Gooding, David: 5 - Matthew 26-28

Well, my dear brothers and sisters, thank you once more for coming. 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 we approach the holiest of all in this gospel, and we may well feel that logical analysis must give way in this part of the gospel to a spirit of worship. Nonetheless, if with shoes off our feet, we submit our minds to the form of the inspired record of these holy events, deeper understanding surely, will lead to an enrichment of our worship. For my part, therefore, I begin, first of all, by just running over with you the contents of these chapters twenty six, twenty seven, and twenty eight, and call your attention to a simple matter, the way in which the Holy Spirit has ordered the narrative in a series of trilogies. And what I mean by that will be best seen by turning our attention at once to the text. It appears to me at least that in the major sections of the narrative, you will find that first there is a short paragraph stating a theme or a question. Then next, another incident, which seems, uh, generally to be the major incident. But then, thirdly, another short paragraph which reverts to the theme of the first paragraph, and in some way answers the theme that was there set forth. So if we begin, for instance, in chapter six— uh, chapter twenty six, verses one to four, four short verses. And we are told in verse three that the, they were gathered together, the chief priests and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas. They took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him. So there they had a problem which they proposed to solve by their ingenuity and craft, how to take Jesus, that they might kill him. Verses six to s- uh, uh, to thirteen then follow, and they transfer our attention to the house of Simon and the incident of the anointing of our Lord by a woman. When that is over, verses fourteen to sixteen revert to the question opened in verses one to four. Question of how the high priest might take Christ somehow, think out through some ingenious plan. And their question is solved for them, says verse fourteen: When one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests and says, What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver, and from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto the priests. So the lovely story of the anointing of our Lord in Bethany forms a centerpiece, as at the beginning and the end, the question of the arrest of the Lord. So, if you like to notice, uh, paragraph three, I shall not run through all of them, that would be too tedious, but look at paragraph three, uh, section three I ought to say, begins in chapter twenty six verses thirty one to thirty five. And our Lord leads out his apostles towards the Mount of Olives and quotes a prophecy to warn them that this night all shall be offended in me, for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But Peter and the rest of them stoutly contradicted the Lord Jesus and said that he would not be offended, never be offended. If everybody else would be, he wouldn't be. And our Lord has to repeat the warning this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. But Peter persists and says, even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. Then the section turns in verses thirty six, uh, to, um, uh forty six with the account of the agony. And finally, in verses forty seven to fifty six, it moves on to talk of the arrest. Now notice how that paragraph ends. Verse fifty six: but all this has come to pass that the scriptures of the prophet might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. And as you read it, you can't help but remember what they had said an hour or two earlier, as recorded in verses thirty one to thirty five. Or take one further example of that. Look at the last paragraph, uh, last section that I call section nine. When our Lord had been buried, we are told, chapter uh twenty seven and verse sixty two, the chief priests and the Pharisees came to Pilate and requested that the tomb 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 so, said the chief priest, the last error, uh, would be worse than the first. So Pilate gave them permission, said, you have a guard, go your way and make it as sure as you can. So they went and made the sepulchre sure, s- sealing the stone, the guard being with them. Sealing the stone in order to prevent a story getting abroad that Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb. Then the middle paragraph tells the story of a resurrection. Yes. And finally, in the final, uh, paragraph, verses eleven to twenty, the two accounts that there were, that were thereafter circulated about what happened. The resurrection burst the seal wide open. The Pharisees came up with their story of what happened. And it's very interesting, isn't it? The first people to tell the world that the tomb of Christ was empty was not the Christians, but the Jews. A thing to be pondered. Uh, and then, and only then, did the Christians tell the world their account of the story, which was that Jesus had risen, of course, and gone before them to Galilee and given them the great commission to spread the story of his resurrection to the very ends of the world. Though our hearts be full of worship, one sometimes thinks that God has a certain sense of humor. So that I merely make these suggestions to you, if you haven't noticed these things before, they might help you to put some of the stories into their contexts, and thus to be more effective in their application. Let us notice, if we will, another theme, uh, that is to be found in these chapters. It occupies small space, perhaps, but then is it exceedingly important? Look at the end of column three— uh, column one, section three. Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. Look at the first section, the first paragraph in section two, what I've called section, uh, sorry, the end of the first paragraph in section four. Peter's denial in Matthew is worded thus. Verse sixty nine of chapter twenty six. Now Peter was sitting without in the court, and the maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with him. And Peter denied it. Please understand, says Peter, I was not and am not with him. Look at the very last words of the gospel of the risen Lord to Peter and to all, lo, I am with you always. But now for my final contribution, so to speak, I wonder if I may call your attention two sections that I have called seven and eight, or to parts thereof. Look, if you will, at the taunts of chapter twenty seven verses thirty nine to forty four. When our Lord was crucified, and they had parted his garments and sat down to watch him, then those that passed by began to rail on him. The Matthew now records three taunts that they, uh, flung in the teeth of the Lord Jesus. One. Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross. Thought number one. In other words, as they understood it, they thought he had prophesied that he would destroy their temple. And now they said, jeering him in his pain, you haven't done it, have you? Taunt number two. In like manner also the chief priests mocking him with the scribes and elders said, he saved others, himself he cannot save. He is the king of Israel. Let him come down from the cross and we will believe him. That speaks for itself. They had to admit that in the course of his ministry, he had saved others. But now, say they, you'll see, uh, he, uh, he is the king of Israel. What sarcasm. He cannot save himself. And what good is a king of Israel who cannot even save himself? You'll see the point of the mockery. Their expectation was of a Messiah and a king who would lead the armies of Israel and save Israel from her enemies. And if he can't even save himself, some king, ah. What would you have said of David if he couldn't have defeated Goliath, you say? I mean, say. What use would he have been? So he saved others. He is the king, isn't he? Well, let him come down from the cross then, and we'll believe he's king, but he can't even save himself, look. Third taunt. He trusteth on God. Let him deliver him now if he desireth him, for he said, I am the Son of God. And the robbers, poor men, led on by the crowd, cast the same reproach upon him. Cruelest taunt of all, wasn't it? They said, you see, he talks so much of trusting God, and he says he trusts God. All right, let God have the final verdict then. And you see, let God deliver him now if he desires it. But God isn't doing anything of the sort, is he? Three taunts thrown in the face of our crucified Lord. Now I submit to you that the record goes on to tell us precisely how those three taunts were answered. They said, ah, he trusts in God. Let him deliver him now, if he will have him. And the answer to the taunt, strange answer. There came a darkness, and about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? What an answer to the torment. Let God deliver him, if he delight in him. And the answer to the talk, that God actually forsook him. What shall we make of it? You know, 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. And that is the story that when Jesus hung upon the cross, God forsook him, and that Jesus himself admitted it. You suppose the church would have invented that? If it hadn't actually happened. Well, if Jesus himself actually admitted that in, in, in response to his critics, and in that context, that God had forsaken him. What should we make of his claim? I know what you want. Instead of saying, yes, well, that destroys everything, you say that's the biggest claim that Christ could ever have made. The biggest evidence that he is indeed the Son of God. You see, it was like Mr. Wilson was saying the other morning of the baptism. When our blessed Lord, at the beginning of his ministry, came to John the Baptist to be baptized, and John Baptist said, no, no, no, no, no, that's not appropriate. This is a baptism of repentance, you know, this baptism is for sinners. And our Lord insisted. And went and stood in Jordan in the very mud, along with those self-confessed sinners. Ladies and gentlemen, when you face that, you face the biggest either or in history. Either Jesus was saying he was a sinner like the rest, or he was saying he was God's sinless son, but where men in repentance, where men and women in repentance confess themselves and stand in the mud before God, Christ is the Son of God come to save them, to stand with them, and eventually take their place. The biggest claim, the biggest piece of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God is precisely this, that he was forsaken by God. How is that an evidence of his deity? Well, we could sum it up in the world of words of the child's hymn, there was none other good enough to pay the price of sin. Or the Christian explanation is that there, precisely because he was the Son of God, God forsook him because this was the Son of God come to be the Savior of the world. It seems to me that one John five picks up the same kind of argument. One John five, if I may remind you, says that the faith that overcomes the world is the faith that Jesus is the Son of God. What evidence is there that Jesus is the Son of God? The verses that follow in one John five give us some of that evidence, and here it is. This is he who came by water and by blood. Not by water only, but by the water and the blood. He came by water and blood. What do you mean he came by water and blood? Not merely that he went by water and blood, he came by water and blood. Yes, because if you will, uh, read the first chapter of the gospel, you will find both things mentioned. John came baptizing. Why did John come baptizing? He tells us explicitly, I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize said, upon whomsoever thou shalt see the heavens opened and the Spirit of God descending like a dove, this is he that baptizes with the Holy Ghost. And the official forerunner appointed by God in fulfillment of Isaiah forty came to his baptism that the Son of God might be manifest and bore witness. I saw the Spirit descend upon him. Public evidence of the deity of Christ introduced by the forerunner. He came by water, that is by water of the official baptism. Not many days thereafter, John supplied the second piece of evidence. Behold, said he, the Lamb of God. This was not said at the end of his ministry, but at the beginning of his ministry. And marks out our Lord as utterly unique. There has only been one man come into our world, whose official introduction said that the purpose of his coming into the world was to die for the sins of the world. He came by blood, and as of course he came, so he went. And the soldier pierced his side, there came out blood and water. And it seems to me, subjectively, we know him to be the Son of God. Why do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God? We'll allow a young convert to tell you. Now, I'm not always persuaded I need preachers to come and tell me to be good. Well, of course, it is helpful in a way, I suppose, but in my heart of hearts, I know I ought to be good. My 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. Because if we can do bad, uh, evil and it doesn't matter, then ultimately we don't matter and nobody else matters. If I can, if I can destroy your daughter with drugs and it doesn't matter, well, give up all hopes of heaven, please, because if sin doesn't matter, there'll never be a paradise. But if sin matters, then whatever shall I do? Because I have sinned. Ladies and gentlemen, your, your job to help me is not to tell me to be good, but to tell me first the answer to my problem that I have been bad. There's only one that has the answer, isn't there? The one who came saying he had come to die. And his biggest claim to be the Son of God is that at Calvary, God forsook him. For God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. If Jesus Christ had not been forsaken at Calvary, I should not now believe him this morning. For he wouldn't meet my need, would he? And the claim that God forsook him because he was bearing our sins in his body is, of course, in itself a claim to deity. For what man, being mere man, would have borne our sin, and for their sake suffered the dereliction of God. Answer to the first, to the third taunt, let God have him, is to say outright that God actually forsook him. Ah, 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. Three days after God forsook him, Matthew tells us how God raised him from the dead. Ah, but now look at the second taunt, if you will. He saved others. Himself he cannot save. Therefore, they concluded, what use was he as a king who 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 who cannot save himself? The only way the Passover lamb could save the Israelites out of Egypt was by not saving itself. But as for saving himself, no, he didn't. But look what happened when he consented to die. For, read on if you please. Verse fifty: and Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirits, and behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the tombs were opened. Many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tomb after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared unto. Oh, thank God. That he didn't save himself and come down from the cross, because if he had have done, you'd have been sitting there dreading the onset of death, ladies and gentlemen. But if he'd come down from the cross and not die, the great enemy death would have remained undefeated. He saved the people. Oh, see the glorious first roots of it, as ha- when he cried, it is finished, and gave up the ghost, the very tombs burst when they came out of their graves. He saved them from the monster of death by not saving himself and by consenting to die. Oh yes, the taunt is answered. Ah, and as for that first taunt, glorious, isn't it? I see them, I think, in my mind's eye, strutting in front of the cross. Weren't they confident in their argument? They said, you see, there he is. He said, if you please, I'll destroy your temple. Well, he hadn't said that literally. He didn't mean that he personally would pull it to pieces. Of course he didn't. They may have thought he did. He said he'd destroy our temple. Well, destroy it now if you can. Nails, hand, and foot as you are to the cross. Go on, destroy it. Little did they know that by dying he was destroying it, wasn't he? But when he died, says Matthew, the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom. And you'll see, as you know full well, 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 ever allowed to enter, save the high priest once a year. The Jews regarded it as so very holy, as in one sense indeed it was, so greatly mysterious and marvelous, and the mystery of that innermost place, underlined by the colorful ceremonies of the Day of Atonement every year. Oh, destroy that, they said, we'll lynch you, live from judgment if you don't destroy it. So they nailed him to a tree. There he offered the sacrifice once and for all that perfected our conscience and gave us to understand that the way is open into the very holiest of all in heaven. Now, you don't need a temple, do you? Huh? What would you be doing playing about with a sacred building on earth with a little dark shrine at the he- at the end of it. Ah, when you have, you have access into the holiest of all in glory. Well, if, like Stephen, you have seen the Lord who was crucified ascend up into glory, and if by faith are you see the very heaven opened and the Savior welcoming you into the very holiest of all, you don't need any temple on earth anymore. And the whole thing becomes obsolete. And I call your attention to these things though you know, to suggest one of the angles that it is profitable to approach in these last three chapters. The angle of evidence substantiating the claims of the Lord. You see, when Matthew wrote this, however late you think his gospel that was to be written, it was still fresh in the mind both of Christian and Jews, what had happened at Calvary. And here is an early Christian apostle and inspired, collecting the evidence and answering the taunts of the Jewish nation as to what happened at Calvary. And a very powerful gospel message it is, isn't it? And if it is true there that in that sense the Holy Spirit through Matthew is answering the taunts, could it be that in others of these paragraphs, the story is being told us at least with this as one of its intentions, to supply the evidence that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. That that claim was not made up by the church and invented by fevered imaginations, but is seen to be true as we look at the sheer facts on the history. But there I cease, because here surely you're going to help me this morning. The field is wide open. Anybody bursting to comment on any one of these paragraphs? You don't have to take notice of this, ladies and gentlemen. This is only a matter of scaffolding around the building to help us climb up it, that's all. And when you've got the building, kick the scaffolding away. But anybody has a favorite passage here? Tell me the old, old story. You have caused to fear this world's empty glory, costing me to hear. What a precious story of love, isn't it? It is often pointed out that Matthew's account emphasizes the supernatural. Yes. And he gives a number of thanks here that we only thank in Matthew. That's good. Thank you, sir. Would you care to list them for us? My memory's starting to slip. Yeah. But it is so, isn't it? There's a Bishop Nick Nicholson. Yeah. Years ago, wrote a little book and pointed out that there were seven of them over here. Seven miraculous things. And it's Matthew that emphasizes this. I can think of one immediately, the graves being opened. That's only Matthew, isn't it? Of course, the bear being rent was a miracle, surely of divine inter- inter- intervention. Yeah. Yes. While you're thinking, may I point to, uh, uh, what my, uh, add along with what Mr. Wilson has said, we're very frequently told, and rightly told, that Matthew's gospel emphasizes our Lord as king, and that John's gospel emphasizes our Lord as the Son of God. And in general terms, that is true, isn't it? But when you come to the crucifixion, the very reverse is true. Yeah? You will find, uh, uh, that in John the issue turns on our Lord's kingship. It is in John that Pilate brings out the our Lord to the people and says, behold, your king, and they reply, we have no king but Caesar. That's John, not Matthew. The emphasis in John's gospel at the crucifixion is on the kingship of Christ. And that is not any accident, is it, because it is John who tells us from chapter twelve um onward, 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 should be cast out. It's John that emphasizes that at the crucifixion they didn't break the Lord Jesus' legs. Why not? Because the scripture had said no bone of him shall be broken. Now that's the Passover regulation. And when we think of the Passover, we think of how God delivered Israel from the dominion and tyranny of that great prince of Egypt, Pharaoh. Now, in the Gospel of John, with the prince of this world looming on the horizon and coming, says the Lord Jesus, it is appropriate enough that our Lord is represented as king. We have no king but Caesar, they said. Hold your king. And how did that king deliver them from the prince of this world? Why, by becoming the father of the lamb, of course. But in Matthew, it is not so much the kingship of Christ, but his deity. It's Matthew that has them saying, if he is the son of God, let him come down from the cross. And that is readily understandable if Matthew wrote his gospel for Jews, because the issue between the church and Judaism was, and still remains, the fundamental issue is, is Jesus or isn't he the Son of God? And as we saw, uh, uh, uh, yesterday in, 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, the Lord Jesus. We saw that yesterday. And now consistent therewith at the cross, the evidence that Jesus is the Son of God, and perhaps also therefore this feature that Mr. Wilson talks about, the occurrence of the supernatural at the crucifixion of Christ. I mentioned that right at the very end here, in verse, uh, fifty four, concerning the centurion, Yes. the man who actually was responsible Yes. for the crucifixion, this is what it says. For when the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus saw the earthquake and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, truly, Yeah. this was the son. Yeah, yes, sir. And then another gospel says, certainly this was religious. Yes, that's Luke's. Luke emphasizes our Lord's moral character. The section says he was right and these others are wrong, but here, this is the Son of God. That's Matthew's emphasis. May I call attention to another thing, if I may? The tremendous emphasis in Matthew's gospel on blood. Yeah. You see, uh, look at the central group of sections there, four, five, and six, and in particular, at five. Judas comes, chapter twenty seven verses three, four, and five, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood. And they said, what is that to us? See thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed and went away and hanged himself. And the chief priest took the pieces of silver and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is the price of blood. They took counsel and brought with them the potter's field to bury strangers in. Am I not right in saying that those details are peculiar to Matthew? Then in the next, uh, uh, uh, group of paragraphs, from twenty seven eleven onwards, you have the story of Pilate. Peculiar to Matthew is the story, verse twenty four onwards. So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it. And all the people answered and said, his blood be on us and on our children. Two stories peculiar to Matthew, the center of which is this question of the blood of the Lord Jesus. And of course, tremendously significant they are. Well, now just let me give you a run through of the gospel. Matthew is arguing the case that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the true king of Israel. In the course of his history, he, uh, uh, introduces us to certain other rulers. In chapter, uh, uh, uh two, it's the story of Herod, Herod the Great. Now you can judge governments, ladies and gentlemen. You can judge governments by many tests. And one test of a government is the government's attitude to their powers of life and death over their citizens. The concern a government will have with innocent blood. Don't you boast yourself in America that you're not like Russia? You don't condemn innocent people, do you? Your government doesn't act in tyrannical way. Your government regards human life as sacred, doesn't it? Well, it used to. Well, anyway, do you see? Uh, you may judge a government, surely, by its attitude to the tremendous responsibility a government carries for the life and death of its citizens. Let's apply the test. And what about Herod the Great? Well, had you asked him, he was there ruling for the benefit of his subject, wasn't he? Well, if he could. And if he couldn't? Well, he'd rule nonetheless. And to perpetuate his rule, he sent his soldiers out and butchered all the boy babies under two years of age. La la. Slaughter of the innocent by a man determined to be king at any cost. Oh la, what that says about the government and its attitude to the value of human life. That's sheer ambition. Come central to the gospel, and we meet another Herod. Not such a fierce figure, of course, was he as Herod the Great. This is chapter fourteen. In fact, in his way, he was almost benign, for he had, he didn't like John's preaching. It was very embarrassing to preach him, so he put him in prison. But he had decided, um, not to execute him, for that wouldn't have been a politically wise move, because all the people held John to be a prophet, so with political know-how and so on, he had decided not to kill him, but simply to put him in prison, and that shut up his preaching, and there was no scandal, so. So he had decided. But his wife thought differently, and she sent in her daughter to perform a very questionable dance and played on his lower passions. And the king's passions rose up like a flood and carried him absolutely away, and in a moment of high passion he gave the oath that took the head off John the Baptist, and he didn't want to do it, but he lost control of himself, and he did. I don't know which you would regard as the worst government. The government that is prepared, like Stalin, to slaughter sixty million to further its own political ambitions, or a government that is so weak that it can't control its own passions, and in the process has the head off the most, the greatest of all the problems. Would you choose? But then you come to the final chapter, and again we come to the authorities. Let's take the priestly authorities first. And here comes Judas saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood. And they say, oh, what's that to us? What's that to us? That was their business, according to the Old Testament, to keep the land clear of the shedding of innocent blood. Why, in Israel, if a corpse was found and it wasn't known who had committed the murder, then the elders of the city were to come out and to pronounce solemnly before God that they weren't responsible for this murder. It was a charge upon them, and the high priest had bought the high priest for it, uh, supremely to keep the land free of the charge of innocent blood. And here are the very high priests faced with a repentant, or at least a remorseful sinner, saying, I have sinned and I have betrayed innocent blood, and they can't be turned around and say, that's none of our business, you see to that. You see to it? Wasn't Judas's job to see to it? Why didn't they turn round and counsel that 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 themselves of shedding the innocent blood. Some priests. And here, announcing themselves their derediction of their duty. When you turn to the political authority, for under Rome he was supreme, if the priests were evil and perverted, then it was his job to see that justice was done. And he did his best to save the Lord Jesus. But the crowds and the priests outwitted him over that Barabbas incident. And to his amazement, they chose Barabbas. And he tried to protest, saying, why, what evil has he done? In that moment, his wife sent a letter to him. Now, Pilate was a tough Roman soldier, you know, but he was a pagan. And if pagans are ever going to be impressed, they will be impressed by the supernatural and dreams and things. Read ancient literature, and you'll find out that even the toughest of them were very much moved by supernatural omens, as they counted. And here was one staring Pilate in the face, a letter from his wife saying she'd had a dream, uh, and urging him to have nothing to do with this righteous man. And he wanted to say, ah, but the priests and the crowd overruled. And in a fatuously weak attempt, he took water and he washed his hands in the water, said, I'm innocent of the blood of this Dutch person. You see to it. But it wasn't the job of the high priests, and still less of that roaring, ungovernable mob, to see to the question of the life or death sentence of a citizen, was he? Fancy your Supreme Court, if they have got round to doing it, surrendering a prisoner to the mob and saying, you see to it. That is the final dereliction of duty, isn't it? On the behalf of, on the part of the civil government. Judged then by this question of blood, of innocent blood, they cut very sorry fingers indeed. And what will Matthew tell us about the king himself? Now this is the story how the king himself shed blood and did it with the utmost of deliberation. For as you notice in first chapter twenty six verse one, before the high priest got round to saying, we better find a means of getting him out of the way and destroying him, Jesus had announced to his apostles that the Passover was near and the Son of Man must be delivered up. And when he came to the garden, and when he came to the table, he announced to his apostles, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. The king determined to shed blood, but not the blood of his citizens, but the blood of himself, the innocent for the guilty. Ladies and gentlemen, if I were to ask you, what is the power that Jesus Christ exerts over you? How did he come to captivate you and to bind you to himself in utter obedience? Well, not by starving, by terrorizing you, by shedding the blood of thousands of your fellow citizens. He came to his government over you by shedding his own blood for your sake. That's the king judge by his use of the power of death and life. Notice only finally, won't you, with what control and deliberation he shed his blood. It wasn't in a rash moment of enthusiasm, was it, thereafter to be regretted. Like we do sometimes, you know, we're so moved in a mission meeting, we go and put in a hundred dollar bill, and then when we get outside, we say, go on, done that, didn't he? Yes. Mm-hmm. Uh, how did the savior of the world come to shed his blood? Well, it's a long story, I mustn't repeat it here, but with the utmost self-control. And from eternity, of course. Foreshadowed in the Passover. And when they came to the garden, and the arrest party came, says Matthew, Peter got out his sword to defend the Lord Jesus. He meant well, but he so lacked self-control that he, he cut the man's ear off instead of getting his head on. We're going to use a sword, ladies and gentlemen, try learn how to use it. And try maintain enough self-control to use it properly and effectively. And our Lord told him to put up the sword within his sheath. And said to Peter, Peter, to the disciples, do you really think that I couldn't now call to my Father and he'd give me twelve legions of angels and every one of them with a sword in them, and a supernatural sword. And with twelve legions of angelic swords at his disposal, he could have had them in an instant, instant, and we must believe him when he said that if he had asked the Father, the Father would have given them. His obedience was utterly free, you know. There was nothing mechanical in it. He could have called, and the Father would have sent. How did he find the self-control to keep twelve legions of swords sheathed when Peter couldn't keep one sheaved? Oh, but he said, but you see, yes, I could call, but how then would the scripture be fulfilled that thus it must be? What tremendous self-control to leave those twelve uh legions of swords unused and submit to arrest, torture, and crucifixion because the scripture says. And maybe our other indications there are, I won't tell you by enumerating. Uh, this question of blood and innocent blood in Matthew is, of course, of prime importance because of Matthew's general subject. He's comparing our Lord as king with all the other authorities in the land. Talk too much as usual. Anybody has any other favorite passage they want to talk about in this? Chapter twenty seven, verse nine. This was fulfilled, that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, and the point, of course, is from Zechariah. What's the explanation for? 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 a certain Patrick Mu, M double O. He's Chinese, though he lectures somewhere here in America on the passion narratives of the Gospels in the light of the fulfillment texts in Matthew that this was fulfilled. And Mu is a staunch, uh, conservative and evangelical. It is hard going the reading, but he analyzes this, uh, particular prophecy that you're referring to in a way that strikes me as the most satisfactory I have seen. If you can get hold of the book, don't buy it, it costs I don't know how much, but get it from a library somewhere. Patrick Moon on the Passion narrative. He points out, as many scholars point out, of course, that in the manner of citing ancient, uh, uh, prophecies, it was the custom that if you cited two, you mentioned only the more famous of the two. So that Jeremiah gets mentioned, though a great deal of the detail comes from Zechariah. The sense in which, uh, our, our lords, um, uh, and Judas in this whole event, uh, fulfilled the prophecy. You'll see, that mood discusses. I, I, I don't carry the details in my head, but it is a very illuminating discussion, because on the surface of it, the incident doesn't seem at all to, uh, uh, bear out what Matthew is claiming. You'll see, it seems of the very reverse. But in actual fact, when you consider the Zechariah prophecy in the light of Jeremiah, then the thing makes a marvelous sense. It runs in my mind that Mu, uh, argues the case about which chapter in Jeremiah is being referred to. There is not just a simple choices of one or t'other, and he makes a very strong case for, I think it is chapter nineteen, I'm not quite sure now. Uh, I'm sorry, I can't say more detail. The thing occupies about twelve pages of closely typed manuscript. I do recommend it so too. It is, it is, it is much more, it's more satisfactory in my mind than the normal evangelical conservative explanations. And the whole thing comes out brilliantly as a confirmation that Matthew is, is making admirable sense and is indeed inspired. Patrick Moo, Patrick J. Moo, I think it is M double O. Well, may I make one further, and I promise you this will be my last observation. Uh, if you may care to ponder, carry away. What is the function of the second story, the anointing of our Lord in the house in Bethany? Well, you may say there's no one answer to that. There's many answers as there are people who read it, for it's a very moving story, isn't it, of this dear lady's evaluation of the Lord Jesus and her anointing of him. And the, uh, author, the question of values in that they, at the, um, uh, supper, began to criticize the cost of the ointment, and they thought it was a waste, it should have been given to the poor. And of course, that leads on to the story how Judas, who protested with the rest that this money was wasted, spent upon the Lord Jesus, and should have been given to the poor. He went off to make another financial arrangement. Say the very next verses. I don't know that he gave his thirty pieces of silver to the poor. I can't remember any account of that either. Yes. And the cost of innocent blood, and so forth and so on, introduce us to ideas of that. But may I suggest one further piece of evidence, uh, that comes out of that story. Jews and liberal Christian scholars, or so-called Christian scholars, have, as I say, uh, tried to argue that all these stories are really made up by the church, and that the central story that the death of Christ was an atoning death is an interpretation made up by the church. Oh yes, that is taught to thousands of undergraduates in theological colleges. And of course, the elements that are go up, uh, the essential elements of the death of Jesus was an atoning death, of course, uh, are, are, uh, one, that he must have risen from the dead, for if he's still in the tomb, all the claim that his death was an atoning death is thereby shattered. For his death to be an atoning death, it must be followed by a resurrection. Secondly, uh, if his death was an atoning death, it must be deliberate. Thirdly, if his death was to be an atoning death, he must himself be sinless. And that raises the question, what is the evidence for those three things? And did the church invent it? Of course, you will find the records covering these three things, as they have to, of course. But further to the point, is it so that the early Christians got the idea that Jesus was going to die and, uh, uh, maneuvered the whole situation? They discovered the prophecies that he was going to die from the Old Testament, and they made up the story that he did die and fulfilled, so they say, those prophecies, and started therefore the Christian church of which they conveniently became the apostles. Is it so? One of the pieces that it isn't so, of course, is to be found in that story of the anointing of the Lord Jesus in Bethany. Notice how it is sandwiched. The Lord had announced he was going to die. The Son of Man must be delivered up. Then follows the story of the anointing, and what does that show? It shows that even then, and still, the, the apostles, at least the eleven loyal apostles, were not expecting the Lord to die, doesn't it? You say, how do you get that out of that story? Well, you'll say when this good lady came and anointed the Lord Jesus, they complained that it was a waste of money, spending this colossal amount of money on the Lord. Now, I speak as a complete inexpert here, but I put it to the gentleman to say. Your wife came to you for Christmas and said she'd like a big box of ice cream, you wouldn't begrudge you, would you? And if your wife came and said, uh, that this Christmas she'd like a fur coat, well, you might consider it. She came and asked for two fur coats or three, and one of them's got to be mink. You might say, well, my dear, I'd love to give you, but you know, I don't think it wise to dip into our resources to that level. If the doctor came to you and said, I have to report that your wife is suffering from terminal cancer, she has six months to live. And she doesn't know it. And your wife said to you, my dear, do you know I've got an ambition? I, I've always felt I'd like to take a world cruise. Would you take me on a world cruise? And you said to yourself, it's going to cost me six hundred thousand dollars. Would you turn around and say, no, that's a waste of money? I think not. 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 Savior, would you suppose they would have begrudged that amount of ointment? They didn't know he was going to die. That hadn't yet registered with, with. And they thought it was a waste of money, just on any ordinary day of the week, to spend all that, all at once, on the same. And while the story is written by our Lord's express command for all the world to hear and admire that woman, it carries with it evidence, very important to start, that even at this stage the apostles were not expecting the Lord to die. As it is clear from the arrest. But when it came to the arrest, Peter got out his sword to stop it, our Lord from dying. And now you come to another bit that the church didn't make up. Do you suppose the church made up the story that when our Lord was arrested, all the apostles, fine men, weren't they, and valiant, forsook him and fled? Did the church make up that bit? What did they flee for? Well, Peter, as late as the garden, drew his sword, courageous man, to s- to try and prevent our Lord being arrested and killed. And to his astonishment and dismay, the Lord said, no, Peter, put up your sheet. I'm going to die. You see, the scripture's got to be fulfilled. When he said that, then the apostles forsook him and fled. Because they didn't agree with he's going to die. They thought it was the craziest thing they'd ever heard. Well, said they, if you're go- you're going to, I need to say, you're going to die, now this is impossible. Then they forsook him. For the idea of a Messiah that should die struck them such a contradiction in terms that they were prepared to have no part in it. Thereafter, Peter followed him afar off and got to the high priest's court, and the high priest... Peter heard him, asked the Lord Jesus, are you the Christ? He says, Peter, this will be interesting news. Because, because if he's n- if he's not prepared to fight, well, then how can he be the Messiah? So if he's allowed himself to be arrested, he surely won't claim to be the Christ now, because if he, if now he professes to be the Christ, that will be the end of him. And he heard our Lord say, yes, I am. Well, that was suicide. And when the maid turned to Peter and said, are you with him? No, says he, cut me out of this. I'm not with this at all. I no, no, no, I I'm not with him. Ladies and gentlemen, the church didn't invent that sort. They're telling you the truth. As far as the apostles concerned, not only did one betre- betray him, but the whole rest, when they saw the Savior determined to die and yet claimed to be the Messiah, said, look, we're not with this, we're out of this, count us out, please. We're not with this scheme whatsoever. Yes, we stand historically in the face of that unique man, Jesus Christ, with all God, claiming to be the Messiah, and yet a Messiah who refused to fight to avoid death, but deliberately died. Because he'd come to save us, because he was the Messiah, deliberately, with the planning of centuries, come to shed his blood for his citizens' sake, to redeem us and set us. We've gone over time. Thank you for your patience. Shall we just close it? Take thy word, Lord, we now do beseech thee, given us by thy spirit. Help us ever with worshiping hearts to show our devotion by calling on our minds to love thee with all their strength, so that mind might perceive what love will worship in the glories of thy Son, and ever deepening understanding may lead to ever enriched and enriching worship. We ask it through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.