Gooding, David: 4 - Matthew 13-18

Good morning to you. It's very stimulating to see your presence. Thank you for coming. And this morning we are due to consider the narrative section of the Gospel of Matthew, beginning in chapter thirteen fifty three and extending through chapters fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen. The collection of teaching that Matthew has put along with this narrative comes in chapter eighteen, And we shall not be able to resist the temptation to look over the fence from the narrative to the teaching. Now this is a very, very long section, and as on former occasions, and even more so today, we shall only be able to deal with some of its leading themes. Though do feel free if this passage contains some verses or some incident or some teaching that lies very near your heart and you feel a compulsion bursting within you to say something about it. Well, don't be inhibited, you see. Break into any context, stop the flow of the thought or anything at all. Don't bottle up inside what you have wanting to give out. Because this passage in Matthew contains stories that lie very near to the heart of the Lord's people, because they have meant so much to them in the course of the real experiences of life. But for my part, I would like to point out, by way of introduction, that the leading theme, as usual in this, uh, these writings by Matthew, the leading theme comes in the opening paragraph and raises the question of the person of Jesus, whose son is he? And that leading theme predominates throughout the rest of the section. So we are told in chapter thirteen verse fifty three and fifty four. came to pass when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence, and coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch they were astonished and said, whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Well, of course, we know better. But here we listen to the crowd and some of the initial reactions to our Lord's teaching, his wisdom, and his works. And the people of his own country. Notice exactly who they are, the people of his own town, Nazareth, who had known his father, uh, his reputed father, his mother, his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas and his sisters. Here they are wrestling with the phenomena of the evidence and trying in their little minds to account for it. Whence has he all this wisdom and these mighty works? And yet they know him as the carpenter's son, and how do you reconcile the two phenomena? In chapter fourteen, verses thirty two and thirty three, you have what you don't have in the other gospels. Following the story of the storm on the lake, Matthew tells us, beginning in verse twenty eight, how Peter asked to be allowed to walk on the water as the Lord Jesus did, and was encouraged to do so by the Lord, promptly sank and had to be rescued. But then, when they were gone up into the boat, verse thirty two says, the wind ceased, and they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, of a truth, thou art the Son of God. Or again, in chapter sixteen verses thirteen to seventeen, the famous confession. uh Our Lord Jesus asks them, verse thirteen, who do men say that the Son of Man is? And they said, some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And then again in chapter seventeen verse five, This from the Mount of Transfiguration. While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud saying, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear you him. And then again, in verses twenty four uh, to twenty five, The incident when those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, does not your master pay tax? And Peter said, oh, of course he pays tax. But when he came into the house, our Lord had to correct him and said, What thinkest thou, Simon, the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute, from their sons or from strangers? He said, and when he said from strangers, Jesus said unto him, therefore the sons are free. And we do well to ponder the implication of the analogy, as far as it affects the person of the Lord Jesus. So then, on that evidence, I suggest to you that this section brings before us very particularly the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus. Secondly, we cannot escape, surely, the tremendous emphasis that this part of Matthew puts upon Peter. Just let me take you through some of the occasions where Peter is mentioned. Fourteen again, chap- uh, verses twenty eight to thirty one, That incident in the story of the storm at sea. Now the other gospel writers have the story of the storm at sea and how Jesus came to his disciples walking on the water, only Matthew has the added incident that Peter answered and said, Lord, if it be thou bid me come unto thee upon the waters. So that whole incident about Peter is peculiar to the gospel by Matthew. Then in chapter fifteen and verse fifteen: And Peter answered and said unto him, declare unto us the parable. Only a tiny little detail, but it is Matthew and only Matthew that tells you that it was specifically Peter who requested this explanation of the parable. Or look again in chapter sixteen verses sixteen to nineteen. The first three gospels have, of course, this incident and the confession of the Lord Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. But now in verses seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen, something that is peculiar to Matthew. And our Lord answered and said unto him, that is Peter, blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee, singular, Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Another whole incident, therefore, peculiar to Matthew, and is concerned very directly and specifically and importantly with Peter. Then chapter seventeen and verse four. Matthew has what other gospel writers have, but it's no less the important for that. Peter answered halfway through the transfiguration scene and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here. If thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles, one for thee and one for Moses and one for Elijah. Ah, terribly inept suggestion to make, and it was brushed aside by the coming of the cloud and the voice from the glory that says, this is my beloved son, hear him. And when the cloud passed, Jesus was found alone. Finally, in verses twenty four to twenty five of that chapter seventeen, the incident already noticed, pray this time notice that it was Peter to whom they that received the half shekel came and said, does not your master pay the half shekel? And it was Peter who said unthinkingly, oh yes, of course, and had to be corrected by the Lord Jesus because of the serious implications of his mistaken idea. Two things, therefore, prominent in this section of Matthew. One, the deity of the Lord Jesus, and if I might so phrase it, the discovery of the deity of the Lord Jesus. And then the matter of the prominence of Peter, which two things come together very pointedly, do they not, in chapter sixteen, where when Peter confesses the Lord Jesus as the Son of the living God, Peter is specially commended. The Lord says that flesh and blood didn't reveal it to him, but his father, and talks about the rock and delivers to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Why these two prominent themes interlocked in the Gospel of Matthew? Not only here in the famous confession, chapter sixteen, but there in fourteen. it was the incident of Peter walking on the sea and sinking and being delivered and then coming into the boat with the Lord Jesus that finally moved the apostles to confess the Lord Jesus, this is the Son of God. And of course, it was Peter's unfortunate, uh, suggestion on the Mount of Transfiguration that drew from the divine glory the protest and the confession, this is my beloved Son, hear him. And it was Peter's unfortunate statement that the Lord Jesus was responsible to pay the temple tax that led to the correction and indirectly to the assertion once more of our Lord's sonship. Why this interlocking of the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus and the prominence of Peter? Well, we can answer that a little bit, can't we, by observing the third thing that is prominent, at least important, in this part of Matthew. For in chapter sixteen in Matthew comes the first mention of the church, and the promise of the Lord Jesus to build his church. And whatever you take the foundation to be, for the moment, let's concentrate on the promise of the building of the church, the first mention of it in the gospel. And chapter eighteen at the end of the section is going to repeat this matter of the church, isn't it? When our Lord gives directions for the government and control and discipline of believers in the church. Historically, it is easy, perhaps, to see the connection, is it not? For the distinctive doctrine of the Christian church, as distinct from Judaism, is what? Well, not belief in the one true God, is it? Though, of course, the church stands for the oneness of God against all idolatry. But if it was given to the Jew to be witness to the one true God, the trans- transcendent creator, against all the idolatry of the ancient Gentile world, if that was the distinctive witness of the Jew, and is to this present day, the distinctive witness of the church is obviously the deity of the Lord Jesus. Is the absolute foundation of the church. Take another little perspective on this section of Matthew. This is the fourth section. Yesterday we were considering the third section of matter and found that it raised the great problem of evil and the question whether Jesus is or is not the Messiah. And the question ran thus: How can Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't proceed to put down evil men, for the Old Testament had prophesied that when the Messiah came, he would not only bring salvation to the bel- repentant and believing, he would execute the wrath of God upon the evil and put down evil. And thus had John the Baptist preached that the Lord Jesus was Messiah and would baptize the believers with the Holy Spirit and burn up the unbeliever with unquenchable fire. But then the problem raised that so troubled John the Baptist. Our Lord certainly blessed the people with salvation, but made no apparent attempt to burn up the wicked. Now then, could he be the Messiah and John spent special messengers to know? Was he really the Messiah or not? The answer to that problem we found from the Lord Jesus. That while the Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would do these two things, baptize with the Holy Spirit and burn up the qu- the chaff with unquenchable fire, it was never the intention of the Old Testament or the God who inspired it, that our blessed Lord should, uh, destroy the wicked at his first coming. It was never the intention of God, was it? To establish the kingdom of God at the first coming of our Lord Jesus by burning up the wicked. How could it ever have been his intention to burn up the wicked and so establish the kingdom of God before Calvary had made possible for them the forgiveness of their sins. No, the Old Testament itself had said what the, uh, program would be. Messiah would come. He would be born of the virgin, born in Bethlehem. He would die, be buried, and rise again, and would be commanded by God, sit at my right hand. The ascension and enthronement of the Lord Jesus. And then said the Old Testament, there would be a period, sit at my right hand until. So the Old Testament did preach there would be a period between the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, our Lord, and his coming to judge. Sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. And Matthew repeats it, he shall not cry aloud, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street, nor quench a smoking flax, nor break a bruised reed. He shall not do this until. So had Isaiah said, until he bring forth judgment to victory. And our Lord went on to get- say what would be the timetable for the setting up of the kingdom and how it would be set up. It would be set up first at the spiritual level by a sower going forth to sow. It would finally be enforced by the coming of the Son of Man, the burning of the tares, and the destruction of the bad fish. If, therefore, the middle section of Matthew has given us the program for the setting up of Messiah's kingdom, thus, and there is to be this interval between his ascension and his coming to judge. What goes into that, that interval? While the sower is going forth to sow. What goes into it? Well, the very next section in Matthew will tell you what goes into it. The foundation and formation of the church. The church built upon this fundamental confession that is the distinctive witness of the Christian church. The deity of the Lord Jesus, not only the Christ, the Messiah, but also the Son of the living God. There is no reason to be perplexed, is there, why Peter is so prominent in the story? Because according to this record, Peter was the first man to stand up on little planet Earth and officially announce the great discovery that they had made, that Jesus was the Son of God. One more thing, and then we'll revert to that topic. Another word or cluster of words is to be found recurring in all four of the major movements of this part of Matthew. Look at the first paragraph of column one um on your sheet. We are told that the men of his own country, as they tried to understand on the one hand his mighty works and wisdom, and somehow reconcile that with the fact that they knew him to be the son of the carpenter, they were offended, says the King James, Old English for stumbled. The verb is scandalizamen. They were stumbled. It was a scandalon to them, this question of the person of the s- whose son is this. In the first paragraph of the second column of your sheet, when the Lord gave his teaching about the laws of cleanliness and so forth, the disciples pointed out to him, knowest thou that the Pharisees were? Same verb, scandalitene. It was a scandalon to them. Look at the third column on your sheet in paragraph two. when Peter rebuked the Lord Jesus and suggested to him that he ought to avoid suffering. Our Lord rebuked him, saying, get thee behind me, Satan, thou art a scandalon to me. And then finally, in the fourth column and the second paragraph, chapter seventeen verses twenty four to twenty seven: uh Our Lord, having it carefully established that he had no obligation whatsoever to pay that temple tax, having necessarily pointed out that he was under no obligation, he then proceeded to pay it for himself and for Peter, less his refusal to pay had become a scandalon to them. And all you theologians sitting around here, aha, as you hear the word scandalon, and this is kind of context, the section that deals with the, the deity of the Lord Jesus, and the matter of his cross and suffering. We'll think at once of one Corinthians chapter one, what o, the preaching of the cross is to the Jew a scandalon, as also is the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of God, the biggest scandalon the Jews have to face as they hear the claims of the Christian church. Yes. Well, let that do for a brief survey of some of the major themes. The handout in front of you, once more I point out, I wouldn't go to the stake for it, my brothers and sisters. This, this is Bible. This is, you must believe every word, comma, uh, of this book, uh, you'll say, go to the stake for it. You wouldn't go to the stake for this. This is merely a convenient table of contents, you'll see, and other better, uh, analyses could doubtless be found. This just points out one or two things. You will see the main sections are determined by the geography of our Lord's travel. You notice the geographical things, the men of his own country, then Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, then what happened up in Caesarea Philippi, then what happened in Galilee, or geographical sections. Eh, you will see how in the middle section, well, in in the first section and the third section, there is a journey across the sea. Each time the journey comes to its conclusion with what happened on the other side of the sea, and so forth. But let's not stay about those simple. Let me come now to question you. Fair shares, I've had half an hour, so you have half an hour. Ah. Let me raise with you, if you will be so kind to put, this matter of the deity of the Lord Jesus in this section of Of Matthew. Matthew. It seems to me that, among other things, Matthew is telling us very simply the amazing story of how these first Christians came to wake up to the fact that the man at whose side they walked down the streets of Nazareth. The man who traveled in the boat with them and slept on the pillar was nothing other than the Son of God. What a awe-inspiring, breathtaking discovery. Suddenly to wake up to the fact that the man on at your side was God's son in common. We've believed it for so long, don't we, haven't we? We almost take it for granted. Let's make the effort this morning to put ourselves back into the shoes of the men who began by not knowing it and walked with Jesus Christ around Palestine and hadn't realized it, and... Let's then ask ourselves, what kind of experiences were there that led them to think that Jesus is the Son of God? You'll say there's an easy answer to that, Mr. Preacher, but chapter sixteen tells us they didn't do any thinking at all. Mm. Because our Lord says flesh and blood didn't reveal it to you, but my Father, which is in heaven. So that's how it happened. Suddenly the Father revealed it, and they knew. Is that being fair, do you think, to history? That Peter one morning woke up in bed and the divine voice says, Peter, uh, Jesus is the Son of God, you know. And Peter said, is that so? Well, I believe it if you say so, but who is Jesus to start with? Well, of course not. Sure, it required divine revelation, but divine revelation wasn't made in a vacuum, was it? And the divine Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Son of God. It was a Jesus that already Peter had begun to get to know. And Matthew is telling us, isn't he, some of the incidents that had already led not only Peter, but the rest of them to confess Jesus as the Son of God. Look at that thing on the storm on the lake, says Matthew. When at the conclusion of that tremendous experience, one and all cried out, this is the Son of God. Ah. So the Father's revelation was not made in vacuum, it was made on the basis of certain experiences that the disciples had already had of the Lord. And as they pondered the significance of those experiences and began to think and to wonder, God, by his Holy Spirit, revealed what the significance and implication was, and they came to confess it. Yeah. Do you know what I would love to do just at this moment? I'd love to break all my, uh, elementary remarks and ask you, each one of you, why do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Wonder what you'd reply off the cuff as number one reason. If you ask me, I'll tell you why. My, my, my dad and mum told me he was. That's where I first heard it. You know, ladies and gentlemen, it's a very good reason if you've got Christian parents for believing. Ah. And then they taught me in Bible class in Sunday school, and I read it in the Bible. As the years have gone on, of course, you can't avoid thinking, can you? I read it in the Bible, but who wrote the Bible? You say that man Peter wrote sections of it, and Matthew wrote some more. Oh, I see. Ah. Oh. Well, how did Matthew come to know that Jesus is the Son of God? And if we ask such questions like that, we're probing back into history, aren't we? For ours is a historic faith, and we're now reading about the men who first in history came to realize he was the Son of God. Now, what convinced them? I do hope you're going to help me this morning. Perhaps would it be an idea to look at some of these incidents? Take first of all the one, the storm on the lake, and then Peter's walking on the water, and uh, then the confession that that led to, thou art the Son of. Tell me why. At least let me say one more thing and then cease. I was talking in this fashion once, uh, in an assembly. Let it be nameless where it was and which one it was. Evidence for the Son of God, when a dear brother came up to me and say- said, don't you think it's dangerous to ask people to think about what the evidence for the deity of Christ is? I said, how could that be dangerous? Well, he said, suppose they started thinking then the evidence wasn't good enough. Ooh. Ooh. Well. Well, yeah. Isn't the evidence good enough? Ah, but missed that. Yeah, yes. Doesn't Peter take this up on the day of Pentecost as he spoke to the crowd? Yeah. Uh, he starts off Jesus of Nazareth, which was their view of him. Yeah. But then he goes on to say, a man attested of God. Ah. My son. Yeah, surely. Surely. Evidence, surely. And it's important for our young folk, isn't it, you'll see. Uh, if I had read John's epistle or right, uh, John's first epistle, chapter five, the secret of overcoming the world is ultimately not a lot of rules of prohibitions and exhortations, so they have their part to play. The secret of overcoming the world, says John, is our faith. Our faith what? Our faith that Jesus has forgiven our sins. No, well, no, that's true enough, but our faith that Jesus is the Son of God. You see, if he isn't the Son of God, we don't have forgiveness of sins anyway. On what evidence I can, can I know and be sure that he is the Son of God? And what do you teach your Bible classes as evidence that Jesus is the Son of God? All right then. Ah. The Gospel, Gospel of John, isn't it? These are written that you might believe Yes. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Yes. And believing might have life through his name. Yes, the sign. Oh yes, the evidence. Very aware of the signs. Oh, surely so. And Mr. Wilson's going to say something. It's a remarkable passage in John chapter 6, that long chapter of 71 verses. Yeah. Where the Lord gave that tremendous address on the bread of life, and that they end with this. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, will we also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, nor to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Oh. It's exactly the same confession. Yes, as in Matthew. Matthew 16. Yes. Is this before Matthew sixteen chronologically? Would it be? Well, it comes in John after the feeding, doesn't it? So how much after the feeding is the question, isn't it? What do you think, sir? But it is a tremendous price. Oh, surely it's John's equivalent of this, surely. So that all three synoptics and John have that confession. Yes, indeed. Well, would you be so kind as to say, um, uh, to say in Matthew's story, if we could take that to begin with, uh, chapter fourteen, the story of the storm on the lake, where Matthew has that peculiar appendage, you'll say, of Peter's walking on the sea, and then, um, uh, how when they got back in the boat, they all confessed him of the truth about the Son of God. Mm. Mm. How did that lead to that conclusion, so to speak? And is that merely a historical lesson, that's how they began to discover, or could you apply the lesson to us? Ha. I mean to say, have you ever discovered the deity of Christ by walking on water? And or sinking, or sinking, yes. I'm getting saved. Oh wow. Is it not the supremacy over the elements? Yes. Yeah. It is a remarkable story, it seems to me, to i- in this context. Because you see, if you notice what it actually says, now when they first saw the Lord Jesus, they thought it was a spirit, an apparition, says verse twenty six. And I suppose, being really practical men, fishermen, uh, they had no difficulty in thinking a ghost or apparition or spirit could walk on water, because perhaps spirits are rather insubstantial, or at least they don't weigh very much, so they could walk on water. Then the voice said, don't be afraid, it is I. Be of good cheer, be not afraid, it is I. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the waters. Wait a minute. Do you agree with the logic of that? If he could do it, I could. Wouldn't you have expected the story to say, Peter, Peter, what are you thinking about me? Of course I can walk on water. I am the Son of God incarnate. You can't walk on water. That blasphemous suggestion to think you could do what I do. What did he mean, if it be you? Bid me come unto thee on the water. Well, if, uh, if Jesus was in fact the Son of God, Yes. he could give Peter the power to walk on the water. Yes. And therefore, demonstrating that he was in fact the son of God. So the power to make Peter walk on the water, yes. Was it, wasn't it also the fact that they were, they were looking and thinking of a ghost? Yeah. And Peter was saying, is, is it really your physical, or am I, am I seeing a Yes. ghost? Yes, and perhaps if he thought, yes, if you are really the Jesus I know, a real man of flesh and blood, and you're walking on water, well, I'm a man of flesh and blood. Yeah, there's a great mystery, isn't it, that the both things, the man, the real man Jesus, are able to walk on water, proclaiming him to be Son of God, yes? He walked on the water and discovered the Lord's power then as Son of God to to make him walk, and then found Jesus as the Son of God, as somebody said over here. By, when the Lord rescued him as he was sinking. Hmm. Anybody here admit to have ever having such an experience? And having been confirmed in their faith that Jesus is the Son of God. He called on the name of the Lord. He did. Yeah. To be saved. What I'm getting at is, uh, to ask whether the, the, the, the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus is merely a doctrine that you come to believe in your head, or whether it is a reality that we can come to prove in our experience. Good. Well, right, uh, uh, uh, Josie. Uh, as we pass by that, I wonder if I might call attention to, uh, uh, uh, uh, another one of the themes that goes through this part of Matthew. On this occasion, our Lord was up a mountain praying while the disciples were on a boat going across the sea. He came to them and walked on the water and then taught them, or at least Peter, to do the same as him. In the very next paragraph fourteen, he first asked them to feed the multitude, and they say, that's impossible. Oh, but he said, there's no need to go away. What have you got? Loaves and fishes? Right, bring them to me. He didn't just call down heaven, bread from heaven that landed by the side of everybody at that great picnic. He used his disciples to convey that miraculous food to the people. Did it again, didn't he, in the next feeding, the feeding of the five thousand. uh After the Transfiguration, he had rebuke for his apostles because they could not, uh, cast out the demon. Why couldn't they? Would they not have been able to call upon the power of the Lord Jesus and do it? In the teaching section in chapter eighteen, he says to his apostles, now look, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst, and because I in the midst, what you ask will be done. Do you think it could be possible that our Lord was already beginning to teach them what the Christian church would be? What is the nature of the Christian church? You say it's a, it's a society that's founded on the common belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Is it only that, ladies and gentlemen? Or is the Church of God to the very present day a group of people who not only believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but stand in living touch with the living Son of God now glorified and gone up the mountain to intercede for us. What I'm wondering to myself as I sit here is this, whether in these stories and incidents our Lord was not beginning to prepare his apostles, not only to know that he's the Son of God, not only to know that he's going to build the church on that basic confession, but what it means to be members of that church and in touch with the risen Son of God, and able in some sense to use his power. Yes, Peter can walk on the water like the Lord. Yes, Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Yes, where two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ, they act, so to speak, as his plenipotentiaries, and their requests can be granted. If that's anything at all of an adumbration of what the church is, what a tremendous thing the church is anyway. It's not just a meeting, is it? It's not just a club. It's where our belief in the deity of the Lord Jesus is meant to be a living experience of the church in touch with the power of the living, living Lord. Ah, never mind. Let's come, if we, if you wouldn't mind, to that second great, uh, movement, uh, the second column on my sheet. Uh, Uh. here we know that the Pharisees were offended at his teaching. The men of his own country in the first column had been offended by the question of who he was. Is this the carpenter's son? Well, if he is, then how does he do all these miracles? Yes. But in the second column, the offense is over his teaching. Let me suggest to you that the belief that Jesus is the Son of God carries with it a certain assessment of his teaching, doesn't it? For when the Lord Jesus taught, the Pharisees objected most severely. They said he was not of God, he was breaking the law, he was breaking the traditions. His teaching was bad and evil and unclean. And our Lord had to argue the case with the Pharisees that it was nothing of the sort, that his teaching was perfectly wholesome. The apostles had to decide, didn't they, who was right? And at first they were a little bit bewildered because, uh, they didn't quite understand what the Lord Jesus said, and and Peter came and said, well, Lord, I didn't quite get that, you know, and the Pharisees are very upset. Did you really mean what you said? I mean to say, that's rather tough statement, you know, uh, cancelling all their traditions like that. I mean, I mean, I mean, um, what did you exactly mean by what you said? Or to fall foul of the teaching of the synagogue was to run, uh, the risk of being excommunicated eventually. So these good men had to decide, didn't they? This question of the authority of the Lord Jesus turned on the question of his teaching. You had to weigh up what the Pharisees taught and what the Lord Jesus taught and ask yourself, which would you think is the truest representation of God? What would you say, ladies and gentlemen? I'm all ears. Historically speaking, what has convinced you that Jesus Christ is right, that his teaching is better than the teaching of the Pharisees? Or Muhammad, for that matter. His teaching during the establishment of the law, it went to the spirit of the law. Yes. They were looking through the externals, and, uh, the Lord went beyond that, and said, as David said to them, not come to destroy the law, but to confirm. Yes. That's right. Yes, and he rebuked them because their teaching wasn't really according to scripture at all, was it? It was mere human invention. It looked holy, but was utter nonsense, actually. Because as our Lord pointed out, um, uh, not that which goeth into a man defiles him, that which comes out defiles him. All this stupid insistence on washing your hands before you eat your sausages. I mean, it's the way from a hygienic point of view, but when it comes to a, a spiritual teaching, a lot of nonsense, you know. But it doesn't get at the real problem, and the real problem is not external, but internal. And washing your hands will never cleanse your heart, and it's the heart that's the trouble. And even if areas of Christendom where they've gone back into Judaism and they make a lot of holy water and goodness knows what, you've sometimes got to argue the case, haven't you? Against the plain teaching of Bible coming from our Lord and his apostles and the traditions of an apostate church with all its superstitions, which is right. You imagine a young person in Spain, say, or in Poland, and hearing the, the, the, the, the our, our Lord's teaching about the new birth and justification by faith and so on, and waking up to the fact that it contradicts what the church has taught them for generations. They're going to make a choice between the teachings, haven't they? And evaluate them. Which was right. Good. Another interesting one, uh, at least I'm interested, I'm being very selfish. Um, that incident of the temple tax in, uh, chapter seventeen, verses twenty four to twenty seven. Let me ask you a few questions. Am I right in thinking that it was the temple tax, or are you persuaded by those who say it wasn't the temple tax, it was something else? Let me hear you on that first. Chapter seventeen verse twenty four: They that received the half shekel came to Peter and said, does not your master pay the half shekel? Am I right in thinking that was the temple tax or not? Was it some other tax? It was the temple tax for the tax. Pardon? If he watched the temple tax, what other tax did he pay? Oh, some people say it was a tax, uh, imposed by Rome. He considered himself a son of Rome. No, would he? No. No. Agreed it was the temple tax? All right. What was wrong in Peter saying that his master should pay? He was the lord of the house. You don't pay to yourself. Yes, he was, he was the son of the house, wasn't he? Yes, indeed he was. Yes, he was indeed. And that is the immediate argument, isn't it? Of whom do the kings of the earth take taxes, their children or strangers? And Peter says, of course, strangers, not children. Well, then the children are free, the sons are free. The God of that temple doesn't exact taxes from his son. Surely not. But am I not right in thinking there was also another big question about the temple tax? What was the temple tax for? Exodus chapter thirty. Why did the Israelites have to pay a temple tax? Yes, yes. You have a good new version, I hear. Uh, yes, they had to pay as a ransom for their souls, did they not? Exodus thirty, Where is the verse? Verse 15. Verse where? Fifteen. Yes. Read it out, my good man, in a loud voice. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, and half assemble when they give an offering unto the Lord to make an atonement for their souls. Wow. The Israelite had to pay the half shekel as a ransom for his soul, and Peter says the Lord had to pay it. Wow. It's interesting, isn't it, because Peter, to whom it had revealed, been revealed that Jesus was the Son of God, he hadn't got to thinking too much and working out the implications, had he, just yet. It's like Mary, you know, she had been told that her son would be the son of God, and she believed it, dear soul, didn't she? And then when she lost him and found him in the temple, she began to rebuke him full sore. Dear soul, very much like the rest of us, one minute believing the deity of Christ and then holding other views that would, by implication, contradict it. If we really believe the deity of the Lord, of course, we shall have to do some hard thinking, can't we, about all its implications. And never more so than when it comes nowadays to Holy Scripture. Alas for colleges and academic institutions of theology that profess to believe the deity of the Lord Jesus and hold views about Old Testament scripture that, by implication, suggest that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. Alas for people that will merrily tell us that our Lord was mistaken over the second coming. Was he really? Yes, if we believe the deity of the Lord Jesus, we better think about the implications. And Peter hadn't thought too far, had he, Francis, saying, yes, oh yeah, of course, I mean, my master pays a ransom for his soul. Yes. Now tell me, if the Lord Jesus wasn't obliged to pay the tax to his father's temple, and certainly not obliged to pay a ransom for his soul, why did he pay? What suppose if I were to be a, a, a, a, a, a modernist theologian for a moment and said to you, now the very fact that he paid that temple tax as a ransom for his soul shows that he himself admitted he was a sinner and needed to be redeemed. What would you reply? Is it not almost a parallel for the Lord's attitude, uh, relative to John the Baptist? Yes, yes. Expand that a bit, sir. That's a very interesting parallel. The, the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. Mm-hmm. And, uh, John, uh, wasn't happy with baptizing the Lord because he recognized his sinlessness. Yeah. And yet the Lord, uh, in order to identify himself with the people, Yeah. uh, insisted on the baptism. This perhaps is, is a similar thing here, that in order not to offend, is what he says, Yes. That's right. he identifies himself with these people. Mm. Yes, you see, for one practical reason at the very surface, so if he had refused to pay, a lot of ordinary people who respected him as a prophet but didn't know he was the Son of God would have said that if the prophet Jesus thinks it's not necessary to pay the tax, I don't have to pay it either. He could have stumbled them, couldn't he? And he could have stumbled people by appearing, appearing to say that, uh, the Old Testament law was to be disobeyed. But there's your deeper reason. At the baptism, sinless himself, when he saw that crowd of people repenting of their sins and standing in the mud of Jordan, he went and stood beside them. Either he was confessing himself to be a sinner, and he certainly wasn't, or this is the marvel beyond all marvels, the sinless Son of God come to stand with us as sinners and to take our place. He did it at Calvary, didn't he, supreme? He stood in the mud and the waters and the waves went over him. And here, all sinless and with no claim upon him, he pays it for himself lest he offends, and he pays it for Peter as well. And in the very payment of it secures who he is, for he says to Peter, you go to the sea and put in that hook, and there's a little fish, you'll come up, you'll find he's got a coin in the mouth. This is the Son of God, omniscient in the whole universe. He knows where every half crown or, or, or, or ten cents has got to, doesn't he? In the whole of the universe. Almighty, omniscient Son of God. No need to pay a ransom for his soul, no need to pay taxes to his father's house, coming and paying not only his own without need, but ours as well. Why do you believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus? Go, I think if I got you and put the thumb screws on you, I should hear some interesting things, wouldn't I? I think you would say one of the reasons I believe it, I never met anybody else who ever said he'd come to die for my sins. Did you? I don't think Muhammad said it. And I don't think that Buddha said it. Do you know anybody ever said it, anybody ever said it to you except Jesus Christ, that he'd come to die for your sin? No. Good. One other question I'd like to put to you before we disappear, and we ought to disappear, for this is a busy day. Why do you think there is, in this fourth section of Matthew, such an emphasis upon food and feeding. It's a question Lord may care to ponder, and then let me know on the back of a postcard one of these days, if you haven't an answer already prepared. But in the early chapters, how much there is about food and feeding, isn't there? Look at the second story in column one. That's about a banquet, sorry. And a banquet at which all kinds of food was provided. There was a physical food on the table, and then there was a food in the sense of entertainment, and very enter- uh, doubtful entertainment. It was aimed at all the appetites. It shouldn't have been. And the final dish was the head of John the Baptist on a plate. That's one king with a banquet. The third and central story of column one is of another king at a banquet, isn't it? As he fed the crowd. Oh, but then look over to column two. And the second paragraph in column two, it's all about food, isn't it? Well, some of it's about food. But when the Canaanite woman comes and pleads with the Lord that he should heal her daughter, he said, it is not right to take the children's bread and cast it to the dog. And she said, verily, Lord, that even the puppy dogs under the table eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table. Food again. And the next story in column two is once more about feeding. Well, of course, the first paragraph in i- i- in in that column two had been about food, isn't it? Whether you should eat with unwashed hands and whether what the food that goes into your stomach defies you or not. That was about food. And when you come to the last paragraph in column two, what I put here under what happened on the other side, that turns out to be about food as well. Well, the apostles had forgotten to take bread. When they heard our Lord say, beware the leaven of the scribes and the Pharisees, they began to get worried, you see, like some people do. The preacher is preaching merrily, and he says some chance remarks, and they say, oh, what about the potatoes? I think I've left the potatoes on, and they're burning, and they don't hear any more, uh, you know, or I've got the preacher coming to tea, oh, I've forgotten to buy some sugar, and the rest of the sermon is obliterated, you'll see. And so it was with the apostles. They caught all of this word leaven, oh, we've got no bread, and what on earth should we do? Nothing to feed the Lord on when we get to the other side and all that. And he had to say that he was talking about leaven in a far more important sense, the teaching of the scrib- the Pharisees and the Sadducees. What is all this about food? And why is it so important in this context of the question of the deity of the Lord Jesus? But that, an answer to that, you may, as I say, care to put on a postcard and send it to me one of these days. But finally, oh, I must ask you this. What do you make out of those two stories? The second one in column one, heaven, a woman and her daughter. And the second story in column two, Christ, a woman and her daughter. I have listed some of the obvious things. I don't know what does it all mean, but I've listed the facts. In the first story, Herod didn't want to kill John. He decided not to kill John, hadn't he? Put him in prison, but he he decided not to kill him. It wasn't politically wise to kill the man. But his adulterous wife at this banquet, she sent in her daughter to do some questionable dancing, you see. When she got Herod in the right mood, Herod said he'd give the dear girl anything up to the half of his kingdom. She asked Mama, and Mama said, you'll ask, my dear, or the head of John the Baptist on a chart. And the king couldn't help himself. He's very sorry, but he had to go through with it and grant the woman what he had never intended to grant and didn't want to grant that. The woman got the better of him, didn't she? I told her sometimes too. Anyway, um, in that second story in column two came a woman asking for her daughter, and the Lord apparently didn't intend to give anything, ignored the woman. And isn't it Matthew who says that the apostles came and said, or send her away, or say she crieth after us. He hasn't taken any notice. And when she came and, uh, uh, uh, said, you know, Lord, help me. Oh no, he says, no, no, no, no. It wouldn't be right to take the children's bread, give it to the dog. But she made him do it, didn't she? What do you make of those two stories? Hmm? Well, perhaps you haven't thought recently, you, you, you could perhaps send two postcards. When you get the opportunity, perhaps we all get to start. Our Father, we bow reverently to praise thee and to worship thee, for revealing to us babes what has been hidden from the wise and prudent, that without reserve and without question we can gladly confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Now we praise thee for these historical evidences, that our faith is not founded in myth, but in actual history. We thank thee for the experiences of these early Christians, that thou did use to bring them to faith in the Lord Jesus and in his deity. We thank thee, Lord, for all life's experiences through which thou hast taken us, that has shown us that the deity of Christ is no mere theological doctrine, but a living reality. And we thank thee for the power of the Lord. And in those times when without him we would have sunk without trace, and all we have attempted for thee would have gone by the board completely. For all those occasions when we have felt his powerful hand right raising us and carrying us across life's waters. For these realities, we do bless thee this morning and thank thee for the ever deepening conviction of the reality of our Lord's. Help us in our public testimony, we do beseech thee, as assemblies of the Lord, to be places where the presence of the Lord is known, the authority and the power of the Lord Jesus known and experienced. Lead us ever, we do beseech thee, into the deeper understanding of the wonders of his sonship. Till, like the apostles on the Transfiguration Mount, we see his face shining as the sun, and all other and lesser things depart. So we thank thee for this time, and we praise thee as we go, that as surely as we have sat here today and thought about the risen Lord, and he has been with us and heard our thinking and our praises, so one day we shall see him face to face in his coming kingdom of glory, for which too we praise him through Jesus Christ our Lord.