Synoptics Section 282-283

The Great Commandment in Matthew and the Context of the Pharisees

Sorry press on not overly quickly because big hill to get over here in a little while but.

Section 282 the Great Commandment. We've actually already looked at it before section 182. So I will only briefly Go over it now so as to maintain the context primarily in the book of Matthew. Because we have especially in Matthew's account the context we just had in section 281 the question about the resurrection, so you have the Sadducees and then in Matthew 22 It's the Pharisees so you have two of the major groups being dealt with and Matthew continues that context.

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees they came together and then you'll notice that's 2234 and then in 2241 now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them a question and so Matthew has a little bit more of a Running context in The sense of the different groups that are opposing Jesus and then in 283 you have In 2122 it's those groups coming to Jesus posing their best questions and in 283 Jesus turns that around he goes after them and After the question about psalm 110 Matthew has and no one was able to answer him a word nor from that day.

Did anyone dare to ask him any more questions now of course this is passion week already, so In that sense so it's not like you know for the next three years nobody asked him a question, but It was the end of that conflict and At the end of that you then have Matthew 23 and that is a long extended Condemnation of the Jewish leaders which comes after the last of the interactions the interactions have shown on the one side they gave their best and Jesus answered their questions, and then when he asked them they could not answer his questions, and so when you get to the lengthy and Strongly worded Condemnation of the Pharisees there is a lot of background to it and Of course it's these various it's these very texts that have become such an embarrassment in modern New Testament studies.

Postwar Sensitivities, Anti-Semitism, and the Passion Film Controversy

Everything post-world war two is just hyper sensitive to anything that could be Interpreted as anti-semitic anti-jewish because the Holocaust and especially in German theology There is and whether like it or not in Europe and in many other places it is Germans German higher critical schools etc etc that take the lead they have often taken the lead right off the cliff Theologically speaking, but for some reason people forget that and continue on but There's a tremendous hypersensitivity all remember It happened to be on I clicked the TV on when I was at a Red roof in and Santa Fe on my way back from Colorado and I was dragging my stuff in and I clicked it on it was on the passion film and So I watched a few minutes of it, and I knew where basically where it was and so I was watching to see again the fact that when they had the Trial and the Jews said his blood be upon us and upon our our children.

That was the big Controversy back when this came out if you recall there were Jewish groups saying this is going to reignite Anti-jewish Jewish sentiment and la la la la and So what they did is in the final cut if you recall it's all done in Aramaic and Then they would provide Subtitling in English, but at that point they cut out the subtitling so it's still there in Aramaic it's just not there in the subtitling and that's how they Tried to get around that particular issue, but there's all these texts especially like Matthew 23 the entirety of the chapter which is a long section of woes pronounced upon the Jewish leadership and It's not I think Just happenstance That you have in 22 the conflict the one-on-one conflict in public Ends with Their inability to answer the key question is to the identity of Who the Messiah would be from Psalm 110 when Psalm 110 becomes we've seen in the study of Hebrews how central that is.

The Lord said to my Lord said our hand so the enemies made footstool for your feet. Which You see quoted in Matthew 22 44. And she has to answer. How does David call him Lord if he's merely a descendant of David?

How does he call him Lord they don't have an answer there's a refutation and then that goes into the woes upon the Jewish leaders which then concludes in Matthew 23 in that section about Jerusalem, Jerusalem Off what I've gathered your children Together, but you would not and so it's the Jewish leaders They've been staying in the purpose of God they and now God's judgment comes and what's the next chapter in Matthew 24 in?

Matthew but Matthew chapter 24 and Not one stone will be left on another in the destruction of Jerusalem. So you clearly have a development of a theme in in Matthew's gospel this point as to what he is Focusing upon and this also raises the question as to the dating once again of the Gospels one of the big big big big big issues that Is going on I know for example next week somebody There's a there's a groundswell of support try to get me to do it via phone, but I don't think it's going to happen but Bart Ehrman is going to be on the unbelievable radio program in London and These be discussing his book forged.

It's just come out and I can guarantee you that book has already been placed on at least 500 required reading lists across the nation in Colleges Community Colleges Universities, I just guarantee it. And so that means there's all these people that are going to be reading about how a large portion not all but a large portion of The New Testament is a forgery.

It's written by someone who doesn't who didn't actually write it and you may recall I don't know a year year and a half ago or so. We did a study one day where I went through the arguments against the pastoral epistles First Second Timothy and Titus and we went through the arguments they're used against those having been written by Paul Bart Ehrman, for example, when he believes we have seven genuine Pauline letters and all the rest of them are forgeries and we went through all the reasons for this and you know, we pointed out that.

It's it's whatever you determine which it's how you start will determine how you finish. So when it comes to these issues if you You know Ehrman starts with these seven. So you create a database out of them and then you compare them with the others and we'll see how different they are.

But people point out if you take any one out of that database. Recreate that database and put that one over here. Now. This one's different. Now. This one isn't Pauline. So Romans, yeah, Paul wrote Romans if you take Romans out.

Create your database out of the resultant six and compare it with Romans now Romans not not written by Paul on the very same basis as You as you had concluded the other ones were written by Paul so it all just depends on where you start as to as to how you're going to come to a conclusion on on all these things and so one of the issues that that comes up is the dating of these these documents and so your standard presentation that you're going to hear of In most theological seminaries as well as universities is.

And this I know that those of you who were here how long ago eight eight years ago eight years ago. Going going coming up the ninth anniversary and I know everybody who was here nine years ago Remembers exactly what I said about this.

I know that this is you're sitting here. You could mouth everything I'm about to say right brick, you know, right? Nine years is but a drop in the bucket session. You're as old as brick. So anyway. Hey, I'm not that far behind.

But we did when we introduced this study have some discussion about the dating of the Gospels because that's important as to how they relate to one another and. And We talked about the various theories and what you'll normally hear.

From a Bart Ehrman would be that marks the earliest and then Matthew and Luke edit mark and then John is the last and John may or may not have even known about the other Gospels and date-wise He will put them earliest in the late 70s early 80s Matthew and Luke into the 80s and 90s and and John at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century.

So none of them are Just for for Ehrman. You're you are not a critical scholar. You're not to be taken seriously. You should not even be listened to if you do not Take those perspectives. You're just you're just a loon a fundamentalist goofball and you should just be ignored because you're a moron.

Now Because of that then these are not eyewitnesses and If you take this perspective and these are all written post 8070. These are all written after the destruction of Jerusalem and That of course will determine how you interpret them as well, especially when you get into Matthew 24 and what's going on there?

And so from their perspective though, it's placed as prophecy. What's coming? It's just a big lie. You're pretending that you're prophesying you're pretending as if this was written before that. At least it's not necessarily written before that but Jesus said these things and so what you're doing is you're putting into Jesus's mouth Prophetic words that you already know what the outcome is.

So because they you have to do that because what's the assumption of the worldview? There isn't such thing as prophecy. Nobody knows the future's gonna hold and so they have to put them that way just to just to explain these things so There isn't this leads to an interesting Aspect that we'll get into more and we look at Matthew 24 and that is one of the biggest Conundrums and difficulties that we still have today in The interpretation of these texts is for example in Matthew 24.

Most people would recognize that a portion of Matthew 24 It's fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. But the big question is is there anything goes beyond that is there is there a dividing line where okay?

This is this material up to here is in the structure Jerusalem. But this material is still yet future beyond that and there's big arguments about all that one of the reasons there's big arguments is there's certain things that are spoken in the words of Jesus That are difficult to understand how they could have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem alone and If this generation will see all these things It just doesn't make sense That if in fact these are later writers putting these words into Jesus's mouth After the events of the structure Jerusalem described the structure of Jerusalem.

They didn't do a very good job at it. In other words why would someone writing post? 8070 put words in Jesus's mouth that were not obviously fulfilled in 8070 if that's what you want people to know and So it raises the question about the dating of these things and why.

The assumption is made that there is late as they are by so many people today now of course. Us backwoods fundamentalist Hicks Go you know there's no reason to Just on the face of it consider these texts to be guilty until proven innocent.

Which is basically how modern scholarship works they're guilty until proven innocent their parables. They're the people are lying to us through their teeth. If these are in fact Disciples of Jesus or in the case of mark first generation Disciple of Jesus possibly giving us Peter's view as was a popular view in the early church.

Then it would make sense that they would record what Jesus said for us and The fact that there are certain things in this upcoming discourse That are not easy for us would flow from the fact. That's what Jesus said not that this is some later generation trying to make up a story to Substantiate the Christian understanding of the relationship between Jews and Christians, which is how most people take it today.

Now personally I would put mark in the 40s. If it is the first I don't know that it is we've talked about this I don't know that mark is the first the early church thought Matthew was which is why Matthew is put where Matthew is and That would make sense because who is Matthew obviously writing for?

It's right for the Jews and after 8070 that would be you know. Sort of writing for writing a book today for the fans the Winnipeg Jets. In case you haven't noticed they're not around anymore. In fact, I think we ended up inheriting that not so overly good team so You know, why would you write a book today for the fans the Winnipeg Jets?

Because there are no Winnipeg Jets anymore. So if you are writing a book specifically for the Jews, it would seem to me to make sense that Matthew would be written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and in fact, there have been those who have argued for a pre 8070 date for the entirety of The New Testament including John that's pretty unusual even amongst conservatives.

John is normally considered to be post 8070. But there are those who have argued for a pre 8070 day for the entirety of the New Testament. They are in the minority today, but it has been it has been argued.

We don't know that mark goes first. I personally think that it is less problematic to To Assume that Matthew Mark and Luke are drawing from the same oral tradition and hence their parallels that it is there's an absolute Documentary reliance between each of these Gospels.

However, Luke says what does he say in Luke chapter 1. I Use written sources other people have compiled The Stories Jesus. I interviewed people. I have carefully examined these things. He he just straight says I've done my homework basically.

So I wouldn't have any problem if Luke had mark your Luke had mark and and Matthew for all that matters. Because he straight-up says that's how I did it. That's that's not an issue but It's unfortunate that today One particular theory has become so predominant that Basically, you're not even allowed to question that you're not even allowed to think about other things about being dismissed.

It's a bit of a cougar loon. And that is the mark and priority hypothesis. I It was interesting a few years ago. I read an article where they Decide to let a computer Take a shot at it and there's lots of stuff coming out and again, you know, I just saw one last week article came out that They're using computers to determine you know in the Old Testament the JEDP theory the out with the LOS Deuteronomous Priestly sources and and you know cutting the just cutting especially the Pentateuch up into just ribbons and You know, I can just see a lot of people going.

Wow. Well if a computer did that it must be right. Yeah, okay. I've used Google recently. Yes, sir. That's the whole point. I mean you have to tell the computer make your decisions based upon these parameters and What parameters are put in what's the starting assumption?

But the problem is people don't think of it that way this Have this odd idea that well Their computer programmers their scientists, they'd be perfectly unbiased, you know, we chuckle at that, but let's face it Polls show us that the American populace is you know a bit naive about these things and so you've got all this stuff and there was a there was a computer study that Looked at Matthew Mark and Luke and determined that Luke was the original source of both Matthew and Mark.

Well, I thought with the other church thought it's not a real popular thing today but again, it all depends on what you start with it all depends what you're starting assumptions are and Unfortunately in 98 of what's being published today even coming out of seminaries the assumption starts with an anti-supernaturalistic bias.

The idea the one idea that can never be put into the computer at the start is that there's a Harmonious way of understanding all these texts together. No, no, no, that's that's the one thing that this is not even allowed into the discussion so.

That's why I said to you many times one of the most spiritually dangerous places in the world is a Christian bookstore. You you really should just in your mind see coiled rattlesnakes on both shelves as you walk down the aisles because.

Especially when you go into the commentary section There's just so much there that comes from a completely foreign perspective just just keep those things in mind and as we look at This material in the synoptics that's going to keep coming up over and over and over again.

So with all that in mind, that's all just background stuff that hopefully will be of use to us as we as we press forward here. The the discussion of the greatest commandment here in Matthew 22 we covered it in 182.

The Greatest Commandment and the Shema

Back with I believe it was Luke chapter 10. It's not Unheard of that there would have been Multiple times when this question was asked because it was a question that was prevalent amongst the Jews. What is the greatest command if you have 630 some odd of them?

There's going to be some arguments as to which one is most important and Matthew places this particular one. This was a lawyer. Luke has the same thing a lawyer stood up to test him. And but it's placed in the context of the Pharisees heard that he had silenced Sadducees with his response about the woman and the seven seven brothers and.

So he rises that to test him teacher. What is the greatest commandment in the law? And once again, the idea was let's drag him into some sectarian battle where we can pigeonhole him and and and so on and so forth and Jesus response, of course is to quote from the Shema.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind. This is a great and first commandment and a second is like it. You shall love your neighbors yourself on these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets now.

Again, this was not the first time this had been said. By God's grace there had been men and women amongst the people of Israel who had understood these things who had read the The Old Testament scriptures and had heard what they said and had understood.

I'm sure Simeon and Anna would have understood these things and and so on so forth and There's no reason to say it's a thing that everything Jesus said was absolutely unique because He himself said, you know on this on these two commandments depend all along the prophets if you've read along the prophets what I'm speaking is in perfect harmony with that and as the Messiah he would speak in perfect harmony with those things and The irony was of course that this is part of the Shema Shema Israel Yahweh Elohim Yahweh God here Israel.

The Lord is our God the Lord is one and you shall love the Lord your God with our hearts. Oh my strength how it goes on. This is a part of the the daily prayers. This was this is not an overly difficult question shall we say.

It had only become complicated because of the imbalance in the view of the law that had entered into Pharisee ism and well into all of Judaism at the time, but especially seen within the Pharisees and By answering the way that he did Jesus provided the perfect antidote to legalism because legalism always ends up creating a focus upon the details of the law rather than the motivations the law and the legalist Loses focus upon His own inability to keep the law and hence the necessity of God's grace and mercy Tempted in the Old Testament loving kindness covenant faithfulness and that focus shifts over from the mercy and grace of God to my fulfillment of the commands of God and it inevitably results in the attitude we saw in the Pharisee of the publican and I thank you God that I am NOT like this Disgusting sinner that is staying behind me that I really wish didn't have access to this clean holy place that only I and a few of my friends should really have access to in the first place and So the response it's interesting if you look at your synoptic once again we have one of these situations that we've observed it before but Let's observe it again when Matthew and Mark Tell the same story Mark being much shorter than Matthew Normally tells it with more words.

He gives a fuller account and so you note that while the answer is Interesting in Mark he gives the shema Notice the first is here is the Lord of God. Lord is one and you shall have Lord you got so he gives the full shema in Mark 12 29 including that first portion the proclamation of monotheism that's not found in Matthew or Luke and Then you have a response from the person who's asked the question in Mark 12 beginning verse 32.

And the scribe said to him you are right teacher. You have truly said that he is one and there is no other God. But he and to love him with all the heart with all the understanding with all the strength and to love one's neighbors Oneself is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices and when Jesus saw that he answered wisely.

He said to him You are not far from the kingdom of God and after that no one dared to ask him any questions. And you have In Luke he said to him you have answered right do this and you will live Similar to the answer to the rich young ruler as well.

And so you have this entire summary statement a demonstration in in Mark that There were those who had the right answers. They had the right doctrinal understanding of these things and Jesus response was you're not far from the kingdom of God.

Now notice he didn't say you're smacked out in the middle of the spacer. But he said you're not far from it. In other words, you have the right right foundation, but There's always that 18-inch leap from the cranium to the heart as far as internalizing these things and understanding these things and so now We look at that and we go, okay, there's Mark again Mark likes to give the fuller Accounts the Standard view that makes these dependent upon one another would say I you see Matthew didn't include this for Matthew's own purposes.

And what would those purposes be? Well because Matthew doesn't want to say anything nice about the Jews. He's just about to start Matthew chapter 23. He's and so he just wants to paint the Jews and all negative light and therefore Recording where the scribe would say something truthful Wouldn't fit in this purposes see how you by determining your starting point and by implicitly Being willing at every turn to accuse the writer of dishonesty Alteration of historical facts just simply to fit your I mean you end up with a really nasty view of especially Matthew and Matthew's just Not a worthy guy.

It makes me wonder why these guys Do New Testament scholarship because they end up having to come up with and these aren't these aren't nice people. These are these are nasty people um. Now what we've seen is that Matthew telescopes all the time.

Because he's putting a whole lot more in. I mean, he's only in chapter 22. He's going all he's got six more chapters. Marks the chapter 12. He's only got three and a half four chapters depending on how long you want to count chapter 16 and they're just have different priorities as to what they are going to include in In what they've already included up to this point and how long they want their book to be and Say I really get a little bit nervous when I hear modern folks that are are basically doing the Carnac the magnificent thing with with the New Testament you know.

Wasn't it wasn't it Carnac was that who it was was it Carnac with him there. I'm sorry. Yeah, Johnny curse Carnac. You know he would put the envelope to his head and then he'd open it up. And it would be you know the backwards question type thing and that's what New Testament scholars are doing.

Matthew's motivation for editing mark. Because he was an anti-jewish picket. That's what they're doing, and they get paid big bucks to do that well all right, so not maybe not really big bucks. But they get paid they get paid to do it and they get to write their books and go on speaking tours.

And that's that's how it works, so I get nervous with that. How do you I? I don't find that we're overly good at figuring out people's motivations who are still alive. And we get worse with people who've recently died and you go back 2 ,000 years.

And I really think there comes a point where you just you know. Unless you just got overwhelming evidence. Yeah, you might you might just want to go. Don't really know what his motivations were there, but that's what that's what people do so.

Anyhow so after this no one. There's now notice Mark then. Does not include. Mark says no one asked. He says no one asked him a question. After the last question was actually asked of him, but Matthew makes know that after Jesus's question of them.

And what is that question. Well we won't. I don't know that we'll cover all but we might cover it section 283 and that is. Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Matthew 22 Jesus asked them a question saying What do you think of the Christ?

Whose son is he? Now again, just make sure we all understand the Christos is the Greek term for anointed. It's translation of Mashiach in the Hebrew. The anointed one. What do you think of the anointed one whose son is he and they said to him the son of David.

So they very clearly knew their own scriptures as to the lineage of the Messiah as prophesied in the scriptures He said to them. How is it then that David? Inspired by the Spirit. Calls him courteous Lord saying The Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand so I put thy enemies under thy feet.

If David thus calls him Lord. How is he his son and no one was able to answer him a word nor from that day? Did anyone dare to ask him any more?

Questions, so.

We're probably familiar with this particular Text and familiar with the discussions surrounding it if you have a Synoptic this isn't going to really give you a lot of the background information but you probably have a Reference to Psalm 110 and I'm going to go to it here.

Because we need to understand what the background is. We looked at it in our Hebrew study. But I'm sure most of us Separate our Hebrew study out from our Bible study in here. Anyway, so We might want to look at it if any of you heard the debate that I did with Sir, Anthony buzzard in London or if you saw the Debate that Michael Brown and I did against buzzard and another fellow on the Jewish voice broadcast last summer.

You know that this particular text came up. That this is one of the most important texts. For all sorts of different groups for all sorts of different reasons. It's extremely important the book of Hebrews, but it's also extremely important in regards to the person of Christ and What you have in the Hebrew is Ne 'um Yahweh la 'adoni.

Ne 'um Yahweh la 'adoni. And So you have two terms Yahweh and I don't think. Yeah. Here this just would not be a New Testament thing though. It's sort of be nice. In most of your English Bibles if you look at Psalm 110 It will say the Lord and that will be in all capitals.

But with a different font size. The Lord said to my Lord here at my right hand and So there will be a difference. Is that which is that what you? You have that everybody in your Bible, okay? That is the English Bible translators way as You know ORD in caps G OD in caps if you have if you have Lord like this and then G OD in caps.

That's also telling you that Yahweh is used there with Adonai otherwise you'd have Lord Lord Yahweh is normally rendered in English as Lord, I wish it wasn't at the Jewish tradition. You do offend a Jewish person if you say Yahweh.

Sorry. I'm sorry if you're offended. I mean if you're okay if I'm in a Jewish bookstore talking to a Jewish person, then I'll be careful about that, but I Don't think it's something we should do. Yes.

They don't pronounce the divine name so for example my Hebrew what well he wasn't actually my Hebrew professor, but One of my professors at Grand Canyon told me a story long ago that he had been invited into the synagogue at one point and was actually asked to read because he had studied Hebrew and He forgot where he was and he pronounced the Tetragrammaton that even in the printed edition of the Biblia breakers to go ten See or the the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament.

They will put the vowels for Adonai Under the consonants for Yahweh to make sure that it's sort of like a red flag. Do not pronounce this either say Adonai or they will say Hashem the name. But they will not say Yahweh because they consider it too.

Holy now. That's a As far as I understand that is a more medieval Jewish tradition. I don't think that it would have been a tradition even the time of the writing of the New Testament and so I Really wish that English Bibles Would not hide the divine name, but would actually render it, and I think it appears four times in the King James.

You actually do see it in Hallelujah Hallel to praise ya is the beginning of Yahweh, so we sort of do have it there. But it appears 6 ,000 some-odd times in the Old Testament and I Think that it's yeah, you can identify it because of this.

But I just don't I don't I don't buy into it so in Yes, I mean the first Lord right in someone's in Yahweh. Yes, uh-huh. Yes, yes, I Don't need. I'm not sure what you're asking this one's add a knee is is a standard word for God in fact in Isaiah 6 I saw The add an eye sitting upon the throne then he's identified later as Yahweh.

So add an eye can be just a another word for Yahweh. Oh, yeah, well yes. Well see the fact the matter is if we're talking about the identification of Jesus as Yahweh. There are numerous places where that happens but there are also numerous places where the father is identified as Yahweh in Distinction from the Son this is one of them.

The other one is in Isaiah 53 when it says Yahweh. Cause our iniquities to fall upon him not upon himself, but upon the Messiah so. Because he's he's because he's never. Yeah, because he's just he's just narrating.

He's narrating the The the statement of Yahweh to the Messiah. He's already established with the Jews whose son is he? He's the son of David. They understood Psalm 110 messianically as well. So what he's pointing out is that?

David refers to the Messiah as his Lord. Which is a term of superiority? So how can how can the Messiah be superior to David if he's actually David's son his offspring and. What he's pointing out, then is that they don't have an appropriately high view of the nature of the Messiah.

That's why they couldn't answer the question and so he could have said I suppose he could have. It's not what Psalm 110 said to change Psalm 110 would be to change the argument. So I'm not really sure that how to answer that one but anyway, there's much more you said here because I haven't thrown you the argument from Anthony buzzard yet about this and I want to.

You will be the only reformed Baptist on the world in the world to know how to respond Anthony brothers buzzers question. But that's what you get for being here for Sunday school with me. Isn't that wonderful that in bow ties?

What more could you ask? But so we'll continue on in the great notes there with we will need to finish up 283 next time around and I Hope that I will still be thinking clearly next week at this point in time, but and the week after that I'm Two weeks worth of preaching too.

So you're you're stuck with me for a while. I'm actually don't leave again till the second weekend of September. So. But then I disappear for I'd like all of October so it's a going down under doing at least two debates down there.

Well, the one that's Pentecostal or the Muslim. Hey, let's mix them all together. Hey, what's Pentecostals Muslims? Hey, let's all do it in the same week while we're while we're jet-lagged. It'll be it'll be great.

Anyways, let's close work. Our Lord once again, we do thank you for this this great gift you've given to us in your word. We would ask that you would help us to understand Lord that we would remember and Lord that you would cause us to grow in our faithfulness to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ His name we pray.