Sermon Tone Analysis

*Love God with all Your Hear, Soul, **Mind & Strength** **Mt.**

22:34-40*

*Everton** **Community** **Church**.

**October 14th 2007**.*

| Mark 12:28-31 | Luke 10:25-27 | Matthew 22:35-40 |

 

*Politics* is *a blood sport*.

*Some go on principle* and *naively believe that others will see the logic and fairness* of their position while *other politicians* *spin their opponents position* and *prognosticate *to *vilify their opponent* and *scare the electorate* that their opponent’s position will result in catastrophe.

*This week’s election* *was a prime example* of *politics over principle.*

This of course is *an ancient art*.

*The political masters of Jesus’ time*, *the Pharisees*, were *masters like their Herodian cousins* *in law and politics*.

Their *ability to use language* to either *confuse*, *veil a threat* or *trap *was *their gambit of choice*.

They saw *Jesus as a threat* *to their power* and *wanted to use their skill* *to discredit him.*

Many today fall victim to *confusion and manipulation* *over terms of law.*

They *come to Jesus in a false understanding* of *God’s character* and *expectations in regards to the law.*

Their either *believe *that *God judges on a curve*, *His law is outdated*, or *misunderstand grace.

*

* *

*If you were to die tonight* and *God said why should I let you into my heaven*, *what would you say?*

* *Would you say* that *you are not that bad* and *tried to do more good than bad?* *Jesus,* being *a good judge*, would say that you are still *guilty of the crimes that you have committed against His holy law*, *find you guilty* and *sentence you to eternal death*.

You would have *seriously misjudged His character*.

* Or perhaps you would claim that you *lived in New Testament times* *not under that Old Testament law time*.

*Jesus would reply* that *not one of the smallest elements of that law has been abolished.*

You are *guilty* and likewise *sentenced *you to *eternal death*.

You would have *seriously misunderstood* *God’s standard.*

* Lastly you may claim that you are *not under law but under grace* and *free to Come to God* on *your own terms* and *in your own way*.

*I pray you may not hear the chilling words of Jesus:* *Depart from me, worker of iniquity, I never knew you*.

*Sentence*: *Eternal Death*.

You would have likewise *seriously misunderstood* *God’s standard.*

*Those who are truly in Christ*, *love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength*.

*The stakes* are *too high to misunderstand* *for ourselves* and *those we love.*

In understanding *how to Love God* with all our *Heart, Soul, Mind* and *Strength* we see: *1) The Approach of the Pharisees Matthew 22:34-35*   *2) The Question by the Lawyer Matthew **22:36*   *and* *3) The Response of the Lord Matthew **22:37**-38.*

*1) The Approach of the Pharisees* *Matthew 22:34-35*  

*Matthew 22:34-35*   [34]But when the *Pharisees* *heard* that he *had silenced the Sadducees*, they gathered together.

[35]And *one of them*, *a lawyer*, *asked him a question to test him*.

(ESV)

 

*The first test of Jesus by the Pharisees*, *made through their disciples and the Herodians*, was *political,* dealing with *the payment of the despised poll-tax* (v.

17).

*The second test, by the Sadducees*, *was theological*, *pertaining to the reality of the resurrection, which they denied* (vv.

23, 28).

Now *the Pharisees* were *about to test Him again in the area of theology.*

When Jesus *answered the absurd question* *about the seven brothers by showing that even Moses taught the resurrection,* *He had silenced the Sadducees*.

The verb /phimoō/ (*silenced*) literally means *to muzzle*, *to forcefully restrict the opening of the mouth*.

The *Sadducees* were *verbally incapacitated by the Lord*, rendered *utterly speechless*.

* *God’s truth silences* those who *look to excuse their actions* by a *misguided attempt to find* a *technicality* or *loophole in the Law of God.*

 

*When the Pharisees heard* about Jesus silencing the *Sadducees*, they *decided to have another try themselves at entrapping Him*, this time *directly by one of their own number* *rather than* *through their less capable disciples*.

*The Pharisees doubtlessly had mixed feelings* when they *heard* the news.

They must have been *pleased *that the *Sadducees had been proved wrong about Moses* not teaching resurrection.

* *The defining characteristic of the Sadducees* was *their denial of the resurrection.*

* Milma recently reminded us of the *play on words*: That’s why they were *sad you see*.

*Please turn to Acts 4*

 

But for the Pharisees, that *feeling of smugness* was far outweighed by a *sense of dismay and frustration* at *still another failure to discredit their common enemy, Jesus.*

Consequently, *the Pharisees* again (see v. 15) *gathered (themselves) together* *clandestinely somewhere in the **Temple* to *plan their next strategy*.

In doing so, they *unintentionally and unknowingly fulfilled prophecy* by *plotting together* as it is described in:

*Acts 4:26-28** *[26]The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were *gathered* together, *against the Lord and against his Anointed'*--[27]for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28]to do whatever your hand and your plan had *predestined* to take place.

(ESV)

 

*Out of that conclave* came *the third and final question to test Jesus.*

The particular *one of them* that *they chose to confront Jesus was* *a lawyer*.

The man *was a scribe* (Mark 12:28) but was *called a lawyer by Matthew* to indicate *his unusual expertise in the Mosaic law* and *perhaps also his renown in adjudicating religious and social disputes*.

He was *probably the most learned and astute expert on scriptural and rabbinical law in their ranks*, and if anyone would be a match for Jesus, they thought, this man would be.

*The law of God* *was* and *is subject to much debate* among the *most scholarly*.

*True genus* is *accurately distilling the requirements* in way that can be *easy to understand*.

* *

*Illustration:** The Purpose of the Law*

 

*Evangelist Fred Brown* used *three images* to *describe the purpose of the law.*

First he likened it to a *dentist’s little mirror*, which he *sticks into the patient’s mouth.*

With the mirror he can *detect any cavities*.

But he *doesn’t drill with it* or *use it to pull teeth*.

*It can show* him *the decayed area* or other *abnormality*, but *it can’t provide* *the solution*

 

The law *is also like a flashlight*.

If suddenly at night the lights go out, you use it to *guide you down the darkened basement stairs* to the *electrical box*.

If you had old wiring, when you point it toward *the fuses*, it helps you *see the one that is burned out*.

But *after you’ve removed the bad fuse*, you *don’t try* to *insert the flashlight in its place*.

You *put in* *a new fuse to restore the electricity*.

In his third image, Brown likened the law to *a plumbline.*

When *a builder wants to check his work*, he uses *a weighted string to see if it’s true to the vertical*.

But if he finds that he has made *a mistake*, he *doesn’t use the plumbline to correct it*.

He *gets out* *his hammer and saw*.

*The law* *points out the problem* *of sin*; *it doesn’t provide a solution.*

In understanding *how to Love God* with all our *Heart, Soul, Mind* and *Strength* we see: *1) The Approach of the Pharisees** **Matthew **22:34**-35*  

* *

*2) The Question by the Lawyer** Matthew 22:36*  

*Matthew **22:36*   [36]"*Teacher*, *which is the great commandment in the Law*?" (ESV)

 

*In his addressing Jesus* as *Teacher*, the lawyer was *probably not being scornful, as the previous questioners had been* (see vv. 16, 24).

He seems to have had *at least some respect for Jesus* and *may have felt somewhat guilty at being used to ensnare Him.*

 

*Please turn to Matthew 5*

* *

*In asking,* *“Which is the great commandment in the Law?”* *the lawyer was asking* *what was the greatest commandment of Moses*.

Although *the scribes and Pharisees* *considered the whole Old Testament to be authoritative*, and not just *the five books of Moses as did the* *Sadducees,* *the Scribes and Pharisees* nevertheless *considered Moses to be the supreme human figure in Scripture.*

The scribes and Pharisees *were said to sit in Moses’ seat* (Matt.

23:2) because *that represented the ultimate authority in Judaism*.

From the beginning of His ministry, *Jesus assured His hearers that:*

*Matthew 5:17-18*   [17]"Do not think that I have come to *abolish the Law or the Prophets;* I have *not come to abolish* them *but to fulfill them*.

[18]For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, *not an iota~/jot~/the smallest letter, not a dot~/tittle, stroke of a pen, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished*.

(ESV)

* *

He made clear that, *although He was* *the Messiah* and *God’s own Son*, He was *not preaching and teaching anything that obviated the law of Moses* or *any other part of Scripture.*

But because *Jesus’ teaching of Scripture* was *so utterly contrary to theirs*, which for *centuries had been encrusted by thousands of humanly-devised rabbinical interpretations*, *the Pharisees were convinced* that *Jesus must be teaching a message He considered to be greater than that of Moses.

*

* *

Over the years, *the rabbis had supposedly determined that*, just as there were *613 separate letters in the Hebrew text of the Decalogue*, or *Ten Commandments*, in the *book of Numbers*, there were also *613 separate laws in the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses.*

Such* letterism*, as it is sometimes called, was *extremely popular* and was considered to be a valuable exegetical tool for interpreting Scripture.

*The rabbis had divided those 613 laws into affirmative and negative groups*, holding that there were *248 affirmative laws, one for every part of the human body*, as they supposed, and *365 negative laws, one for each day of the year*.

The laws were *also divided* into heavy and light, *the heavy ones being absolutely binding* and *the light ones less binding.*

* *

*In the first Century,* there had *never been unanimity*, however, as to *which laws were heavy* and *which were light*, and *the rabbis and scribes spent countless hours proudly debating* *the merits of their particular divisions* and *the ranking of laws within the divisions.*

It was a question *disputed among the critics in the law*.

*Some would have* the law of *circumcision* to be the great commandment, others *the law of the sabbath*, *others the law of sacrifices*, according as they severally stood affected, and spent their zeal; now they would try what Christ said to this question, *hoping *to *incense the people against him,* if he should not answer according to the vulgar opinion; and *if he should magnify one commandment*, they would *reflect on him as vilifying the rest.

*

* *

It was evidence to that effect that they *now hoped* Jesus would disclose, because to *contradict Moses* was to *contradict God *and be *guilty of heresy*.

*Their purpose* was to *expose Him as an apostate* and *thereby turn the people against Him.*

 

* *Are we* *really that far from this in our own minds?*

*How do you consider* *homosexuality* compared to *adultery?*

*How do you consider* *theft *compared to *gossip?*