions to you so that, if you haven't noticed these things before, they might help you to put some of the stories into their context, and thus to be more effective in their application.
Now let us notice another theme that is to be found in these chapters. It occupies little space perhaps, but it is exceedingly important.
A question of loyalty
Look at section three at the end of column one: '[Then all the disciples left him and fled' (]26:56).
Then at the end of the first section in column two: 3. Peter's denial. In Matthew it is worded like this: 'Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all, saying "I do not know what you mean"' (26:69–70).
Now look at the very last words of the Gospel. The risen Lord is speaking to Peter, and to all eleven disciples: '[behold, I am with you always'] (28:20).
For my final contribution, I wonder if I may call your attention to two parts in sections 7 and 8 at the top of column three.
Matthew 27:27–44
3. The taunts (Matt 27:39–44)
When our Lord was crucified and they had parted his garments, they sat down to watch him and those that passed by began to rail on him. Matthew now records three taunts that they flung in the teeth of the Lord Jesus.
1. You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. (v. 40)
In other words, they thought he had prophesied that he would destroy their temple, and now, jeering at him in his pain, they said, 'You haven't done it, have you?'
2. So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.' (vv. 41–42)
That speaks for itself. They had to admit that in the course of his ministry he had saved others. But now sarcastically they say, 'He is the King of Israel and he cannot save himself.' What good is a King of Israel who cannot even save himself? Do you see the point of the mockery? Their expectation was of a Messiah and a king who would lead the armies of Israel and save her from her enemies. Some king, if he can't even save himself. What would you have said of David if he couldn't have defeated Goliath? I mean, what use would he have been? So they taunted the Lord: 'He saved others. Let him come down from the cross, and then we'll believe he's king. But, look, he can't even save himself!'
3. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.' (v. 43)
And the robbers, poor men, led on by the crowd they reviled him in the same way. It was the cruellest taunt of all. They said, 'He talked so much about trusting God, and he says that he trusts in God. All right, let God have the final verdict then, and deliver him now, if he desires him. But God isn't doing anything of the sort, is he?'
How the taunts were answered
Three taunts were thrown in the face of our crucified Lord, and the record goes on to tell us precisely how they were answered.
The third taunt
'He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him [if he will have him, [kjv]]. For he said, "I am the Son of God"' (v. 43). There was a strange answer to that taunt: 'Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"' (vv. 45–46). God actually forsook him. What shall we make of it?
There are liberal theologians and others who tell us that the stories in our gospel were invented by the church, and they never really happened. I can tell you one story that wasn't invented by the church: when Jesus hung upon the cross God forsook him, and Jesus himself admitted it. Do you suppose the church would have invented that, if it hadn't actually happened? In response to his critics, if Jesus himself had actually admitted in that context that God had forsaken him, what should we make of his claim? I know what your answer would be. Instead of saying, 'Well, that destroys everything,' you'd say, 'That's the biggest claim that Christ could ever have made, and the biggest evidence that he is indeed the Son of God.'
It's like what Mr Wilson was saying the other morning about the baptism. When our blessed Lord came to John the Baptist at the beginning of his ministry to be baptized, John the Baptist said, 'No, that's not appropriate. This is a baptism of repentance. This baptism is for sinners.' But our Lord insisted, and went and stood in Jordan in the very mud, along with those self-confessed sinners. When you face that, ladies and gentlemen, you face the biggest 'either/or' in history. Either Jesus was saying that he was a sinner like the rest/or he was God's sinless Son, who had come to stand with them and eventually take their place when they come in repentance.
The biggest piece of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God is precisely that he was forsaken by God. How is that an evidence of his deity? Well, we could sum it up in the words of the children's hymn. 'There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin.'7 Or the Christian explanation that God forsook him there, because he was the Son of God who had come to be the Saviour of the world.
It seems to me that 1 John 5 picks up the same argument: 'this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?' (vv. 4–5). What evidence is there that Jesus is the Son of God? Verse 6 gives us some of that evidence: 'This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood.'
What do you mean, 'he came by water and blood'? Not merely did he go by water and blood, he came by water and blood. You will find both things mentioned in the first chapter of the Gospel by John. John (the Baptist) came baptizing. Why did he come baptizing? 'I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit"' (John 1:33). The official forerunner appointed by God in fulfilment of Isaiah 40 bore public witness to the evidence of the deity of Christ: 'I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him' (v. 32). 'He came by water', that is, by water of his official baptism.
Not many days after that, John supplied the second piece of evidence. 'Behold, the Lamb of God!' (v. 36). This was not said at the end of his ministry but at the beginning, and marks out our Lord as unique. There has only been one man come into our world whose official introduction said that the purpose of his coming was to die for the sins of the world. 'He came by blood', and as he came, so he went. When the soldier pierced his side, there came out blood and water. Subjectively we know him to be the Son of God, but why do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
I need preachers to come and tell me to be good, and that's helpful in a way, I suppose. But in my heart of hearts I know myself that I ought to be good. The trouble is, I haven't been good, and that presents me with a very big problem. Does it matter whether you are good or not? Well, if it doesn't matter, then nothing matters. If we can do evil and it doesn't matter, then ultimately we don't matter and nobody else matters. If I can destroy your daughter with drugs and it doesn't matter, give up all hopes of heaven because if sin doesn't matter there'll never be a paradise. But if sin matters whatever shall I do, because I have sinned?
Ladies and gentlemen, your job to help me is not to tell me to be good, but to tell me first who has the answer to my problem. There's only one who has the answer, isn't there? He's the one who came saying that he had come to die, and his biggest claim to be the Son of God is that at Calvary God forsook him. God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and if Jesus Christ had not been forsaken at Calvary he wouldn't have met my need, would he? That God forsook him because he was bearing our sins in his body, is in itself a claim to deity; for what mere man could have borne our sins and for their sake suffered the dereliction of God?
'Let God deliver him now, if he will have him.' The answer to this taunt is to say outright that God did actually forsake him. But just as when our Lord stood in Jordan, God opened the heavens and said, 'This is my beloved Son,' and told the world the facts so that there should be no misunderstanding, Matthew tells us that three days after God forsook him, God raised him from the dead.
The second taunt
'So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others, he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him"' (27:41–42). Therefore, they concluded, what use was he as a king, if he couldn't even save himself? The taunt was very much beside the point. You might as well have said, 'What good is a Passover lamb that cannot save itself?' The only way the Passover lamb could take the Israelites out of Egypt was by not saving itself.
He didn't save himself, but look what happened when he consented to die. 'And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many' (vv. 50–53).
Thank God he didn't save himself and come down from the cross, because if he had, ladies and gentlemen, we would be dreading the onset of death. If he had not died, the last enemy, death, would have remained undefeated. See the glorious first fruits of it: when he cried out ['It is finished', see John 19:30] and yielded up his spirit, the very tombs burst open and people came out of their graves. By not saving himself and by consenting to die, he saved them from the monster of death. Oh yes, the taunt was answered.
The first taunt
'You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross' (v. 40). In my mind's eye I think I see them strutting confidently in front of the cross; 'There he is, the one who said that he would destroy our temple.'
Well, he hadn't literally said that; he didn't mean that he would personally pull it to pieces. Of course he didn't, though they may have thought he did. 'Destroy it now if you can; nailed by hand and foot to the cross—go on, destroy it!' Little did they know that by dying he was destroying it, for when he died, 'the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom' (Matt 27:51).
As you know, in that ancient temple there were two places, the Holy Place and the Most Holy. The Most Holy was forever guarded, veiled off, and no one was ever allowed to enter, apart from the high priest once a year. The Jews regarded it as so very holy. In one sense indeed it was greatly mysterious and marvellous: the mystery of that innermost place, underlined by the colourful ceremonies of the Day of Atonement every year. 'You can't destroy that,' they said, so they nailed him to a tree. There he offered the once and for all sacrifice that perfected our conscience and opened the way into the very holiest of all in heaven.
We don't need a temple now. What would you be doing, playing about with a sacred building on earth with a little dark shrine at the end of it, when you have access into the holiest of all in glory? If, like Stephen, you have seen the Lord who was crucified and ascended up into glory, and by faith's eye you see the heavens opened and the Saviour welcoming you into the very holiest of all, you don't need a temple on earth any more and the whole thing becomes obsolete.
Matthew 27:45–61
2. Centurion's confession (Matt 27:54–56)
Though you know these things, I call your attention to them to suggest that one of the angles that it is profitable to approach in these last three chapters is the evidence substantiating the claims of the Lord Jesus. You see, when Matthew wrote this, however late you think his Gospel was written, what had happened at Calvary was still fresh in the minds both of Christians and Jews. Here is an early inspired Christian apostle collecting the evidence and answering the taunts of the Jewish nation as to what happened at Calvary. It is a very powerful gospel message.
Matthew is supplying evidence that Jesus is the Son of God
If the Holy Spirit through Matthew is answering these taunts, could it be that in these other paragraphs at least one of his intentions is to supply evidence that Jesus is indeed the Son of God? The claim was not made up by the church, invented by fevered imaginations; it is seen to be true by the sheer facts of history.
But you are going to help me with this, and the field is wide open. My notes are only the scaffolding, and when you've got the building you can kick the scaffolding away. So, does anybody have a favourite passage here?
[Audience]: 'Tell me the same old story | When you have cause to fear | That this world's empty glory | Is costing me too dear.'8 What a precious story it is.
[DWG]: Yes.
[Audience]: There are some miracles at the cross that only Matthew emphasizes.
[DWG]: I can think of one immediately, the graves being opened (27:51–53). That's only in Matthew, isn't it? Of course, the veil being torn was a miracle of divine intervention.
While you're thinking about that, may I add to what Mr Wilson said.
Emphases that are peculiar to Matthew's Gospel
We're very frequently told, and rightly so, that Matthew's Gospel emphasizes our Lord as King, and John's Gospel emphasizes him as the Son of God. In general terms that is true; but when you come to the crucifixion the very reverse is true. It is in John, not in Matthew, that Pilate brings our Lord out to the people. 'Behold your King!' he says, and they reply, 'We have no king but Caesar' (John 19:14–15). At the crucifixion, the emphasis in John's Gospel is on the kingship of Christ.
That is not by accident, because from chapter 12 onward it is John who tells us, in a way that nobody else does, about the prince of this world coming to do battle with the Lord Jesus, and how the prince of this world shall be cast out. It's John who emphasizes that they didn't break the Lord Jesus' legs. Why not? Because the Scripture had said, 'Not one of his bones will be broken' (John 19:36; cf. Ps 34:20). Now, that's a Passover regulation, and when we think of the Passover we think of how God delivered Israel from the dominion and tyranny of Pharaoh, that great prince of Egypt.
In the Gospel of John, with the prince of this world looming on the horizon (see 14:30), it is appropriate enough that our Lord is represented as king. 'Behold your King,' said Pilate. 'We have no king but Caesar,' they said. And how did that king deliver them from the prince of this world? By becoming the Passover lamb, of course.
But it's Matthew who records them saying, 'If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross' (27:40). If Matthew wrote his Gospel for Jews it is understandable that he should emphasize this, because the fundamental issue between the church and Judaism is whether Jesus is the Son of God or not.
As we saw yesterday in the fourth of the narrative sections, the great issue in those verses that talk about the founding of the church is the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus. The evidence at the cross is consistent with that, and perhaps also therefore this feature that Mr Wilson talks about, the occurrence of the supernatural at the crucifixion of Christ.
[Audience]: Right at the very end we read about the centurion, the man who actually was responsible for the crucifixion: 'When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"' (v. 54). Then another Gospel says, 'Certainly this man was innocent!' (Luke 23:47).
[DWG]: Yes, Luke emphasizes our Lord's moral character—he was right and these others were wrong. But Matthew's emphasis is—he is the Son of God.
May I call attention to another thing: the tremendous emphasis in Matthew's Gospel on blood. Look at the second paragraph of column two on your sheet.9
Matthew 27:1–10
2. Judas' confession (Matt 27:3–5)
Judas comes, saying, '"I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers' (27:4–7).
Am I not right in saying that those details are peculiar to Matthew?
Matthew 27:11–26
3. Pilate washes his hands of it all (Matt 27:24–26)
Also peculiar to Matthew is the story from verse 24 onwards: 'So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"'
Two stories peculiar to Matthew, the centre of which is this question of the blood of the Lord Jesus. And, of course, they are tremendously significant.
The attitude of other rulers in Matthew to 'innocent blood'
We have seen that Matthew is arguing the case that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the true king of Israel. In the course of his history, he introduces us to certain other rulers. Now, you can judge governments by many tests, and one test is the concern they will have with innocent blood and their attitude to the tremendous responsibility they carry for the life and death of their citizens. Let's apply the test.
In chapter 2 it's the story of Herod the Great. Was he ruling for the benefit of his subjects? Well, if he could, yes. And if he couldn't, he'd rule nonetheless. So, to perpetuate his rule he sent his soldiers out to kill all the baby boys under two years of age. It was a 'slaughter of the innocents' by a man who was determined to be king at any cost. What does that say about the government and its attitude to the value of human life? That it's sheer ambition.
In chapter 14 we meet another Herod. He was not such a fierce figure as Herod the Great. In fact, in his way he was almost benign. He didn't like John's preaching; he found it very embarrassing. He put him in prison, but decided not to execute him. The people held John to be a prophet, so it wouldn't have been a politically wise move. Putting him in prison stopped his preaching, and there was no scandal. But his wife thought differently. She sent her daughter in to perform a very questionable dance, and in a moment of high passion Herod gave the oath that took the head off John the Baptist. He didn't want to do it, but he lost control of himself and he did it.
I don't know which you would consider to be worse. A government that is prepared to slaughter sixty million of its own people to further its own political ambitions, like Stalin's was; or a government that is so weak that it can't control its own passions, and in the process cuts the head off the greatest of all the prophets. Which would you choose?
In chapter 27 we come to the authorities. Let's take the priestly authorities first. Here comes Judas, 'saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself"' (v. 4). What is that to us!—according to the Old Testament, it was their business to keep the land clear of the shedding of innocent blood. In Israel, if a corpse was found and it wasn't known who had committed the murder, the elders of the city were to come out and pronounce solemnly before God that they weren't responsible for it. It was a charge upon them, and the high priest bore it supremely, to keep the land free of the charge of innocent blood. And here are the very high priests who, when faced with a repentant, or at least a remorseful, sinner saying 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood,' calmly turn round and say, 'That's not our business. You see to it.'
It wasn't Judas' job to see to it. Why didn't they counsel the man in his remorse, and point him to the necessary sacrifice by which, perhaps, he could find atonement? But they weren't interested, for truth to tell they were involved in the crime of shedding the innocent blood themselves. Some priests! And such a dereliction of their duty.
Then again in chapter 27, we come to the political authorities (v. 11), and under Rome Pilate was supreme. If the priests were evil and perverted, then it was Pilate's job to see that justice was done. As he sat on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, 'Have nothing to do with that righteous man' (v. 19). She'd had a disturbing dream because of him. Pilate was a tough Roman soldier, but he was a pagan, and if pagans are ever going to be impressed it will be by the supernatural, by dreams and things. If you read ancient literature you'll find out that even the toughest of them were very much moved by supernatural omens, and here was one staring Pilate in the face.
He did his best to save the Lord Jesus by offering to release either Jesus or Barabbas, but the crowd and the priests outwitted him, and to his amazement they chose Barabbas. When they said, 'Let him be crucified!', he tried to protest, saying, 'Why? What evil has he done?' He wanted to save him, but the priests and the crowd overruled him. In a fatuously weak attempt to exonerate himself he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it', he said (v. 24 [kjv]). But it wasn't the job of the high priests, and still less of that roaring ungovernable mob, to see to the death sentence of a citizen.
Fancy a supreme court surrendering a prisoner to the mob and saying, 'You see to it.' That is the final dereliction of duty on the part of the civil government. Judged by this question of innocent blood, they cut very sorry figures indeed.
What does Matthew tell us about the King himself?
In chapter 26 we have the record of how the King himself shed blood, and he did it with the utmost deliberation. Before they got round to saying, 'We'd better find a means of getting him out of the way, and destroying him,' (see vv. 3–4), Jesus had announced to his apostles that the Passover was near, and the Son of Man would be delivered up to be crucified (v. 2). And when he came to the table and took the cup, he announced to them, 'this is my blood of the [new] covenant' (see vv. 26–28). The King would shed blood: not the blood of his citizens, but his own blood, the innocent for the guilty.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is the power that Jesus Christ exerts over you? How did he come to captivate you and bind you to himself in utter obedience? Well, it was not like Stalin, by terrorizing you and shedding the blood of thousands of your fellow citizens, was it? He came to government by shedding his own blood for your sake.
Notice finally with what control and deliberation he shed his blood. It wasn't in a rash moment of enthusiasm to be regretted afterwards, like we do sometimes. You know, we're so moved in a missionary meeting we put in a \$100 bill, and then when we get outside we think, 'I shouldn't have done that'. Why did the Saviour of the world shed his blood? Well, it's a long story, for it was from eternity and foreshadowed of old in the Passover.
It was with the utmost self-control that he came to the garden. When the arrest party arrived, Peter drew out his sword to defend the Lord Jesus. He meant well, but he so lacked self-control that he cut off the man's ear instead of his head. If you're going to use a sword, do learn how to use it, and maintain enough self-control to use it properly and effectively! Our Lord told him to put the sword back into its place, and said to Peter and the disciples, 'Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?' (see 26:51–53). With twelve legions of angelic swords at his disposal, he could have destroyed the mob in an instant. His obedience was utterly free, you know. There was nothing mechanical in it. He could have called, and the Father would have sent them. 'But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?' (v. 54). What tremendous self-control, to leave those twelve legions of swords unsheathed and submit to arrest, torture and crucifixion because the Scriptures said so.
And maybe there are other indications, but I won't tire you by enumerating them. In Matthew, this question of innocent blood is of prime importance because he's comparing our Lord as king with all the other authorities in the land.
[Audience]: Matthew 27:9 is a fulfilment of that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver'. And the point, of course, is from Zechariah 11:12–13. What's the explanation?
[DWG]: The most detailed, and the most satisfactory explanation that I have personally seen or heard is to be found in a very learned and intricate book by Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament In the Gospel Passion Narratives. He points out, as many scholars do, that if you were citing two ancient prophecies you mentioned only the more famous of the two. So Jeremiah gets mentioned, though a great deal of the detail comes from Zechariah. Moo discusses the sense in which our Lord and Judas fulfilled this prophecy, but I don't carry the details in my head. It is a very illuminating discussion, because on the surface of it the incident doesn't seem at all to bear out what Matthew is claiming. It seems the very reverse. But in actual fact, when you consider the Zechariah prophecy in the light of Jeremiah, the thing makes marvellous sense.
It runs in my mind that Moo argues the case about which chapter in Jeremiah is being referred to. It's not just a simple choice of one or the other. He makes a very strong case for chapter 19, I think, but I'm not quite sure now. Sorry, I can't give more detail. The thing occupies about twelve pages of closely typed manuscript. I do recommend it. To my mind it is much more satisfactory than the normal evangelical conservative explanations of it, and the whole thing comes up brilliantly as a confirmation that Matthew is making admirable sense, and is indeed inspired.
Would the disciples have acted differently if they had been expecting the Lord to die?
Two stories about values: Matthew 26:1–16
2. Simon's house in Bethany (Matt 26:6–13)
What is the function of the anointing of our Lord in Simon's house in Bethany? You may say, 'There is more than one answer to that.' Yes, it is a very moving story of this dear woman's estimation of the Lord Jesus, her anointing of him, and the question of values. Those at the supper began to criticize the cost of the ointment: they thought it was a waste, and should have been given to the poor.
3. Judas agrees to betray Christ (Matt 26:14–16)
That leads on to the story of Judas, who protested with the rest of them that this money should have been given to the poor. He went off to make another financial arrangement, and I don't know that he gave his thirty pieces of silver to the poor. So, once more it introduces us to the idea of values, the cost of innocent blood, and so on.
May I suggest that these stories provide further evidence that the disciples were not expecting Christ to die. Jews and so called Christian scholars have tried to argue that all these stories were made up by the church, and the central story—that the death of Christ was an atoning death—is an interpretation made up by the church. That is taught to thousands of undergraduates in theological colleges.
The essential elements for the death of Jesus to be an atoning death are:
1. His death must be followed by his resurrection.
2. His death must be deliberate.
3. He must himself be sinless.
And that raises the question, what is the evidence for those three things? And did the church invent it? But further to the point: did the early Christians get the idea that Jesus was going to die, and manoeuvred the whole situation? They discovered the prophecies from the Old Testament, and made up the story to fulfil those prophecies. Then they started the Christian church, of which they conveniently became the apostles.
One of the pieces of evidence that they didn't, is to be found in this story of the anointing of the Lord Jesus in Bethany. Notice where it is found. The Lord had already announced that he was going to die: 'the Son of Man must be delivered up' (see 17:22). Then we have the story of the anointing, which shows even then, by their reaction to it, that the eleven loyal apostles were not expecting the Lord to die. When this good woman came and anointed the Lord Jesus, they complained that it was a waste, spending this colossal amount of money on the Lord.
I speak as a complete inexpert here, but if your wife said she'd like a big box of chocolates for Christmas, you wouldn't begrudge it, would you? If she said that she'd like a new car, you might consider it. But if she said she'd like two or three new cars, you might say, 'Well, my dear, I don't think it would be wise to dip into our resources to that level.'
What if the doctor came to you and said that your wife is suffering from terminal cancer; she has six months to live, but she doesn't know it? Then your wife says to you, 'I've got an ambition; I've always felt I'd like to take a world cruise. Would you take me on a world cruise?' Would you say, 'No, that's a waste of money'? If you knew it was the last thing you could do for her, if it bankrupted you, you'd do it.
Do you suppose those eleven apostles were any different from you? If they had known this was the last thing they could do to show their love for the Saviour, would they have begrudged that amount of ointment? They didn't know he was going to die. It hadn't yet registered with them, so they thought it was a waste of money for the woman to spend all that at once on the Saviour. And while the story is written by our Lord's express command, for all the world to hear and admire that woman (26:13), it carries with it very important historical evidence that even at this stage the apostles were not expecting the Lord to die.
It is clear also from the arrest, when Peter got out his sword to stop our Lord from dying. When our Lord was arrested, all the apostles forsook him and fled. Did the church make up that bit too? Why did they run away? Peter drew his sword, courageous man, to try and prevent our Lord from being arrested and killed. To his astonishment and dismay, the Lord said, 'No, Peter, put your sword away. I'm going to die. You see, the Scripture has got to be fulfilled.' When he said that, the apostles forsook him and fled because they didn't accept that he was going to die. The idea of a Messiah who should die struck them as such a contradiction in terms that they were prepared to have no part in it.
After that Peter followed him to the high priest's court, and the high priest asked the Lord Jesus, 'Are you the Christ?'
'This will be interesting,' thought Peter, 'because if he is not prepared to fight, how can he be the Messiah? And if he has allowed himself to be arrested, he surely won't claim to be the Christ now, because that will be the end of him.'
He heard our Lord say, 'Yes, I am'; and then, when the maid said, 'Are you with him?', Peter denied it.
Ladies and gentlemen, the church didn't invent that story. As far as the apostles were concerned, not only did one betray him, but the rest all ran away. It stands historically in the story of the unique man, Jesus Christ, that he deliberately died because he'd come to save us. With the planning of centuries, the Son of God, the Messiah, came to shed his blood for our sakes, to redeem us and set us free.
Shall we just close in prayer.
Take thy word, Lord, as given to us by thy Spirit, and help us to show our devotion by calling on our minds to love thee with all our strength, so that, with ever deepening understanding, we may be led to enriched and enrichening worship. We ask it through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
7 C. F. Alexander (1818-1895) 'There is a Green Hill Far Away' (1848).
8 Katherine Hankey (1834-1911), 'Tell me the old, old story.'
9 The Death, Burial and Resurrection of the Son of God. Matthew 26:1–28:20.
Listen
The audio for this series is mostly clear but a little muffled at times.
You can download each track by clicking the icon on the SoundCloud player.
Study Notes
1A: The Way of the Lord (Matthew 1:1–4:22)
| The Birth and Development of the Nation | The Way of the Desert |
|---|---|
| 1. Genealogy (Matt 1:1–17) | 5. Ministry of John (Matt 3:1–12) |
| Son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac. | Brood of vipers! Do not presume: we have Abraham as our father. |
| David’s son called the Christ. | |
| 2. Birth (Matt 1:18–25) | 6. Baptism (Matt 3:13–17) |
| The Son and the Spirit in relation to sin. | The Son and the Spirit in relation to sin. |
| 1. A question of righteousness: Joseph being a righteous man was not disposed to marry Mary, but was persuaded by an angel. | A question of righteousness: John was not disposed to baptize Jesus, but Jesus persuaded him saying, thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness. |
| 2. That which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. | The Spirit of God . . . came upon him. |
| 3. Immanuel: God with us. | This is my beloved Son. |
| 3. Herod, Christ, Priests, and the Scriptures (Matt 2:1–12) | 7. The Devil, Christ and the Scriptures (Matt 4:1–11) |
| The two kings. | The two kings. |
| It is written. | It is written (4x). |
| That I too may . . . worship him. | If you will fall down and worship me. |
| Wise men fell down and worshipped him. | You shall worship the Lord your God and him only. |
| They offered him gifts. | All these things I will give you. |
| 4. Withdrawal (Matt 2:13–23) | 8. Withdrawal (Matt 4:12–22) |
| He withdrew into Egypt . . . that it might be fulfilled . . . spoken by the prophet. | He withdrew into Galilee . . . that what was spoken by the prophet . . . might be fulfilled. |
| He came and dwelt in Nazareth. | He left Nazareth. |
| Rachel weeping for her slaughtered children. | Those dwelling in the region and shadow of death. |
| Christ: Called the Nazarene | The Way of the Sea |
| Genocide |
1B: Overview of Matthew 1:1–4:22
| 1. | Genealogy (Matt 1:1–17) | 5. | John Baptist’s Preaching (Matt 3:1–12) |
| a. The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son . . . of Abraham. | a. You brood of vipers! . . . do not presume to say . . . ‘We have Abraham as our father’, for . . . God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. | ||
| 2. | Birth (Matt 1:18–25) | 6. | Baptism (Matt 3:13–17) |
| a. Joseph, being a just man . . . resolved to divorce her . . . But . . . an angel . . . appeared . . . saying, ‘. . . do not fear . . . that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit’. | a. John would have prevented him . . . But Jesus answered him ‘. . . thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.’ . . . and he saw the Spirit of God descending . . . and coming to rest on him. | ||
| b. ‘And they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us). | b. A voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ | ||
| 3. | Herod and the Wise Men (Matt 2:1–12) | 7. | Christ and the Devil (Matt 4:1–11) |
| a. And assembling all the . . . scribes . . . he enquired . . . where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem . . . for so it is written . . .’ | a. He answered, ‘It is written . . .’ Then the devil . . . said . . . ‘. . . for it is written’ . . . Jesus said . . . ‘Again it is written . . .’ Then Jesus said . . . ‘Be gone . . . For it is written . . .’. | ||
| b. Herod summoned the wise men . . . saying, ‘Go and search . . . for the child, and . . . bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.’ | b. And [the devil] said . . . ‘All these I will give you, if you will . . . worship me.’ Then Jesus said. . . ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only . . .’. | ||
| 4. | Withdrawal (Matt 2:13–23) | 8. | Withdrawal (Matt 4:12–22) |
| a. Joseph . . . took the child . . . and departed to Egypt . . . But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning . . . he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in . . . Nazareth. | a. Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum. |
2: Christ and the Authorities (Matthew 7:28–10:42)
| Matt 7:28–8:4 | Matt 8:18–22 | Matt 9:1–8 | Matt 9:14–26 | Matt 9:35–10:15 |
| He taught as one HAVING AUTHORITY not as the scribes. The CLEANSING of the LEPER and the law of MOSES. I will; be clean. | Journey Announced There came a SCRIBE. Another disciple. | Forgiveness and Healing of Paralytic The SCRIBES said this man speaks blasphemy. AUTHORITY on earth to forgive. God has given such AUTHORITY to men. | DISCIPLES OF JOHN: Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but not your disciples? RULER of synagogue and dead child. Woman: defiling illness. | Christ Delegates Authority to Apostles People like sheep without a shepherd. Lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not to Gentiles. Matt 10:15: ‘Truly, I say to you . . .’. |
| Matt 8:5–13 | Matt 8:23–27 | Matt 9:9 | Matt 9:27–31 | Matt 10:16–23 |
| Centurion’s Servant I am also a man UNDER AUTHORITY. Soldiers obey. I have not found so great FAITH in Israel. | Journey Begins He rebuked the winds and the sea. What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey? Why are you afraid, O you of little FAITH? | Call of Matthew FOLLOW ME and he followed him. | Two Blind Men Appeal to SON OF DAVID. Do you believe that I am able? According to your FAITH let it be done. | As sheep among wolves. A testimony to the Gentiles. Matt 10:23: ‘Truly, I say to you . . .’. |
| Matt 8:14–17 | Matt 8:28–34 | Matt 9:10–13 | Matt 9:32–34 | Matt 10:24–42 |
| Peter’s House Fever. DEMONS cast out. Sick healed. | Journey’s Furthermost Point Two DEMONIACS so fierce that no one could pass. Demons sent away. All the city begged Christ to depart. | The Banquet THE PHARISEES’ criticism: Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? Not the well, but the sick, need a doctor. | A mute man possessed with a DEMON. Pharisees said: by the prince of demons he casts out DEMONS. | If they have called the master of the house BEELZEBUL. Matt 10:42: ‘Truly, I say to you . . .’. |
| Old Testament quotation: He took our illnesses and bore our diseases. | Old Testament quotation: Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. |
3: The Deity of Christ—Peter—And the Church (Matthew 13:53–18:35)
| Matt 13:53–58 | Matt 15:1–20 | Matt 16:13–20 | Matt 17:22–23 |
| The Men of His Own Country Is not this the carpenter’s son? And they were offended in him. | Pharisees and Scribes from Jerusalem Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying? | Caesarea Philippi The identity of the Son of Man: the Son of the living God . . . the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. | Galilee The suffering of the Son of Man . . . they shall kill him and on the third day he shall be raised up. |
| Matt 14:1–12 | Matt 15:21–28 | Matt 16:21–28 | Matt 17:24–27 |
| Herod, a Woman and Her Daughter Herod is reluctant to kill John, but his adulterous wife sends her daughter to dance. Herod promises to give her anything she asks. Her mother tells her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. Herod reluctantly grants the request. | Christ, a Woman and Her Daughter A Canaanite woman pleads with Christ to release her daughter from a demon. Christ is apparently reluctant to grant her request; but she argues her case and in the end Christ, commending her faith, gives her what she asks for. | Christ Forecasts the Cross 1. Peter bids Christ to avoid suffering and is rebuked. His suggestion is an offence to Christ. 2. ‘What shall a man give in exchange for his life?’ (antallagma tes psyches). | Christ Pays the Ransom Money 1. Peter says that Christ pays temple tax: he has to be corrected. Christ forgoes his rights so as not to offend the public. 2. Christ pays the ransom for Peter’s life (LXX Exod 30:11–16: lutra tes psyches). |
| Matt 14:13–21 | Matt 15:29–38 | Matt 17:1–13 | **Matt 18:1–14 |
| Feeding of Five Thousand 1. Christ heals the sick. 2. Five loaves and two fish. 3. Twelve baskets full of fragments. | Feeding of Four Thousand 1. Christ heals the sick. 2. Seven loaves and a few fish. 3. Seven baskets full of fragments. | Visions of the Son of Man Coming in his Kingdom 1. Christ’s face shining like the sun. 2. This is my beloved Son. Moses and Elijah depart. Jesus alone: supreme and incomparable. | The Question: Who is Greatest in the Kingdom? 1. ‘The face of my Father who is in heaven’ (v. 10). 2. ‘Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven’ (v. 4). |
| Matt 14:22–33 | Matt 15:39–16:4 | Matt 17:14–18 | Matt 18:15–20 |
| Christ and the Storm at Sea 1. Christ sends crowds away: ascends mountain while disciples cross lake in a boat. 2. Disciples distressed by wind and waves. 3. Christ walks on water. Peter is bidden to walk on water: begins to, then sinks, and is rescued. | Christ and Discerning Signs of Weather and Times 1. Christ sends crowds away and gets into a boat. 2. Pharisees can predict fair and stormy weather but cannot discern signs of times. 3. The sign of Jonah. | Ineffective Disciples ‘I brought him to your disciples and they could not heal him.’ And Jesus said: ‘O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you?’ | Effective Disciples Again . . . if two of you agree . . . about anything they ask, it will be done . . . for . . . there am I among them. |
| Matt 14:34–36 | Matt 16:5–12 | Matt 17:19–20 | Matt 18:21–35 |
| What Happened on the Other Side of the Sea The men of the place recognize Christ: they bring their sick and ask to be allowed to touch the border of his garment; and are healed. | What Happened on the Other Side of the Sea O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have no bread? Beware of the leaven i.e. the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. | Question Arising Then came the disciples to Jesus and said, ‘Why could we not cast it out?’ . . . ‘because of your little faith.’ | Question Arising Then came Peter and said to him: ‘Lord how often will my brother sin . . . and I forgive him?’ |
4: The Parallel Structure of Matthew 19–25
| 1. | Divorce (Matt 19:3–9) | 14. | Tribute (Matt 22:15–22) |
| a. Is it lawful to divorce one’s . . . wife for any cause? | a. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? | ||
| b. What God has joined together, let not man separate . . . . Why then did Moses . . .? (Apparent conflict between God’s ideal and Moses’ command.) | b. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (No real conflict between loyalty to God and obedience to Caesar.) | ||
| 2. | Expediency of Marriage (Matt 19:10–15) | 15. | Implications of Levirate Marriage (Matt 22:23–33) |
| a. If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry. | a. Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.’ | ||
| b. Not everyone can receive this saying . . . there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. . . . Let the little children come . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven. | b. In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. | ||
| 3. | The Rich Young Man: His Question and Decision and the Lessons Drawn Therefrom (Matt 19:16–20:16) | 16. | The Lawyer’s Question (Matt 22:34–40) |
| a. If you would enter life, keep the commandments . . . Which? . . . You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honour your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. | a. Which is the great commandment in the Law? . . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. | ||
| 4. | Zebedee’s Wife’s Request (Matt 20:20–23) | 17. | Jesus’ Question (Matt 22:41–46) |
| a. ‘Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ Jesus answered, ‘. . . but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’ | a. How is it then that David . . . calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand . . .’. | ||
| 5. | Rebuke of the Ten (Matt 20:24–28) | 18. | Denunciation of the Scribes (Matt 23:1–12) |
| a. The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. | a. But [do] not what they do. For they preach, but do not practise. They tie up heavy burdens . . . and lay them on people’s shoulders. | ||
| b. Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave. | b. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. | ||
| 6. | Healing of Blind Men (Matt 20:29–34) | 19. | Woes on Pharisees (Matt 23:13–39) |
| a. Two blind men . . . cried out . . . And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight. | a. Woe to you, blind guides (v. 16) . . . You blind fools! (v. 17) . . . You blind guides (v. 24) . . . you blind Pharisee! (v. 26) O Jerusalem . . . How often would I . . . and you would not! (v. 37). | ||
| 7. | Entry into Jerusalem (Matt 21:1–11) | 20. | Prophecy (1): Then shall the End Come (Matt 24:1–14) |
| a. They . . . came . . . to the Mount of Olives. | a. He sat on the Mount of Olives. | ||
| b. Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you’. | b. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ’. | ||
| 8. | Cleansing of Temple (Matt 21:12–17) | 21. | Prophecy (2): There Will the Eagles be Gathered (Matt 24:15–28) |
| a. Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold . . . ‘My house . . . you make it a den of robbers.’ | a. When you see the abomination of desolation . . . standing in the holy place. | ||
| b. Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise. | b. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! | ||
| 9. | Cursing of the Fig Tree (Matt 21:18–22) | 22. | Prophecy (3): But Immediately After the Tribulation (Matt 24:29–35) |
| a. A fig tree . . . nothing on it but only leaves. . . . the fig tree withered at once. | a. From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch . . . puts out its leaves. | ||
| 10. | Christ’s Authority Challenged (Matt 21:23–27) | 23. | Prophecy (4): But of That Day and Hour Knows No One (Matt 24:36–51) |
| a. ‘The baptism of John . . . from heaven or from man?’ And they discussed . . . answered . . . ‘We do not know.’ | a. And they were unaware until the flood came . . . you do not know on what day your Lord is coming . . . . if the master of the house had known . . . the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. | ||
| 11. | Parable of Two Sons (Matt 21:28–32) | 24. | Parable of Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1–13) |
| a. The first . . . answered, ‘I will not’, but afterwards he changed his mind and went. . . . The other son . . . answered, ‘I go, sir’, but did not go. | a. Five . . . were foolish, and five were wise. | ||
| b. The tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. | b. And while they [the foolish] were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready [the wise] went in. | ||
| 12. | Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21:33–46) | 25. | Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30) |
| a. [Householder] who planted a vineyard . . . leased it to tenants, and went into another country. | a. A man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. | ||
| b. He sent . . . to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat . . . killed . . . stoned . . . when the tenants saw the son, they said . . . ‘Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ | b. He . . . who had received the one talent . . . ‘Master, I . . . hid your talent . . . you have what is yours.’ But his master answered . . . ‘You wicked and slothful servant! . . . I should have received what was my own with interest.’ | ||
| c. The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. | c. Take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents . . . from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. | ||
| 13. | Parable of Marriage Feast (Matt 22:1–14) | 26. | Parable of Sheep and Goats (Matt 25:31–46) |
| a. I have prepared my dinner . . . everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast. | a. Come . . . inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was a hungry and you gave me food. | ||
| b. When the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said ‘. . . how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ . . . Then the king said ‘. . . cast him into the outer darkness . . .’ | b. And the King will . . . say . . . ‘Depart from me . . . into the eternal fire . . . For I was . . . naked and you did not clothe me . . .’ Then they also will answer . . . ‘Lord, when did we see you . . . naked . . .?’ |
5: The Death, Burial and Resurrection of the Son of God (Matthew 26:1–28:20)
| Matt 26:1–16 | Matt 26:57–75 | Matt 27:27–44 |
| 1. A court of Caiaphas (Matt 26:1–5). | 1. Caiaphas’ house: Peter follows at a distance (Matt 26:57–58). | 1. The soldiers’ mockery (Matt 27:27–31). |
| 2. Simon’s House in Bethany (Matt 26:6–13). | 2. Trial before priests (Matt 26:59–68). | 2. The crucifixion (Matt 27:32–38). |
| 3. Judas agrees to betray Christ (Matt 26:14–16). | 3. Peter’s denial: You were with Jesus. No! (Matt 26:69–75). | 3. The taunts (Matt 27:39–44). |
| Matt 26:17–30 | Matt 27:1–10 | Matt 27:45–61 |
| 1. Preparation to eat Passover: my time (Matt 26:17–19). | 1. Counsel to put Jesus to death (Matt 27:1–2). | 1. Darkness and dereliction (Matt 27:45–53). |
| 2. As they were eating: one shall betray me (Matt 26:20–30). | 2. Judas’ confession (Matt 27:3–5). | 2. Centurion’s confession (Matt 27:54–56). |
| 3. As they were eating: institution of supper (Matt 26:26–30). | 3. The price of blood: they took counsel to buy potter’s field (Matt 27:6–10). | 3. The burial (Matt 27:57–61). |
| Matt 26:31–56 | Matt 27:11–26 | Matt 27:62–28:20 |
| 1. Prophecy: all shall be offended and sheep scattered: Peter denies it and so do all (Matt 26:31–35). | 1. Jesus before the governor (Matt 27:11–14). | 1. Attempt to seal tomb (Matt 27:62–66). |
| 2. The agony (Matt 26:36–46). | 2. Barabbas (Matt 27:15–23). | 2. The resurrection (Matt 28:1–10). |
| 3. The arrest (Matt 26:47–56). | 3. Pilate washes his hands of it all (Matt 27:24–26). | 3. The two accounts of it (Matt 28:11–20). |
| Then all the disciples left him and fled | Behold, I am with you always |
6: Potential Structure for the Whole Book
| 1. | Prologue | Matt 1:1–4:22 | Birth, Baptism, Temptation and Early Ministry |
| General Remark | Matt 4:23–25 | And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel . . . and healing . . . And there followed him great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan. | |
| 2. | Sermon on Mount | Matt 5:1–7:27 | Laws of the Kingdom |
| General Remark | Matt 7:28–29 | And it came to pass, when Jesus ended these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. | |
| 3. | Narrative and Discourse | Matt 8:1–10:42 | Authority of Christ and His Disciples |
| General Remark | Matt 11:1 | And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples, he departed to teach and preach in their cities. | |
| 4. | Narrative and Discourse | Matt 11:2–13:52 | Establishment of the Kingdom |
| General Remark | Matt 13:53 | And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed. | |
| 5. | Narrative and Discourse | Matt 13:54–18:35 | Establishment of the Church |
| General Remark | Matt 19:1–2 | And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. | |
| 6. | Questions and Teaching | Matt 19:3–25:46 | Principles of the Kingdom |
| General Remark | Matt 26:1–2 | And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words, he said to his disciples, ‘You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.’ | |
| 7. | Epilogue | Matt 26:3–28:20 | Arrest, Crucifixion, Burial and Resurrection |
7: Similarities Between Sections 2 and 6
| 1. It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt 5:31–32). | 1. Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? He said . . . ‘whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery’ (Matt 19:7–9). |
| 2. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. . . . whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments . . . will be called least in the kingdom of heaven . . . whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17, 19; 7:12). | 2. And he said . . . ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets’ (Matt 22:37–40). |
| 3. Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. . . . And everyone who . . . does not do them will be like a foolish man . . . (Matt 7:24–27). | 3. Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins . . . Five of them were foolish, and five were wise (Matt 25:1–2). |