Synoptics Section 347

All right, we are in, we are pressing on in our synoptic study.

We are, we're close, we're close, we're close. I mean, if I wanted to just simply skip over the surface, we could probably get done today.

But obviously, that would be a disappointment, I think, to many people who have been following along over the course of the past decade if we bounce through all that kind of stuff.

So, that would not be overly fair. I had us marked

N347, yeah, we did, yes, because I do specifically recall going over the

Truly I Say To You Today You Will Be With Me In Paradise issue a couple weeks ago. Hopefully you remember that when the

Jehovah's Witnesses show up at your door, their quote translation, unquote, will mistranslate

Luke 23, 43, well, it will mispunctuate Luke 23, 43 would be the way to put it.

And he said to him, Truly I Say To You Today, comma, You Will Be With Me In Paradise.

And we went over that last time and why they believe what they believe about that and why they render it that way and why they make

Jesus say something irrelevant from the cross, but that's how it works.

They don't believe that there's a spiritual nature to man and therefore, that's how they render that particular text.

And then I think we started, if I recall correctly, dealing with the reality of the timing of the death of Christ.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was now about the sixth hour and there's darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Now, there are, you know, just because we were raised with one particular way of telling time doesn't mean it's always how mankind told time until you had such things as clocks and astronomical observation.

Obviously, man's always been fascinated with the issue of time. Many of the ancient, you know,

Stonehenge and things like that are designed to tell time and movement of planets and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

I mean, hey, until there was ESPN, what did you do at night anyways? You know, you just stare up at the sky and there wasn't any light poisoning.

You could actually see everything up there and light pollution. So, you know, that's what people did.

And so, there were different ways of telling time. Obviously, one of the most common ways was, well, when the sun comes up, that's the start of the day.

When it goes down, that's the end of the day. Well, you know, but people pretty well figured out this 24 -hour thing early on.

And so, when do you start that 24 hours? And some people, you know, like us, we start it in the middle of the night, which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when you think about it, but why not?

And then others, of course, would start it at 6 o 'clock in the morning, sort of an average time for sunrise, though obviously that's going to change where you are, you know, depending on where you are and what time of the year and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

The point being that Matthew, Mark, and Luke utilized the

Jewish reckoning of time, and so they're all saying the same thing. Sixth hour would be noon, ninth hour would be 3 p .m.

in the afternoon. But the Roman time, how

Romans kept time is different in that it's the same as we utilize, starting in the middle of the night, and hence the hours are different.

And in all probability, John utilizes a Roman time, probably because he's writing in the later period of time, which might be one of those indications, one of those indicators that's good to keep our eyes open for in regards to the timing of the writing of these books.

If you're writing to an audience that is still going to be in Israel before the destruction of the

Temple, then you might want to utilize the time system that they utilize.

If you're no longer there, if you're writing in another place, if you're writing primarily for a non -Jewish audience that's in a non -Jewish area, you might want to utilize the time system that they utilize.

Keeping track of those things helps us to recognize that when people say, well, there's contradictions, there's errors, normally it's because they're not paying attention.

Then we also, I think, did deal a little bit with the use of Psalm 22.

And I think I recall saying to you, I really enjoy when the Muslims ask about Jesus' statement from the cross,

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And I mentioned last time, much to the chagrin of some,

I would imagine, because there's been some real stem -winder sermons preached down through the years about the

Father turning his back upon the Son, and all the rest of that kind of stuff. I don't see it,

I don't get it, I don't think there's a biblical basis for that. Just somebody say, well, God can't look upon sin.

That's not a sufficient basis to say that at the very point of His greatest obedience the Father turns His back upon the

Son. Now there would be some who would say, well, but the Son was made sin in our place.

Got to be careful about that one. Because when you think about the great exchange in 2

Corinthians 5, He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become righteous to God in Him.

What's the big debate between ourselves and Rome as to the nature of righteousness?

There was a, what about 2 weeks ago now, there was a video that came out, a bunch of people asked me to comment on it,

I did not, but I at least listened to it, where one of the political candidates had explained his understanding of the

Christian faith. And my understanding is he comes from a Roman Catholic background. And everybody was jumping up and down, because see, see, he got it wrong.

Well, he's Roman Catholic, he actually got it right for a Roman Catholic, but what do you expect?

The issue, remember Luther's dunghill? Does everybody remember

Luther's dunghill? Some of you don't remember Luther's dunghill? We, it is, it is, almost anybody will, in fact it's called

Luther's dunghill, will tell you that it has become a church history legend that Luther used as an illustration of the nature of what justification means, the concept of a dunghill.

Now, we can't actually find where he did that. It doesn't mean he didn't, but there are extensive number of sources for Luther's actual words, including his table talks, things like that.

It fits Luther. I mean, Luther and dung go together. I mean, that was just the way, he was a rather earthy fellow.

He had, for example, digestive issues, and hence found ways of making theological significance out of flatulence.

So that's just the way Luther was. And so a dunghill probably fits.

If it wasn't him, it was somebody who was doing their best to imitate him. Anyway, the illustration that he utilized was that we in our sin are like a dunghill.

And you go, what is a dunghill? Well, you got to remember, you couldn't go to your local feed store and buy fertilizer back in those days.

You used the dung of your farm animals and spread it out on the fields as your fertilizer.

They knew that, wow, you do that and things grow better. And so they had figured that out.

You didn't dispose of it, bury it or whatever. You piled it up and kept it over the winter.

And then come spring, you spread it all out. I mean, talk about fresh country air.

This was fresh country air. And so it would collect flies.

And once you had Indian summer and it got warm, oh, it would be bad, bad, bad. But then what would happen, the first snow of winter would come.

And this doesn't work real well for Phoenicians because we don't get that.

And I was mentioning to Summer, I think she was 13 or 14 years old before she ever even saw snow.

She had seen it in movies and things like that. But hey, Hollywood can do all sorts of things.

So I think she was 13 or 14 years old before she actually saw snow for the first time. But that first snow that comes, it's really beautiful.

You go to bed, you wake up the next morning, you look out and the world is beautiful.

It's before, by March, it isn't beautiful anymore.

You've got snow piles that are dirty and dark and it's not enough.

But that first one, everything is smooth and no one's walked through it yet and the snow plows haven't come and it's really nice.

And of course what it does is it also covers over the dunghill. And the dunghill doesn't smell anymore and it doesn't look bad anymore, it just looks like a mound like anything else.

Of course, jumping on it might not be a good idea. But the point is, it's a fence that's been taken away, the smell goes away, the look goes away, it's all covered over.

And his illustration was that's what the righteousness of Christ is, that's what justification is. It's an alien righteousness, it's not our own.

It covers over the dunghill. The dunghill is still dung, it's changed to something else by sanctification, but not by justification.

Because he was talking about the imputation of an alien righteousness over against Rome's idea that what happens is grace is infused into you and it changes you.

So from Rome's perspective, grace comes down and changes you in baptism through the sacraments.

And what happens is the pile of dung becomes a pile of gold.

And see gold, God likes gold, not sure why he didn't make more of it, but God likes gold. And so the gold gets to go to heaven because God likes gold.

And so you become intrinsically pleasing to God, your soul is changed and justified and made intrinsically pleasing and meritorious in God's sight, that's why you go to heaven.

And so from Rome's perspective, pile of dung, baptism, pile of gold. Luther says, no.

It stays a pile of dung covered over by the righteousness of Christ and then it's the work of the Spirit of God and the

Word of God over time to change that pile of dung into that which is pleasing to God.

But that's not why that ever goes to heaven. The only reason that any of that ever goes to heaven is because of the righteousness of Christ.

Well, I never read any place where Luther brought this out, but I certainly, many, many, many years ago, some of you will recall my first book,

The Fatal Flaw, came out right after we started attending this church and I do mean only some of you. And I discussed this in that book and that is, when you think about it, if you just stop there, the

Roman Catholic view would probably have a little more attraction to some people.

Gold, sounds good. I like that gold thing. I don't want this slow process thing. But here's the problem.

As soon as you commit a venial sin in Roman Catholic theology, all of a sudden flecks of dung start appearing on the surface of the gold.

And you've got to go to the priest and you've got to do penance and you've got to be sacramentally cleansed of these flecks of dung or, when you die, the pile of gold is still pleasing to God but it has to be cleansed before it goes into God's presence and so that's why you have purgatory.

And so you go to purgatory to be cleansed of those flecks of dung that are on your soul, on that gold.

And that's not by the righteousness of Christ. That's not by anything other than your own suffering there in purgatory.

Or the transfer of merit from the treasury of merit which is made up of the excess merit of Jesus, Mary, and the saints which is a whole other long story that we don't have time to get into right now but will obviously be relevant when we get to church history and the origins of the

Reformation. And the other thing is that if you commit a mortal sin remember

I said venial sins, flecks of dung end up on the gold. If you commit a mortal sin, you're a pile of dung again.

So a pile of gold... Can you sort of see this and how Hollywood would do this? You know, back and forth, back and forth.

And the scary part is you're never really sure which one you are. As Ludwig Gott said in his book

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in just this that no one without a supernatural revelation from God can know whether they have fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for obtaining justification.

So you may think you're a pile of gold when you're actually just a pile of dung. And I remember years ago we had some relative die and I don't remember if the relative was a 7th day

Adventist, I think they were 7th day Adventists they might have been Roman Catholic, I forget which one it was and I remember my mom coming back from the funeral she had to travel,

I didn't go to the funeral I was just kidding and whichever group it was, they both had the same problem and that is you could commit a sin right before you died and you're lost.

And I remember her saying just how sad it was that everybody there was going

I hope he didn't have an evil thought or anything right before he died because I guess he was killed in a car accident or something and so there was a possibility that maybe he might have gotten angry that this idiot just hit him in the car or something and you think of that and then, oh no, and you're gone.

Pile of gold gets hit, pile of dung and the point was it just illustrates the man -centeredness and the fact that there can never be any meaningful basis of assurance or hope or joy or confidence or anything in those particular systems at all.

And so this difference between the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and the infusion of grace that leads to something becoming intrinsically pleasing to God fundamental basic difference between a man -centered gospel and a

God -centered gospel really, because it's vital for Rome's position to maintain this because you have to keep the sacraments as a mechanism for the channeling of God's grace because then the church can control

God's grace that way and that has always been a huge controlling factor a very, very important thing.

I have no idea how I got into this subject either. Is that what your question is? I was going to ask, would you say

Islam is closer to that sense?

Well, no only because the categories are just way too dissimilar.

Islam's understanding of sin is so fundamentally different than either

Rome or biblical Christianity is concerned. Certainly Rome is infected with a form of semi -Pelagianism that sometimes blows into full -sized

Pelagianism and hence does not have a truly biblical doctrine of man's sin.

But Islam is even farther away at that point because there just is no...

Some of the Sufi writers have stumbled onto some insights concerning man's depravity and sinfulness and things like that, but Sunni the

Shiites do, believe it or not the Shiites, because of their origination actually have a parallel to the concept of substitutionary sacrifice.

So there's actually a little more way into the Shiite mind from that perspective.

But Sunnis make up 90 % of the world's Muslims and there just isn't a really meaningful doctrine of sin at that point.

So the idea of imputation righteousness, they'll talk about a righteous man but the righteous man is a righteous man because he is and chooses to be that way totally within himself and everybody has the power, capacity and ability to do that in and of themselves.

There is no such thing as a fallen nature. There is no such thing as original sin. You can argue that Muhammad actually did believe that we fell in Adam in some sense but no idea of our nature therefore being negatively impacted.

If Muhammad believed anything like that it didn't transfer down past him in any meaningful sense.

So that is one of the major differences is anthropologically we have very very different views of man.

Yes sir? Sunni.

Sunni are 90 % No. The Sunnis and the

Shiites blow each other up fairly regularly as you may have noticed. If you follow the news when you hear a mosque being blown up it's almost always a

Shiite mosque being blown up by Sunnis or a Sunni mosque being blown up by Shiites. Iraq for example is three different nations.

It's a Shiite section, a Sunni section and a Kurdish section. The only reason it was ever one nation is because Hussein was strong enough and nasty enough to keep everybody playing without blowing each other up.

The Shiites the only reason you hear a lot about the Shiites is they sit on almost half of the oil that Muslims own.

That's where the advantage comes from. But there are only about 9 or 10 % of the world's

Muslims. The Sunni make up 90%. Remember only 16 to 20 % of the world's

Muslims are Arabic. Indonesia, largest

Muslim country in the world. So you've got to keep that in mind. Most Muslims are Asian. The Sunnis are divided into all sorts of different groups.

And so your moderate Muslims would be primarily

Sunnis and Shiites. But the primary source for the best known most active

ISIS they are all out of what's called the

Salafi or Wahabi Sunni Muslims. The Salaf were the first followers after Muhammad.

So they believed that Muhammad and that first generation were the most righteous and so they're the greatest example.

Salafi would almost be translate to our use the term fundamentalist.

Now just because you're Salafi doesn't mean that you're a Jihadi. But they're the ones that make the best

Jihadis. The line is very easy to step over at that point.

Once you're in the Salafi camp it doesn't take much more to convince you that you need to go farther than that.

But you have suicide bombers from Shiism as well as from the

Sunni. But most come from the Sunni, the majority group. How on earth did

I get to where we are? Sometimes you pull into a cul -de -sac and you go, how did

I get here? I have no earthly idea. And you have to look at your phone. Do you remember?

I thought you were going to help me here. I would like to take an exception to that.

I do happen to be one of the few people actually doing that. Believe me, I have been taking massive heat over the past couple of months.

There are people coming after me with pitchforks because I've dared to point out that when

I first heard it I figured Islamophobia was the same thing as homophobia. It's just a word you throw out there just for the fun of it.

No, it's not. I've met numerous Islamophobes recently that just simply go,

I don't care what that guy you've talked to said. They're just all the same.

You just nuke them all. I've been encountering a lot of quote -unquote

Christians who say, nuke them till they glow and leave it to God. It's just like,

I can tell you're really trying to reach out to your Muslim neighbor. But I'm taking a lot of heat for that because I recognize the differences between Muslims and try to keep those avenues open.

We don't want to be broad -brushed. We don't want people holding us accountable for the Pope. Muslims do that to me all the time.

Well, the Pope said, not mine. If I'm going to do that then

I better not be holding them accountable for everything that every other Muslim in the world has ever done. The same thing with Westboro Baptist Church.

You're all Baptists, right? Well, no, there are differences. You're all

Muslims, right? Since I talk all the time about trying to be consistent then

I have to be consistent here. It's not winning me much in the way of brownie points right now, I can assure you.

Though I did get some really encouraging notes from Muslims this week from around the world.

It's really weird. A lot of Muslims watch the Divine Line. I actually got two notes.

They both basically said around the same thing and that was, really appreciate the fact that you try to be consistent you try to be accurate still disagree with you but you're not like a lot of the

Christians and one said, and Muslims who don't care anything about what the other side says they just, you know so it was a little bit encouraging along those sides but yeah, you're exactly right.

I mean, right now I'm seeing some really troubling things, really, really troubling but anyways we're not going to get very far at this pace unless someone explains to me, how did

I get onto Luther? I know, but where did that come from from here?

Psalm 22 yeah, Psalm 22 yeah, but what was the connection?

I got a squirrel somewhere and I chased it and so far I need a helicopter to come get me now because I am totally yeah,

I know it was imputation but how do I get that from where we are in section 347?

Oh well normally when I stop and publicly admit that I'm completely lost then all of a sudden it comes back to me oh, you were talking about this and you thought about that then you went there and this time

I think the only thing I can think of is I was saying

I disagree with those people who teach the idea that at the very point of Jesus' greatest obedience to the

Father the Father turned his back as he could not look upon sin and evidently somewhere in my mind

I started thinking about how you can well, hopefully that interesting diversion was interesting to someone and useful to someone in the audience you never know and I actually have people did all of you see the video documenting my demon possession?

Kelly saw it and you saw it? yeah, yeah, yeah, there you go only two?

if you were not the keeper of Codex Ricotonius well,

I'm the demonized one no, seriously the connection here is this is all being recorded and so someone could probably end up posting this about how

I can't remember what in the world I'm doing for only five minutes and wander around everywhere and things like that but some uber

Roman Catholics some Sede Vacantists how many in the room know what a

Sede Vacantist is? ok, well somebody does then anybody want to guess what a

Sede Vacantist is? do you know what a Sede Vacantist is? Sede means seat vacant means no one in the seat so a

Sede Vacantist is a person who believes there is no proper

Pope today there is no one sitting in the seat of Peter and so Mel Gibson is a

Sede Vacantist some people say Sede Vacantist, whatever I guess if you want to do

Latin or whatever he claims to be more Catholic than the Pope the idea is that there was an apostasy sometime before Vatican II and so there is no more valid priest so you can't have a valid Pope if you don't have a valid priest and Jerry Matitix, remember good old

Jerry he is a Sede Vacantist today there is a Sede Vacantist Monastery in upstate

Fillmore, New York and I engaged these guys back in the 90's and they are ultra -traditionalists they are literally more

Catholic than the Pope and to be honest with you with this Pope, I am not sure that is all that difficult to do in many ways but these guys are well they put out a video just a few weeks ago and they watch every dividing line

I do and they probably listen to everything we post on Sermon Audio and they literally had gone through my videos in ultra -slow motion to find every place

I had ever done this sometimes

I will point at something instead of doing that and they had found a picture of Anton LaVey and their theory is and then they went through my debate on infant baptism from March with Greg Strawbridge in ultra -slow motion and I didn't have these glasses then and these are absolutely featherweight glasses

I love them but they are progressive lenses what do you have to do with progressive lenses?

you have to aim I had my black

Oakley ones and they are much heavier they would slip a little bit and I have an iPad here and I'm controlling the presentation on the screens from my iPad so I think 3 maybe 4 times going ultra -slow -mo they caught me doing this because I was doing that to move my glasses back up so I could have the focal range where I needed it to be freeze frame demon face this is their evidence that I have a demon and that it manifests itself primarily when

I'm speaking against the truth because I was debating infant baptism I'm not sure how that works when

I'm lecturing on the Trinity I don't even know how long it's like a 20 minute video and I'm like you actually spend your life online watching videos in slow motion that's a life that's really attracting to other folks so when

I say this may end up on the web some place I'm not making that up everything

I do anything I say it's likely to end up out there some of you have to go back and watch last week's dividing

I think it was right before I went to St. Charles I played those sections on the dividing line you have to go back and look

I thought when you're in a monastery you're supposed to be doing stuff like feeding the poor they surf the web great thing there so we've looked at Psalm 22 and we've talked about that then we have the sponge full of vinegar on the reed soldiers also mocked him offering him vinegar which is not something you want to use to slake your thirst some interpreted his words inappropriately or in some type of apocalyptic fashion in regards to calling for Elijah but then

I want you to notice Matthew 27 .50 and Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit

Mark 15 .37 Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last Luke has a specific content included and I hope you realize when we see things like the seven last words of Jesus those are put together from the

Gospels themselves and do not represent any one

Gospel in and of itself Luke has then

Jesus crying with a loud voice Father into thy hands I commit my spirit and having said this he breathed his last and even

John when Jesus received the vinegar he said it is finished to tell us thy he bowed his head and gave up his spirit now we'll talk about the different sayings here in a moment but the point is that and this is going to sound like really you're emphasizing this the point is it's painfully obvious that it is the intention of the

Gospel writers to say that Jesus died not that he swooned not that he passed out but that he died now you say there are people that argue that?

oh yeah, there are not only have you had the swoon theory propounded down through the years but various writers today who recognize that most people today don't read much in the way of history write books resurrecting old silly dead stuff and make lots of money on it my

Muslim friends seem to love to drag these people out of their new age

Gnostic closets and rehabilitate them in their debates on this issue because as you know the orthodox understanding of Islam as a whole based on Surah 4, verse 157 is that Jesus did not die he was not crucified it was only made to appear to the

Jews that they had successfully had Jesus killed but that they failed in that Jesus did not die the majority of Muslims believe someone else was put on the cross in the place of Jesus and so they will grab hold of anything to try to cast doubt upon the validity of the resurrection a couple of times

I've actually debated Muslims on this subject well one guy was just weird so we won't include him when

I debated Sami Zaatari on this subject in London a few years ago really the only way you could address it would be to attack the resurrection tie the two of them close together and if the resurrection is not historical then the crucifixion wasn't either but they just can't deal with the reality of the crucifixion itself from a historical perspective and so sometimes you actually have to be able to answer someone who's trying to say that the

Gospels are not actually intending to communicate that Jesus actually died part of this is because of Akhmed Didat I've mentioned

Didat to you before he's still the most listened to Muslim in the world although he's been dead for nine years and he actually tries to get this little verse here and that little verse there and cobble something together to where the

New Testament writers are actually denying that Jesus actually died it is unquestionable, yielded up his spirit breathed his last and gave up his spirit these are all very clearly intended to communicate the reality of the death of Jesus and it does seem in each one that there is a level of control that Jesus has

I mean it comes out most in Luke and John but in all of these

Gospels Jesus had said this was coming he had talked about its purpose so on and so forth now if I recall correctly did we or did we not mention the issue relating to one of the key statements from the cross?

I'm trying to remember we haven't talked about Father forgive them for they know not what they do no where was that yeah there it is page 317 yeah we didn't talk about this under the crucifixion under Luke 23 that's section 344

I will try to make a note because we do not have time to even mention it right now but I will try to make a note we do need to discuss that I may have accidentally skipped over it but we do need to address it because we addressed textual reliability within the past number of months and so at least we'll have a foundation for addressing that textual variant and it is a major textual variant major textual variant in the

New Testament and so we will make a note oh great keeper of the notes that we need to look at Luke 23 -34 there you go

Luke 23 -34 is where we need to start next time let's close word of prayer

Father we thank you for this time we thank you once again for a place to meet together for the fellowship of the saints we thank you for the opportunity of considering your truth and your gospel we ask that you would be with us now as we go into worship may you guide and direct and may all things be done to your honor and glory we pray in Christ's name,