followHIM - Matthew 21-23; Mark 11; Luke 19-20; John 12 Part 2 • Dr. Keith Wilson • May 15 - May 21

Episode Date: May 10, 2023

Dr. Keith Wilson examines discipleship and beliefs regarding a physical resurrection and shares testimony of the power and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.Please rate and review the podcast.Show Notes (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese): https://followhim.coFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/followhimpodcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/followhimpodcastYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/FollowHimOfficialChannelThanks to the followHIM team:Shannon Sorensen: Executive Producer, SponsorDavid & Verla Sorensen: SponsorsDr. Hank Smith: Co-hostJohn Bytheway: Co-hostDavid Perry: ProducerKyle Nelson: Marketing, SponsorLisa Spice: Client Relations, Editor, Show NotesJamie Neilson: Social Media, Graphic DesignWill Stoughton: Video EditorKrystal Roberts: Translation Team, English & French Transcripts, WebsiteAriel Cuadra: Spanish Transcripts"Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise" by Marshall McDonaldhttps://www.marshallmcdonaldmusic.com/products/let-zion-in-her-beauty-rise-piano

Welcome to Part 2, Dr. Keith Wilson, Matthew 21-23, Mark 11, Luke 19-20, and John 12. Right after cursing the fig tree then, you'll notice there it says, Chief Priest, verse 23, and the elders of the people came unto him teaching and said, By what authority? So they challenge him. See, he's sallied right into the temple. Kind of commandeers the temple, doesn't he? Exactly. He's thrown over the tables of the money changers and everything else. And then he sort of sealed it by healing people and things like that. But they will not let it go because this is their life. This is the way they control the public. And so they say,

who gave you authority to be in here? Which is a big question in Judaism. Who authorized you? Where'd you get your credentials? Who's your rabbi? Who taught you? Yeah. Exactly. Keith, let's make sure that our listeners understand. He's not in the temple.

He's on the temple grounds, wouldn't you say? Yeah. And now usually it's still considered to be in the temple, to be on the temple grounds, because that was still sacred space and things. But you're right. It's like being in Temple Square, but not actually being in the temple itself. Very close parallel, because Temple Square has a fence around the temple proper. And ancient Judaism, Herod's temple, there was a large wall around it and very much a restricted entrance to it. So yeah, so he's out there probably in Solomon's porches and places like that where

they would have had tables set up selling these doves. And they come to him then and challenge him, who gave you authority to do this? And they have him cornered on that because it's a very rigid procedure as to how you become a chief priest, Sadducee, Pharisee, and the scribe. What's his response? He knows he can't do battle with them on their ground. Answers a question with a question. Yeah, I'll answer that if you answer this. Exactly. It doesn't seem he gives him a chance to agree to it either.

He says, I'll be happy to tell you this as soon as you answer this question. And then he just asked the question. The baptism of John, was it inspired or not? Was John the Baptist inspired or not? They are now in a spot where they can't say anything. Yeah. Matthew in the synoptics wants you to know that everybody was aware that Jesus had pulled out his trump card, his ace, and so they even explain it in the text. They can't

answer that. Another important point here that I love to make is, how long has John been deceased and moldering in the ground at this point in time? At least a year and a half. Yeah, I was going to say, it's been a while. Because his death is recorded back at the feeding of the 5,000 in Matthew 14. So John has been out of the picture for quite a while, and yet what's happening, Jesus is using his valiant witness, his credibility, to really defend himself, the Savior. I've often wondered, long after you and I are gone from this earth, will our witness, will our deeds and our example still be working in God's favor?

Will people still be believing and following because we chose to remain a disciple and things like that. A mother's impact, long, long after a matriarch is buried, her impact can continue on with people shaping their lives and their faith and things. And I love the fact that John here is deceased, long since deceased, and yet he's still protecting the Savior. Isn't that fun to pick up on that? There's too much fun stuff here. Yeah. Just to be clear to our listeners, they can't answer it because if they say John was inspired, they're going to say, well, why don't you believe in Jesus? Because he testified Jesus. We can't say he's not inspired because everybody loves John. We can't speak a word against him. So they just come back and say,

we can't say. We cannot tell. Yeah. just come back and say, we can't say. We cannot tell. Yeah, we cannot tell. And he says, well, I guess I don't have to answer your question. So you can see how disingenuous their motives are. And it's just like two prize fighters. They're actually just kind of punching at each other. And so it goes on in that same mode. And Jesus crafts these parables, the two two sons the wicked husbandman in chapter 21

the marriage of the king's son oh man that one is really poignant where he says many are called but few are chosen and they have that whole aspect of these people that are invited guests right at the last don't have on the wedding garment that's also kind of strange because they went out and invited them didn't they and then they don't have the wedding garment on any's also kind of strange because they went out and invited them, didn't they? And then they don't have the wedding garment on. Any comments as to how to understand that? Because it seems like they're reversing themselves. They want guests to come. The wedding is always the symbolic kind of portrayal of Jesus coming back to the church in the second coming. Okay, so you can kind of read that into it. But why then, when you invite a broader spectrum of guests, why then do they reject them at the wedding itself?

Any of you want to carry that? I have a comment from our friends Jay and Donald Perry. They wrote a book called Understanding the Parables, and this is what they said. They said, some readers have wondered how anyone could be expected to have the proper clothing under these circumstances. After all, weren't the wedding guests pulled in off the streets? The answer is that it was the custom for a wealthy host to provide the appropriate wedding garments for his guests. The man who had not on a wedding garment did not lack for one, but willfully refused to put it on. Interesting, isn't it? In fact, my brother and I have had some occasion to be in close contact with devout Jews

where we started this jewelry business when we were going through school, and it's continued on. And on one occasion, we were back in New York where almost all diamonds circulate through in the world market, and one of our diamond cutters had a wedding of his daughter, and he invited us to go to the wedding. i wasn't there but my brother was and the wedding was just lavish i mean rooftop stuff and and they flew all their relatives in and for a whole week fed them and everything else and my brother finally looked over at ari who is the owner of the outfit and he said how are you

affording this and he said well frankly it's going to cost us well over a hundred K, but we put a second mortgage on our flat here in the city. And my brother just kind of shook his head and said, whoa. And then the Jewish fellow looked back at my brother and said, well, it's the most important day of my daughter's life. Shouldn't I be willing to do that? So all of us ought to go into deep debt for our weddings right no but my point is he flew every relative in in their family tree he put them up he did all these things that's the nature of a jewish wedding and that's what the savior's referencing here the fact that they don't have wedding garments on means they're wedding crashers there are people that are just just trying to get in through the back door,

even though they'd broadened and invited other guests, they were people that just came in. Now, that's the one level, kind of wedding crashers. The second is what John's referred to as they don't have on the proper clothing that demonstrates righteousness. Revelations talks about robes of righteousness, and you can even extend it to kind of our sacred clothing okay there many are called but few are chosen and this symbolic thing that you're chosen through through robes of righteousness or covenant clothing is is a fun concept that you can see in that in some ways so one school of thought that you just shared is that these were not necessarily the people that were invited in but these were crashers that didn't have on a wedding garment. That's interesting.

And then the other school of thought was they had garments but refused to put them on. Yeah. And either way, they're bucking the norm of you've been invited here and we provide you with the clothing. We provide you with the appropriateness of being here. And you can kind of see that in the church. People could be invited, but then not to take on the guidelines. Elder Bednar, I'm sure our listeners remember, spoke on this parable in the October 22 General Conference. I encourage everybody to go look up that talk. He does a great job of outlining the parable and makes a couple of statements about the man who is not in the

wedding garment. He quotes a Christian author here, John Reed, who says, The refusal to wear the wedding garment exemplified blatant disrespect for both the king and his son. He did not simply lack a wedding garment. Rather, he chose not to wear one. He rebelliously refused to dress appropriately for the occasion. The king's reaction was swift and decisive. Bind him hand and foot. Take him away. Cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The king's judgment of the man is not based primarily upon the lack of a wedding garment, but he was, in fact, determined not to wear one. The man desired the honor of attending the wedding feast, but did not want to follow the custom of the king. He wanted to do things his own way. His lack of proper dress revealed his inner rebellion against

the king and his instructions. So it reminds me of there's only one way into the presence of God, and that is through the Savior's atonement. And it seems that this man wants to do it his way. He wants to get in his way, and that's not going to work. That's the beautiful thing about a parable, isn't it? The way you can see multiple meanings and layers. I've suggested that, wow, these guys are wedding crashers, and they weren't even invited people. And yet the flip side of that is some of the invited people might've kind of come in wanting to partake of the feast and the festivities, but not wanting to do it the way that the king had designated.

It's interesting too, that even today, okay, my bridesmaids are going to be dressed like this. And the guys I have in my line, I want you all to go to this tuxedo rental place and get this. And I imagine if your best man shows up, I don't really like that. It doesn't want to wear it. Well, there's two or more incidents here or statements that I think we really should touch on. And then we'll kind of draw it to a conclusion. But one of them is the coin and the issue of paying tribute to Caesar and the likes. That's fascinating because notice once again, the Herodians now, people that follow Herod and are loyal to him and the Pharisees and they're trying to bring him down. And so they want to play him against Rome and see if they can get him between Judaism and Rome. And how does Jesus handle play him against Rome and see if they can get him between

Judaism and Rome. And how does Jesus handle it? Oh, he just so skillfully just holds up that coin. Have you ever seen any of those coins, Hank or John, when you're over in the Holy Land? I had a little Palestinian kid come up and say, hey, my father archaeologist, he uncovered the Caesar coin and I bought it off him for $5. Wow. What a buy there. Yeah, it said made in China, you know, on the edge. But nonetheless, they've uncovered literally thousands of those coins, and there it is. It's got that image of Caesar right on the front face.

So he would have held that up and said, just operate within both systems. We support governments, and that goes right along with our article of faith 12. We believe in kings, magistrates, honoring, sustaining the law. And then also, we support or we turn our allegiance and some things we owe to God, and in those things, we honor that responsibility, that obligation. I've often thought that perhaps the Savior is quoting Genesis here. Show me the tribute money, this is verse 19. They brought him the penny and he said, whose image is this? It's Caesar's image.

Well, if it has Caesar's image on it, it belongs to Caesar. If it has God's image on it, God created man in his own image, male and female created he them. That's Genesis 1, 26 and 27. I think he might be saying, this belongs to Caesar. This little tiny thing here that belongs to Caesar, but everybody here belongs to me, belongs to God. That would be something that the Romans, the Herodians, they wouldn't think of,

but I'm sure the Pharisees would have picked up on the Genesis reading. Well, and where they took that commandment, thou shalt make unto thee no graven image, very literally. And so, no human being was ever depicted in Jewish art, ancient Jewish art. It was forbidden for them to have an image then, a human image on a coin. And he so skillfully just holds it up and says, well, listen, this is from a different system. This is from Caesar's system. You support your government, but God is different and you support him, but there's no image of God there. Pete Keith, is this an attempt for the Pharisees to kind of get him in trouble with Rome, hoping Rome's no image of God there. Pete Keith, is this an attempt for the Pharisees

to kind of get him in trouble with Rome, hoping Rome will take care of him? Pete Say something treasonous, yeah. Pete Yeah, say something treasonous. Pete Very much so. And other times, like when he has the woman taken in adultery, they're playing it within the Jewish system, intra-Judaic law, the rabbis. One says real strict enforcement of adultery, the other one real lenient. But this one is inter, where they're trying to play Rome against Judaism,

and they feel like they've got him trapped. And he so skillfully holds that coin up and says, whichever system you're operating in, you have to be obedient and loyal to that. Yeah, yeah. Let's go to the Sadducees question. This one is a question that's all aflame with darts because it looks like the Savior is dissing eternal marriage. And here, our whole missionary message, we're talking about verses 23 through 33, and it looks on the surface, and if you ever bump into people that are kind of wanting to be

contrary to the restoration, they often will cite this verse that Jesus says they are neither married nor given in marriage. This is a common refrain against the restoration doctrines of eternal marriage and kind of strikes right at our temple sealing services and things like that. Very important to understand this passage. Perhaps the most important verse in this sequence of 10 verses of Matthew 22 is in verse 23, right at the introduction of this. Matthew makes it clear who is asking this question. Exactly. It's the Sadducees. And a basic understanding of the Sadducees lets you know

what? They don't believe in the resurrection. Pete Keith, aren't these Jews who have allowed Greek thought, Hellenization it's called, to kind of shadow out their religious beliefs? I know they believe in the five books of Moses. Jesus is going to quote one of those verses a little bit later, but these are kind of the opposite of the Pharisees, where they have become less religious over time and more worldly, we would say, Hellenized. Exactly. In fact, at the time of the Maccabean revolt, Pharisee is Hebrew for to separate. That's when they separate themselves from the leading Jews who've become this Sadduceic kind of mindset. And they're buying into all of this Greek thought

because it's a Greek empire, and they're trying to make friends with their culture. So Sadducees have gone towards Greek theology, and the Jews know that that's contrary to the law and the prophets, so they want to separate themselves out, and so they call themselves Parashim or Pharisees. And now you have these two groups being present here at the last days of the Savior's life. Pharisees are challenging him because they don't feel like he's strong enough on the law and the particulars, and the Sadducees are challenging him because it just doesn't make sense to them where they've adopted all these extraneous beliefs.

Let's make it clear. Verse 23, Matthew says, here comes the Sadducees, which do not believe in a physical resurrection. That is so crucial because they're asking a question about what happens in the resurrection, which they don't believe in. Yeah. So why are they asking the question then? The fact that they ask this question tells you Jesus was teaching eternal marriage. Yeah. And you're getting more into the discussion, but we just have to make this point so people don't freeze up over this passage because this is common material that's kind of used against the restoration. And you have to acknowledge it's a disingenuous question. They're not asking really about things that happen in the resurrection. they're challenging the notion of a resurrection.

That's exactly right. And that's what Jesus is going to talk about. And Matthew wants you to understand it. So he tells you, yes, Sadducees, and they don't believe in the resurrection, but people still gloss right over that and then jump to the conclusion that Jesus is teaching there's no eternal marriage, which you brought up the point too, which is worth mentioning. How did they ever get this idea that there might be eternal marriage? Jesus has taught the law of eternal marriage. Ironic to me, Keith, that the very passage that is used against the restoration is actually a wonderful passage for the restoration. The question implies Jesus was teaching this,

or the question would make no sense. Exactly. Now, the situation there might be hard to understand for some. The example that they conjure up is what we call the principle of levirate or levirate marriage from the Old Testament. Keith, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems this levirate marriage is in place to protect a young widow in both cases or a widower. Yeah, because she's been married and she has that birthright if she has posterity. And so they keep putting step husbands in there for her to marry so that she can have posterity. So Jesus goes on and says, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God,

for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God. And then he goes on to say, I'm not the God of the dead, but of the living. Now, from restoration revelation, we understand that this could be referring to people that aren't married in this life and this probationary period in the afterlife. They won't receive exaltation in the highest degree because they haven't accepted the ordinance of marriage.

And that's always contingent on people having the chance rather than the circumstance that might not lend itself to marriage in this life. But nonetheless, our theology teaches that in the afterlife, D&C 131, 132, that to be married is one of the crowning ordinances of exaltation and married in the Lord. This one could be referring to people that for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. It could be referring to that. I like to also think of it that God is saying,

you're not going to understand all of the details in the resurrection because we don't live in that realm, kind of the realm of the dead, if you will. But we live now. And so you can only understand things according to your current framework and concept. How people and relationships will overlap and be associated and things like that in the afterlife is very difficult for us to understand. And I think that's kind of what Jesus is saying here. This hypothetical situation they bring up, which I can't imagine this is a true story, right? There were seven Sadducees that all had one wife.

It's one bride for seven brothers here. And I think they're trying to come up with a scenario that is so difficult to think of working out in the next life that he's stumped. His doctrine of eternal marriage looks foolish. Yeah, they just want to make it so much hyperbole, so ludicrous that it just shows you how ridiculous your doctrine is of the resurrection. Yeah. When he says, in the resurrection, they, I often wonder if the they in this story is just those seven made-up Sadducees. For in the resurrection, those guys that you made up, they're not married, nor given in marriage. They'll be angels.

But let's actually talk about resurrection. So if this question, Keith, is a question to mock his beliefs, of course he's not going to give a doctrinal answer on marriage. He's going to correct them on their belief about resurrection. Yeah, very well said, that he's going right in the direction that they're forcing him to rather than pronouncing doctrine, clarifying doctrine about what existence will be like after this life when we're sealed to a person. Very much so. John, what do you have? Yeah, in the Religion 211 student manual, it says, the Savior's reply that in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage referred to the individuals in question who There's Hank, they, in verse 30. So these are also Sadducees.

But, you know, if you take away all of the brothers dying and everything, clearly, as you said, let's say that verse 24 just said, if the man die having no children, then skip to verse 28. Therefore, whose wife shall she be? I mean, they're trying to complicate it by throwing in this major hypothetical. But without all of that, clearly they believed she would be the wife of the first husband. And one other question I've always had about this, which was I'm excited to have you here, is it saying the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection specifically, or is it saying they don't believe in life after death at all? Because I know the Greek philosophy was bodies are vile and gross and corrupt, and why would you want a resurrected, why would you want a body composed of matter anyway? Did they believe the spirit went on?

Yeah, they very much believed that the spirit goes on. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. That's just coming right out of Hellenistic thought. So they believe that the body's a deterrent. And that's largely what Christianity is adopted today, too. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones. Christians see that as being, he's saying that he's a spirit, because come and touch me, because I don't have body to me any longer, even though you think you see a body. It's an interesting twist that just, for us, resurrection is body. That's what it means, but for others, it goes a different direction. So to recap this one, the most important verse is verse 23, because Matthew also doesn't want you to stumble on the fact that this is a disingenuous question.

Right. Absolutely. That is so key to realize who is asking the question. When I'm helping prep my students who are about to serve missions, I make sure to point that out. If you could just have that understanding of who is asking the question, when someone quotes this to you, you can say, well, who is he talking to and what did they believe? So I think it's amazing that Jesus uses one verse from the Torah, which the Sadducees do believe in to prove that people live on after they die. When he says, but as touching the resurrection of the dead, almost as if since you brought it up, since you brought up resurrection, have you not read what God said when he spoke to Moses?

So there's Moses in the burning bush and God says to him, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So he would say, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had lived and died and no longer are themselves, he would say, I was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. But I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob says, I currently am God of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob says, I currently am their God, even though they're dead. I currently am their God. So he uses one verse of scripture to prove that people live on as individuals after they die, which I think is just spectacular to use one verse that they've probably read many times and never seen that little play on words. I am

the God of Abraham, not I was. That's a great point. I love that. All right, well, let's go on to the conclusion of what seems like to be the final incident in these whole two or three days when he's there being very messianic and he's just taking all their jabs and he's just answering them one by one and crafting these parables. He keeps winning this day of debate. And then there's this one lawyer or scribe, as others translate it, and they ask him a question, a provocative question. What's the great commandment in the law?

That's verse 35 and 36 of Matthew 22. The backdrop for that is there were lots of rabbinic debates and discussions about which law was more important, the Sabbath day or the kosher or other things. So he puts that, he wants to kind of draw Jesus into that quagmire and Jesus just gives him point blank what we know in the Old Testament as the Shema. Okay, that's Deuteronomy chapter 6 verses 4 and 5. In fact, in one of the accounts here, I think it might be the Luke account, it just reads exactly as it does from Deuteronomy in the Shema. Hear, O Israel. So Jesus gives them that, very appropriate, and then gives them the second liken to it. I remember President Howard W. Hunter said, in a sense, the first and

the second great commandment are synonymous. It's a word that he used. They just work together. If you love God, then you're going to love your fellow men and serve him. And then he makes the reference on these two commandments, hang all the law and the prophets. Now there's a different order that's established in Mark and Luke with this little verse that ends Matthew chapter 22. No man was able to ask him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. So in Matthew, he puts this last discussion as the final word that Jesus has with them.

I resonate with that. I think Matthew was possibly a little more correct because of the way it summarizes this whole feisty exchange for two or three days. And then Jesus comes back to one question and that question silences them. And the question in essence is, what think ye of Christ? Now, Christ is the Greek term for what? Messiah. So he's not referring to, what do you think of my last name? He's asking them, what's your concept of the Messiah?

Whose son is he? Jesus brings it back to the most fundamental question that it's the elephant in the closet. And that is, do you accept me as the Messiah like the rest of the crowds have this week? Can you get your mind around the fact that I'm the Messiah? And what's their answer to it there? Oh, their answer is such a safe, weaselly answer. Do you see it? The son of David. Yeah, the son of David. Everybody is a Davidic fan in ancient Israel and today. I mean, you get over to Jerusalem, it's the King David Hotel, it's the King David Street. Every other young man is named David. The football team, everything, they all take the name of David. So they give the safe answer. Oh because he now uses scripture on them. And the scripture that he uses is this psalmic verse. So it's Psalms 110 verse one. So he uses that verse.

Now here's the tricky part. It won't make sense to a lot of us because in verse 44, he first says, how then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit on my right hand, and I will make thine enemies thy footstool. If David call him Lord, how is he his son? So what it is here is you're having a collapsing of time elements in this verse. But the King James translators did a nice job in that they preserved a different Lord when there are two references to Lord in verse 44. The first Lord is all caps, which is the King James way of saying Yahweh or Jehovah. So Jehovah of the Old Testament, the premortal God, said unto my Lord, that's generic lord adonai so hebrew had a second word for lord and it was kind

of a more generic one rather than referring to kind of godhead jehovah type lord but it was still seen as a divine being in that second representation of adonai so the lord jehovah said unto adonai. So the Lord Jehovah said unto Adonai, less specific Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Why then did David call the Lord him Lord, small case, so Adonai, how is he his son? So in this reference, collapsing time elements through the spirit kind of view of who God is and who the Savior is. David is spiritually seeing Jehovah above him, referring to David's son as the Messiah, but not like you said, not just the political Messiah, but what? The God Messiah, the Lord Messiah, Adonai Messiah. And the crowd there, the Pharisees and the lawyers, they cannot answer

because what's he in essence said, why was the Messiah prophesied to be God or the son of God, as we would say it? Why was he prophesied to be that? They cannot answer because everybody is calling this guy the Messiah. And he's right there in front of them in essence he says let's get to the real question here do you believe that i am the messiah the promised spiritual divine messiah do you believe that they just shut up tighter than a drum you know from they durst not ask him any more questions. It is the perfect culmination. Okay, now Matthew has the condemnation of hypocrisy and things like that in chapter 23. That's pretty self-explanatory.

I won't go there, but I think this is the conclusion of this open public confrontation where Jesus comes, is shown to be the Messiah by the crowd, then takes on the leadership for two or three days with all kinds of jabs and disingenuous questions. And then he turns to them and says, you know, folks, the real issue here is, do you believe that I am not just somebody that does miracles, not just somebody that has a big crowd, but do you believe I'm the Messiah?

What a penetrating question for each one of us. Our leaders have said this is the question of all questions. Historians acknowledge that there's a Jesus, somebody that lives in Nazareth. Good historians of the ancient Middle East, none of them doubt that. With all the circumstantial evidence and things. It's a fact in most good credible minds that Jesus existed. But the issue is, was he the son of God? That's the pivot point. Was he the son of God?

I love how we started the triumphal entry. The whole city was moved and their question was, who is this? We talked about this before, the Christmas song, what child is this? And that's the question. And then here it is again at the end where Jesus is asking them, as you so beautifully put it, who am I? Am I the Messiah? That's the fundamental question they have to answer. That has such nice bookends to it when you do it that way, because this is his last public thing, really. And then he goes into a discrete setting and then the atoning sacrifice. It reminds me of when the Savior was with his apostles in Caesarea Philippi, and he said, what are people saying? What are people saying about me? And it's, well, some say you're like a prophet. Some say you're like John the Baptist. Some say, but what do you say?

What do you think? I know what everybody else thinks now, but what do you think? And then Peter has that great response. Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. He seems to be posing that same question here at the end of Matthew 22. What think ye of Christ? What's your conception of the Messiah? Could he be me? And they're like, well, he's the son of David. I love this moment because he says,

why would David call him Lord? Like you've explained Keith, why would David call him Lord if he was his son? The Messiah must be something bigger than the son of David. He must be the Lord of David as well. You put it, this time collapse, there's this premortal existence thing. The Lord Jehovah, in small caps, will come to earth and be in the lineage of David, but will still be the Lord, right? You know, this question, what think ye of Christ? I mean, it's repeated so often throughout the standard works. There's who is he? And it always reminds me of a very kind of eloquent and powerful statement by C.S. Lewis, which probably our listeners have heard before.

But C.S. Lewis said, I'm trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him. I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. This is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg, or he would be the devil of hell.

You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. Yeah, what a classic. Yeah, it's a fantastic quote. It's such a wonderful argument. It really is. Jesus, he has to be one of three things based on all that he said and did. He has to either be crazy because he's out forgiving

sins, right? He's forgiving sins of people. He's changing Passover to be about him. He's changing it to the sacrament. I mean, this is either he's crazy or he's evil. And if you don't think he's crazy or he's evil, which none of what he said sounds crazy or evil, then there's one option left. And that is that he is God. And I like how we began the book of Matthew, not the very beginning, but it was at Matthew four that he went about teaching and preaching and healing. A moral teacher can go teach what he believes, and preaching and healing, and then the ultimate Easter that Brother Wilson has brought up so beautifully, and then he's going to come back

to life. That's not what a great moral teacher does. This is a lot more than that. Teaching, preaching, and healing, and coming back to life after being put to death. So that's why I like you. You've got to make your choice here is what C.S. Lewis is saying. You've got three choices and you've got to make one. Those are great bookends that you've brought up. I love your example of Peter and whom say ye. And it comes down really for each one of us. Can you say in your heart that Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten, that he is your personal savior.

I remember an example that President Hinckley used a while back when a young man from the Far East had come to the States, America, and through his educational program had bumped into some LDS, good missionaries, and he joined the church while he was here in his graduate work. And he was about to leave and go back to one of the countries there in the Far East, and he had a conversation. President Hinckley intercepted him and said, now, when you go back, you're going to be shunned by your family for joining this church, and you're going to probably lose your job, and you'll be an outcast, and all these things. Is it really worth it to you to go back as a member of the church?

And then the young Asian fellow looked up as President Hinckley related the experience with a tear in his eyes. And he looked at him and said, it's true, isn't it? It's true. And President Hinckley was a little embarrassed for raising the question. He agreed. He said, yes, it is true, isn't it? It's true. And President Hinckley was a little embarrassed for raising the question. He agreed. He said, yes, it is true. And you can just feel the witness of the Savior burning in that young convert's heart when he said, it's true, isn't it? He is the Christ. To that, I leave my witness, too, that I have felt that same spirit come over me as I have

studied the Savior's life, and particularly the triumphal entry in these last few days. He's true. I pray that we could be true to our witness, and I say that in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Dr. Wilson, I think something you've really taught us today, Keith, is how this question, first of all, of who is this? What child is this? Who is this? But now it's becoming, okay, he's the Messiah. What kind of Messiah is he? Maybe that's another question he's trying to help them understand. Is it from sin and death? Is it from the Romans? And it seems like even up until the very end, Peter thinks, all right, let's get out my sword and we're going to do this deliver Israel thing.

And even then, nope, that's not that kind of Messiah put up your sword. Is that another question that he's helping to answer here? Yeah, very much so. He's working on that issue. I love the way you introduced it before about Hoshanyana. Does that mean, are they just part of a circus coming into town? And it very much is that messianic thing. And then he goes into the temple right there and sort of substantiates it by healing the

lame. It's just phenomenal the way he announces it. Now, another thing we didn't mention is you've got this notion of the messianic secret that he's keeping close to his vest, his pronunciations of being the son of God and being a divine being and things. You've got that held pretty tightly during his ministry. He always speaks in third person. He makes kind of veiled references in the synagogue. He says, this day is this word fulfilled in your ears. They know what he's saying and they erupt there, but he doesn't say, I am the Christ. He does in private, but he doesn't in public. With the woman taking adultery, the woman at the well, I that speak unto thee am he. So you've got this idea of the messianic secret.

He's not telling it to everybody right up front. Partially, I think, because he would have been arrested right then and there and cut his ministry short. But now at the triumphal entry, he's becoming much more open and declarative right here at the last few days of his life. It always amazes me that those who are so concerned about particulars of the law of Moses would be okay, though, with the plot to kill somebody. And maybe it's because of blasphemy, but you brought up Lazarus today. As soon as Lazarus starts walking around, say, let's kill him too. Well, Lazarus wasn't guilty of any blasphemy, and Jesus deliberately let him stay in the grave for four days so that there was no denying. And how do they justify the thou shalt not kill?

That's one of the biggies. It just always amazes me. But I think, as you pointed out, hey, he's disrupting things. We're going to lose our station here. People are supposed to look to us. And there they were up on the Mount of Transfiguration where scribes and Pharisees all think that Jerusalem's where everything's at, but boy, up there at the Mount of Transfiguration, there's Moses in person up there. There's Elijah, there's Jesus. And Peter's going, it's good for us to be here. It's amazing. That's where stuff was happening, not back in

Jerusalem. Exactly. Keith, Dr. Wilson, this has been just a treat for John and I to have you with us. I think our listeners would be interested in your journey decades as a religion professor and a faithful member of the church. What's that journey been like for you? Thanks for asking, Hank. That question is one that I've carried along in my own life through 42 years of teaching and then preparation before that. But I think I've come to realize in life that faith is a choice. And you can find evidence for truth in your life for whichever perspective you want to take. Elder Holland referred to the Book of Mormon and a witness of the Book of Mormon as the greatness of the evidences. That's because you're looking for the evidences to corroborate that faith.

And I believe that God has intended it that way. He doesn't want to force any of us to believe. But when you believe and try to apply and live, then you shall know. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine. And it's not reversed. And so it's almost like in life, you have to make a decision as to whether or not you want to accept the Lord in your life and you want to accept the restoration. And then you will find, if you continue to honor that desire, you'll find all kinds of corroborating evidences, both internal and external. They'll be there.

I think intellectually, you can argue the Book of Mormon just with a clear-cut case of being something that the hand of God has been over. There's just scads of internal and external evidences. But to a person that doesn't want to believe in the Book of Mormon, been taught that, oh, this is just some phony thing, 19th century document, they'll find evidence and they'll believe that that evidence shows to them that Joseph was a fraud and that Mormons have been duped into believing this quirky kind of Bible copy of their own.

And yet those of us that delve into that, those of us that delve into the life of Christ, feel his power changing us, you know that it's a very real truth. And that's part of the challenge is you sometimes ache for those that don't want to know what you've experienced and that you know is true. For me, as kind of a quote-unquote scholar, I'm not really a scholar. I'm just somebody that loves the gospel of Jesus Christ and wants to study it and keep it fresh in my life. But for me, there's no question because I keep receiving evidences that this is God's path and that he is in my life, flawed individual that I am, but he is in my life through this great restoration. I love it. You spoke earlier about the tender mercies of the Lord.

Those are great evidences. They're always subtle there. God's not going to force any one of us to believe. It's all about us having agency and choosing a path of faith. Well said. Thank you, Keith. John, what a great day we've had today studying these chapters and these events, leading our way up to the amazing resurrection of Jesus.

Some great questions to remind ourselves. Who is this? Because we believe who he is. Oh, man, what a triumphal entry we want to prepare to when he comes again. Who is this and what think ye of Christ? Fantastic questions. We want to thank Dr. Keith Wilson for being with us today and want to wish him the best of luck down in Peru on his mission. We want to thank our executive producer, the amazing Shannon Sorenson.

We want to thank our sponsors, David and Verla Sorenson. And we always remember our founder, Steve Sorenson. We hope you'll all join us next week. We have more New Testament to talk about coming up on Follow Him. videos on Facebook and Instagram. All of this is absolutely free, so be sure to share with your family and friends. To reach those who are searching for help with their Come Follow Me study, please subscribe, rate, review, or comment on the podcast, which makes the podcast easier to find. Thank you. We want to thank our incredible production crew, David Perry, Lisa Spice, Jamie Nielsen, Will Stoughton, Crystal Roberts, and Arielle Quadra.

We also love hearing from you, our listeners. The Comfort Me curriculum has made a huge difference in my life. I have, one, just been able to grow my relationship with the Savior tremendously, and I'm so grateful for that. But also grow my relationship with other people. Like sitting down with my family and friends and discussing what I have learned and what they have learned throughout the week it has changed so many things in my life and I'm so grateful for that and I'm also grateful that I have been able to learn how to better receive personal revelation