Category: Trinitarian Commentary

A friend of mine had a video on Facebook yesterday of a comedian named Louis CK on the Conan O’Brien show. This comedian started talking about how we take so much for granted in our age of technology. I’ll warn you that he is a bit crude at times, but the profanity is all bleeped out. I loved listening to this guy speak as I think he’s entirely accurate. The video can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus

I have found wonder to be an important theme in my life and I find a non-theistic universe tends to kill wonder. When we go to the beach, I can tell you the spot that it always happens at, I will begin to talk about wonder at one point on the way. I am sure I have done it so much by now that my friends are sick of it. The ocean is always a place of wonder for me.

This is also something that I see in Mark’s gospel, but that wonder is also including a sense of fear. What is going on? Let us look at the account.

¹When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. ²Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb ³and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

 ⁴But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. ⁵As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

 ⁶“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”

 ⁸Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

I’ll also say that I do not believe verses 9-20 to be authentic. For those who want to know why, I recommend going to your local library, Bible College, or Seminary and reading some books on textual criticism or some commentaries on the gospel of Mark. You can also go to a website like Tektonics to see what my friend J.P. Holding has to say on the topic.

Thus, the last time I read Mark, I stopped at verse 8 to try to figure out what it would be like to end with those verses and I did see a marked difference. (No pun intended.) I think this was the way Mark’s gospel was meant to end as it leaves you with that fear.

The word amazed is ekstasis. This could bear resemblence to our word “ecstatic” and the meanings seem to be similar. It refers to a fear and amazement that is not in the normal state of mind. The idea of their fear is the word phobeo which is where we get our word phobia. This was terror they were feeling.

This is typical of Mark. Mark likes to leave you in fear and awe. He wants you to catch the awesomeness of what is happening in the resurrection of Christ. Now imagine going through the gospel and having it end at verse 8. Better yet, go through the gospel sometime yourself and stop at the end of Mark 16:8.

You can picture the reader asking “Okay. And then what?”

But you don’t know.

Now Mark has said a number of times in the gospel that Jesus will rise from the dead. Is Mark wanting you to realize that for yourself? Are you to get to the end and think “Wow. He really did it.” You could be left wondering, “But if he rose from the dead, what happened after that? What difference has that made?”

And isn’t that the question?

What difference has it made?

Has the empty tomb left you in fear and trembling? Are you amazed and filled with wonder or is it just the same story you’ve heard all your life and it just doesn’t faze you anymore.

Of course, if that story doesn’t faze you, what will?

And what of Mark’s question?

What are you doing with the empty tomb? Are you going out and giving the rest of the story or sitting back doing nothing?

We’re going through the New Testament and we’re looking for clues of the Trinity. We have commented on the crucifixion in Matthew already and when looking at it from the Markan perspective, I’d simply like to note some thoughts that I’ve recently had on the crucifixion.

There’s a story that says that when the king Clovis was hearing about the life of Christ for the first time, that when they got to the crucifixion account, he reached for his sword and remarked that if he had been there, that wouldn’t have happened.

Now we can all look and say that we’re thankful ultimately Clovis wasn’t there since that is the event that brought about our salvation, but on another level, I think we should all be ready to cheer Clovis on. Do any of us react that way to the crucifixion? Has thinking about the good that came about from it not allowed us to see it for the heinous evil it was?

Now there can be no doubt that God used it for good, but that does not mean because God uses something for good that that thing is good. The crucifixion was an evil action that was done by evil men for evil means. There was nothing good about it in their motivation, in their intended desire, and in the action itself.

If any action was ever evil, it was the crucifixion.

It takes on a whole new magnitude when you consider that this was their God who was on the cross. This was the one who had brought them out of Egypt and they actually thought that a service was being done to YHWH in crucifying this one.

Rest assured also friends that we cannot place the blame on Jews for all time. It was only the ones that were alive at the time who are responsible in the official sense for the death of Christ. In the sense of sin putting him on the cross, all of us are indeed responsible and no one is singled out. 

The crucifixion should anger us and it should anger us when we see our sin and how it took the crucifixion to pay for it. How the ultimate sacrifice was given should make us look with animosity of the worst kind on the evil that we see in the world today. The crucifixion should impel us to live holy lives.

Why doesn’t it?

Could it be we’ve lost sight of the God who is there? Consider how the Jehovah’s Witness publication of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” even states that if Jesus was God, the price paid for sin would be too much!

As if there was a limit on the treason we’ve committed against a holy God. It is either a low view of God, a low view of Christ, a low view of sin, or some combination thereof. From that perspective, I’d actually say it’s all three.

And I’d say when we are not aware of the reality of what happened, it is all three for us.

Yes. We can still say good came from it. That happens with any evil in the world, but that doesn’t mean we don’t see that evil as evil. Yes. It was the will of God from the foundation of the world, but it was his will to use evil men to bring about a good result. It doesn’t mean the actions of those evil men was good.

Maybe tonight, you should really ponder the crucifixion. Of course, I should also. Has it really sunk into us what happened?

We’ve been going through the Bible looking for clues to a Trinitarian understanding of the text. Last night, we look at one objection, which is the rich young man who came to Jesus. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at another one and one that is more difficult and has had theologians discussing for centuries. Why doesn’t Jesus know the day or hour of his coming? (Keep in mind again everyone, I am not wanting to get into the eschatology involved here. I do have an eschatological stance that I hold to strongly and a number of readers know what that is, but I do not bring it up as my blog is meant to be about the truths that unite us.)

The relevant text is Mark 13:32.

 ³²“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

What’s fascinating is that this seems to be the one text that Arians always like to go to. Luke tells us that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, for instance, in Luke 2:52. When we get to the Philippians passage, it indicates that Jesus emptied himself of something. That is something that is key to understanding this passage.

Trinitarians do not deny the reliance of Jesus on the Father, which we will explain more in-depth when we come to the relevant passages in John. If the Father were to go out of existence, (An impossibility to be sure, but it is simply to make a point.) then Jesus would also go out of existence. 

In the same way, Jesus enters a position of a unique subordination where he is only given information that is necessary for his mission. Jesus does play by the rules and for all we know, there could have been such communication going on between God and man before the fall happened. We are dealing with a unique situation in that there are no other perfect human beings around that we can make a comparison to.

This being the case, Jesus on a human level does not know the day or the hour of the coming. This doesn’t mean that this ceased to be divine knowledge and that Jesus in his state of deity does not know the date of the coming. It only means that in his humanity, the date is a mystery.

Ironically, one could press this against the Arians as there is a passage in Revelation 19 that has Jesus coming back and what is said about him?

¹²His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.

Does the Father not know? What reason do we have to think otherwise? Now while an Arian would love to see Jesus as not knowing in his deity, what is to be done with Revelation 19:12? 

This could simply be the case that what is going on is that there are things that can be known about God apart from revelation, but there are things we cannot know unless God himself expresses them. This is true for us on a human level. You can find out many things about me by reason and study. However, if you wanted to know what I was thinking at any time, you could guess some things by reason, but you would not have knowledge apart from revelation.

That means Rev. 19:12 would be an indicator of divine knowledge going on, with things that could not be known apart from revelation. (God can and does know what I am thinking without my having to express it. He does not have to watch me and wonder what it is I’m thinking.) Jesus is a possessor of such divine knowledge after the resurrection and that knowledge can only be known to us by revelation.

Thus, instead of seeing this as a defeater for Trinitarian belief, I instead see it as a wonderful place to look at the nature of humanity and the nature of deity and see how the two relate in the person of Christ and how we as humans are to relate to God.

And of course, we shall continue shortly.

We’ve been going through the Bible examining the doctrine of the Trinity. Up until this point, we have largely been giving prooftexts for the Trinity. Tonight, we’re going to look at a text that is often used as an argument against the Trinity. The account shows up in the other gospels, but it does show up in the Markan account and it is found in Mark 10. We will only take the relevant verses from the passage.

¹⁷As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

 ¹⁸“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

At this point, the Arian will rise up and say that Jesus is here saying he is not God. He makes a clear distinction between him and God and he proclaims that no one is good but God alone. How could Jesus be God when he says no one is good but God alone?

In fact, the Jehovah’s Witnesses publication, “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” has on page 17 this:

Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 19:18 JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus.

I hope some astute readers have already figured out the problem.

Can someone point to a place in the passage where Jesus denies being good? Can someone point to a passage where Jesus denies being God? The problem is that you will not find either in any of those passages. The Witnesses are claiming something is being said in the passage that frankly isn’t.

Let’s ask the first question to the Witnesses. Is Jesus good? If yes, then what do you think follows when we are told that no one is good but God alone? If not, then why should I trust Jesus for my salvation when he’s not even good? 

Now they might say he’s not as good as God. Okay. What goodness is he lacking? Let’s see what Hebrews 7 says about Jesus.

²⁶Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Sounds pretty good to me. Jesus is said to be holy.

What is really going on is that Jesus is testing the claims of the rich young man. He is asking him why he’s calling him good. He’s not saying he shouldn’t. He’s wanting to know if the rich young man is ready for that level of commitment. Will he treat the words of Jesus the same as he has treated the commandments of God?

Sadly, the story indicates that he does not.

As we go through Scripture, as we come across other problem passages, we will deal with them. This one certainly does not qualify and it should instead enlighten us more as to who Jesus is.

We’re going through the gospels looking for Trinitarian implications. Frankly, much of what is in Mark has been covered in Matthew. Mark gives a different perspective also, but if it seems like we’re rushing through, there’s a reason. John will give us much more and we will spend a lot of time in John. For now, we’re going to look at Mark 7 and I am going to quote a long passage.

 ¹The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and ²saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. ³(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. ⁴When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) ⁵So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”

 ⁶He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 
   ” ‘These people honor me with their lips, 
      but their hearts are far from me. 
 ⁷They worship me in vain; 
      their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ ⁸You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

 ⁹And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! ¹⁰For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ ¹¹But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), ¹²then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. ¹³Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

 ¹⁴Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. ¹⁵Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ ”

 ¹⁷After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ¹⁸“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? ¹⁹For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

 ²⁰He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’²¹For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, ²²greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. ²³All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ “

Now we can notice many things here, but I’d like to note the way Jesus handles these situations in such a “matter-of-fact” way. He suddenly brings in the Old Testament dietary laws, which were not an object of debate at all and Mark throws in a phrase in verse 19. Go back and read it.

(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

Consider the magnitude of this. Where did the dietary laws came from? They came from Moses, the great deliverer who brought the Pentateuch. If there was one thing the Jews could all agree on for sure, it was the importance of Moses. 

And the Law then? The Law came straight from God! It is his holy message. You do not alter it at all. Israel had been destroyed once because they did not keep the Law and they were going to make sure that that did not happen again.

Along comes Jesus and not only does he declare all foods are clean, entirely overruling the statements of Moses, but he doesn’t precede it with anything like “Thus sayeth the Lord!” He’s speaking it by his own authority. We really need to sit back and think about the magnitude of what is being said in that statement.

There’s a reason Ben Witherington III in the Case for Faith DVD says he’s not surprised that Jesus was crucified. He’s surprised Jesus lasted three years before he was. Our view of Jesus is often of him as giving wise sayings and just suddenly the last week things went wrong. No. Jesus was doing good wherever he went of course, but he left a storm of controversy always.

Why? Because of statements like this and we have to realize what was being said. He is claiming to be able to set aside the Law of God. Who can say the old covenant is no longer in effect and not precede it with “Thus sayeth the Lord.”?

Maybe, just maybe, it was the Lord….

We’re going through the Bible looking for Trinitarian understanding. We recently finished the gospel of Matthew and took a break to write about Bristol Palin and abstinence. (By the way, cheers to the North Dakota House for passing a ban on abortion) We’re going to begin today going through Mark. Why not start at the beginning?

 ¹The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ²It is written in Isaiah the prophet: 
   “I will send my messenger ahead of you, 
      who will prepare your way”— 
 ³“a voice of one calling in the desert, 
   ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, 
      make straight paths for him.’ “

Mark is said to be an action-packed one. This is quite so. There is little time devoted to what happens and Mark moves you briskly through the events. Go through the gospel sometime and notice all the words that indicate sudden action such as “immediately” or “as soon as.” The temptation and baptism are devoted to a few verses each and the birth of Christ is not mentioned. 

However, let’s look at how this is started. Now at the beginning, I’ll go on and answer this skeptical objection that Mark obviously didn’t know the Scripture too well. He has a quote from Malachi and yet, he’s attributing it to Isaiah.

This was common Jewish practice though. Malachi was a minor prophet and when two prophets had their statements put together, it was common to attribute the whole to the greater prophet. In this case, that would be Isaiah, who is certainly a major prophet in the history of Israel.

However, looking at this passage, one wonders who is the Lord that is being spoken of? I believe that we have reason to believe that this Lord is none other than YHWH and Mark is wanting to indicate that at the start. (Yes. Mark does have a high Christology as do all the other gospels.)

When we read the passage in Haggai 2:6-9, we see this: 

⁶ “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. ⁷ I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the LORD Almighty. ⁸ ‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty. ⁹ ‘The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘And in this place I will grant peace,’ declares the LORD Almighty.”

It looks as if readership has been up and I wonder if that has to do with the debate that has been going on with Vinny. Either way, I am pleased to have anyone on board for the journey of diving into the ocean of truth here at Deeper Waters. Tonight, I intend to wrap up looking for Trinitarian clues in the gospel of Matthew by looking at Matthew 28:16-20, the Great Commission. 

⁶Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ¹⁷When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Let’s note that when we get to verse 17, we have worship going on of Jesus. Some are doubting. What are they doubting? We don’t know exactly. Maybe Matthew doesn’t want us to know. Maybe he realizes that there might be some hesitation on the part of some but he doesn’t want that to keep us from acting. In every Christian there is some doubt. If there wasn’t doubt about the truths of the gospel, we’d all live much better lives.

Jesus says he has been given all authority. Now right now, the critic of the Trinity is saying “See? This goes against the Trinity!”

I don’t see how.

I have no problem with a functional subordination in the Trinity. The Father acts in that position and he has given the Son the right to act in that regards. This will be looked at more when we get to Acts 2:36 which many a critic has raised to argue against the Trinity.

Yet the next verse is a sign that the view is misunderstood. This is the clearest Trinitarian statement by Christ in the gospels as he says that all nations are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Make sure you notice that. There is only one name and there are three persons that bear that one name. Jesus has already spoken of the Father numerous times in this gospel and as we say in Matthew 11, he spoke of his unique relationship to the Father. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was spoken of in Matthew 12. This is simply bringing all of the aspects together already taught.

And let us say something on one final point for this. A lot of critics have raised the charge against Christians that we are failing the Great Commission and not taking it seriously for those of us who claim to be followers of Christ. Let me say something in response to all of you critics out there on that point.

You’re absolutely right.

We, as the church, must realize that we have not kept up the same zeal that the early church did and imagine what a difference it would make if we did! Do you stop to think how many places in the world have been lost to secularism? We’re just sitting back and letting it happen. Now we’re doing mission work in new lands and trying to take the gospel to people who have never heard, and that’s excellent and what should be done, but are we doing nothing to try to reclaim territory that has been lost? Are we just going to say good-bye to Western Europe? What about right here in America? Do we think it can go along just fine as it has been doing and we’ll make it? If you think such, I urge you to read Esther 4 and listen to the words of Mordecai.

Let’s not forget that Jesus gave us an incentive to do this. The gospel started out with us being told that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. That has not changed. He is away physically, but he has promised to never leave us or forsake us, something that only makes sense if he’s omnipresent in some sense making him God. We need to keep in mind the beginning. The Son came here, but he has not abandoned us. He is still with us. It is because of that that we can fulfill the Great Commission.

Go.

Make Disciples

Baptize

Teach

Is that too much to ask considering all that he did for us when he walked among us and all he does for us to this day?

We’re going through the gospels looking for understanding into the doctrine of the Trinity starting with the gospel of Matthew. I’d like to focus in on the resurrection. Generally going through these, I might give brief arguments for the historicity of such events, but such is not my case, even though I do think a strong case can be made. After all, I believe at this point that the audience most interested in this will be Christians as well as members of various groups we see as cults today that deny the reality of the Trinity.

We’re going to be looking at the resurrection then but not looking at the Great Commission or the responses of the Jews or the women to the resurrection. For now, I plan to accept it as a brute fact that the resurrection happened. I could at some point in the future write a blog on my reasons for why I believe that to be so.

One thing I do wish to point out is the lack of theology that is found within Matthew’s account. Matthew has consistently shown Jesus going against the understanding of the Law in Judaism at the time and one could expect that when we get to this point, Matthew would want to show the difference Jesus makes at this point. He does no such thing.

Matthew has also throughout the gospel pointed to Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy. At many points in his ministry, he has cited Scriptures to show that Jesus has indeed fulfilled OT prophecy. One could expect that when we reach the grand finale of the gospel that Matthew will do the same. He does no such thing.

Why? I believe Matthew could have seen it as unnecessary. It is not, for instance, because there are no theological implications to what happened in the resurrection of Christ. There certainly are and the epistles show us plenty of those.

Also, it is not because the followers of Christ did not see prophecy being fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. They certainly did as the early Christian creed found in 1 Cor. 15 shows. Other places in the epistles constantly cite Scriptures to speak about the truths of the life of Christ.

Could it be at this point that Matthew is drawing his readers to fill in the implications of what has happened for themselves? It is as if he is guiding the reader and the reader is seeing so many clues about Jesus that when they reach the grand finale, they are expected to figure out how the gaps fit in there as well.

What does this say about Jesus? It says he is the one who conquers death and this we will see more as we get into the gospel of John. Other resurrections that have happened have always been clearly shown by an external power. However, there is no mention of God in the final chapter of Matthew. He is mentioned in the 27th chapter when Jesus asks “My God. My God. Why have you forsaken me?” One could draw from that that the answer is that God has nor forsaken Christ. Jesus quoted Psalm 22 at that point that begins in defeat but ends in the victory. It is the ultimate reversal.

Of course, it could also be what Jesus himself said. He has the power to bring his own life back. Note this points to Jesus’s continued existence apart from his body. While that has implications I believe for anthropological dualism, it has greater implications to refuting a pathetic objection to the incarnation that is often brought up and a problem with the objection can be seen when we study Colossians 1.

Some of you are wondering what that objection is.

I guess you’ll have to wait….

Moreover, the resurrection is also the vindication of all that Christ said in his life. He was crucified as a blasphemer and the resurrection is saying “No. He is not a blasphemer. He is indeed the Son of God.” The Jewish leadership mocked him on the cross saying the Son could not save himself. Surely the Son would! Jesus had been called the Son at the baptism and at the transfiguration. Now, it was demonstrated through the resurrection.

Because of the resurrection, we can be sure Jesus is who he said he was, the very Son of God. (A term we will look at at a later date to show that when understood of Christ, it does refer to him being fully deity.)

We shall wrap up Matthew’s gospel tomorrow.

We’re going through the gospels looking for some clues to the self-understanding of Christ and the way his contemporaries saw him and other relevant factors to our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Today, we’re going to look at Matthew’s account of the crucifixion.

What I’d like to focus on this time are the unique events that happened at the crucifixion. N.T. Wright has stated before that what makes these unique is not simply that they happened but when they happened. Using the resurrection as an example, had the thief on the cross been resurrected, we would have said this is certainly an odd universe we live in, but it would not have led to him being seen as the Messiah. What made Jesus be seen as Messiah is not simply that he rose again but the context in which he rose again. Thus, what makes these events even more incredible is not that they happened but that they happened at the crucifixion of Christ.

The first is the darkness that covered the land. There are other writers who have stated this happened, such as Phlegon. I have thought before that this could be an event that some Christians might have thought of as fulfilling the words of Amos 8. 

 ⁹ “In that day,” declares the Sovereign LORD, 
       “I will make the sun go down at noon 
       and darken the earth in broad daylight.

 ¹⁰ I will turn your religious feasts into mourning 
       and all your singing into weeping. 
       I will make all of you wear sackcloth 
       and shave your heads. 
       I will make that time like mourning for an only son 
       and the end of it like a bitter day.

The darkness could indeed be a time of mourning in that the light that had come into the world was going out, as it were. No. I do not mean Jesus ceased to exist at this point, but I am saying he died, in that his soul was separated from his body, much as what happens to all of us when we die.

The earthquake is another event worth noting as earthquakes had been seen as divine judgment before. This doesn’t mean every one was, but the fact that an earthquake occurred at this point and again at the resurrection can mean the actions of God.

One of the most noted events though is the resurrection of the dead that took place. Now I do believe that this was a historical event and someone will then say “Well geez. If that really happened, why are we not told what happened to them or left any witness of people that they talked to?”

Frankly, because it doesn’t matter.

What?

Yes. This will be the same when we get to the temple veil tearing which I’m saving for last. The earthquake event is not meant to tell us about seismic events going on in Jerusalem. The darkness over the land is not meant to tell us about what the sun was doing at the time. The resurrection of the dead is not meant to tell us about the dead.

All are meant to tell us about Christ.

If the dead had been focused on, it would have taken people away from Christ. Now some of you might think that that surely wouldn’t happen. Oh really? Go read the story again in Matthew 14 with Peter walking on the water and ask yourself, “How often do we hear sermons on this and the preacher is talking about the faith of Peter and stating things like ‘at least he got out of the boat.’?” However, Peter is not the point of the story. Jesus is. When we forget that, we’re guilty of doing what Peter did, taking our eyes off of Jesus.

If we can do it with the story of walking on the water, then we can surely do it for an event we consider much more remarkable.

However, it was a belief at the time in Judaism by some that when Messiah came, there would be resurrections. Matthew is using the resurrections there to point to the identity of Jesus and not to tell us about the dead people that were raised.

Finally, the temple tearing and this for our concerns is probably the most important one in Matthew. Matthew was writing to orthodox Jews who would know exactly what was meant by this. The way to the Holy of Holies was no longer blocked.

In the past, the high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies and he could only do so once a year. He had a rope tied around his foot and he wore a robe with bells hanging from it. Why? Because if he was unclean, he would die and they knew he was still doing his duties if they heard the bells ringing. If they stopped, well no one could go in and get the high priest so they had to tie a rope on his leg so that they could pull him out.

That system is gone now. 

Now all can be made holy by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Our great high priest has made intercession. There is no longer need for any other priests to make intercession for us. (Which is why I also have a problem with Mormons having temples and a priesthood. Christ made those all obsolete.) 

Tomorrow, we shall turn to the resurrection to see what it says about Christ.

We’re going through the New Testament and seeing Trinitarian passages. Right now, we’re in the gospel of Matthew. For those of us reading for the first time, we are not going to touch a story in Matthew and then do the same one in Mark or Luke. Usually, we deal with all of them together so Mark and Luke could be shorter ones to go through. (John having so many dialogues will be different and we have much to touch on there.) Tonight, we’re in Matthew 26.

⁶²Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?”⁶³But Jesus remained silent. 
      The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

 ⁶⁴“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

 ⁶⁵Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. ⁶⁶What do you think?” 
      “He is worthy of death,” they answered.

Gary Habermas has said that he believes this is the strongest statement of deity that Jesus Christ made. Why? First off, it’s an obvious reference to Daniel 7. However, let’s take some time to look at some references to clouds in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 4:

¹⁰ Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.” ¹¹ You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. ¹² Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.

Deuteronomy 33:

 ²⁵ The bolts of your gates will be iron and bronze, 
       and your strength will equal your days.

 ²⁶ “There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, 
       who rides on the heavens to help you 
       and on the clouds in his majesty.

 ²⁷ The eternal God is your refuge, 
       and underneath are the everlasting arms. 
       He will drive out your enemy before you, 
       saying, ‘Destroy him!’

2 Samuel 22:

 ⁹ Smoke rose from his nostrils; 
       consuming fire came from his mouth, 
       burning coals blazed out of it.

 ¹⁰ He parted the heavens and came down; 
       dark clouds were under his feet.

 ¹¹ He mounted the cherubim and flew; 
       he soared  on the wings of the wind.

¹² He made darkness his canopy around him— 
       the dark  rain clouds of the sky.

 ¹³ Out of the brightness of his presence 
       bolts of lightning blazed forth.

Job 22:

 ¹³ Yet you say, ‘What does God know? 
       Does he judge through such darkness?

 ¹⁴ Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us 
       as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.’

 ¹⁵ Will you keep to the old path 
       that evil men have trod?

Psalm 68:

 ³ But may the righteous be glad 
       and rejoice before God; 
       may they be happy and joyful.

 ⁴ Sing to God, sing praise to his name, 
       extol him who rides on the clouds 
       his name is the LORD—
       and rejoice before him.

 ⁵ A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, 
       is God in his holy dwelling.

Psalm 97:

 ¹ The LORD reigns, let the earth be glad; 
       let the distant shores rejoice.

 ² Clouds and thick darkness surround him; 
       righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.

 ³ Fire goes before him 
       and consumes his foes on every side.

Psalm 104:

 ² He wraps himself in light as with a garment; 
       he stretches out the heavens like a tent

 ³ and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. 
       He makes the clouds his chariot 
       and rides on the wings of the wind.

 ⁴ He makes winds his messengers, 
       flames of fire his servants.

Ezekiel 30:

² “Son of man, prophesy and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: 
       ” ‘Wail and say, 
       “Alas for that day!”

 ³ For the day is near, 
       the day of the LORD is near— 
       a day of clouds, 
       a time of doom for the nations.

 ⁴ A sword will come against Egypt, 
       and anguish will come upon Cush. 
       When the slain fall in Egypt, 
       her wealth will be carried away 
       and her foundations torn down.

Nahum 1:

² The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; 
       the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. 
       The LORD takes vengeance on his foes 
       and maintains his wrath against his enemies. ³ The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; 
       the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. 
       His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, 
       and clouds are the dust of his feet.

 ⁴ He rebukes the sea and dries it up; 
       he makes all the rivers run dry. 
       Bashan and Carmel wither 
       and the blossoms of Lebanon fade.

Let’s keep in mind also that the Jews certainly understood the claim of Christ so much so that the high priest tore his robe. Why is that important? First off, the high priest did not have his robe always as the Romans ruled. It was brought out only four times a year so this is an event Rome would know about.

Second, look at Leviticus 21:

¹⁰ ” ‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt  or tear his clothes.

The whole trial was a violation of Jewish custom, but right here the high priest tore his clothes in response, something that the Law forbade him to do.

I believe Habermas is right. Jesus depicted himself coming on the clouds, a statement of deity, and referred to himself as the Son of Man. Ironically, the Jews were right in charging him with blasphemy.

That is, unless his claims are true, which they are.

Were they not true, then no. It was not a correct charge.

Which is one conclusion we have to realize when we come to the crucifixion. Either the crucifixion was the most wicked act of all putting to death the most righteous person of all, or it was the most righteous act of all putting to death the most wicked person of all.

No one can leave the cross neutral.

You must decide.