*WHAT DO YOU THINK?
*Our mission is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ absolutely free. We do not want donation. We only want you to know the truth.
BY WILLIE WONG
Mankind is unlike animals, for a man is born with the thinking ability, reasoning ability. Mankind is a thinking creature. What is thinking? Thinking is reasoning. One cannot think without a reasoning moral framework. Only man can think what is good or bad, he/she has the judgment of what is right or wrong. The civilized person is self-restricted by morality. What do you think is more important than what you do because what you do is influenced by what you think. As a man thinks, so is he. Jesus Christ never asks an ape or monkey or chimpanzee or animal, what do you think?
Animals do not have the first thoughts, much less the second thoughts. Not only I never ask an animal, what do you think? I am even afraid what primitive, uncivilized savages may think. They may think I am edible. Most people I encounter in my life are fools,
and studpid people do not know that they are stupid even though they may have doctor’s degrees. How can one depend on the stupid opinions of mankind? How do you deal with peole who always want to get something (profit, benefit, interest) for what they do? There are still people who do not know that self-sacrifice is the highest morality. Jesus died for sinners.
There are so-called scientists who hold animals can think but dare not say so. I believe God created animals according to their kind are not thinking creatures. Mankind is definitely superior to animals because man was created in the image of God. No animals were created in the image of God. Besides mankind has body, soul, and spirit. The Word of God says, Ecc 3:21, “Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward?…. There is indeed a difference between a man and a beast; though they have one breath, they have not one spirit or soul; man has a rational and immortal soul, which, when he dies, goes upwards to God that gave it; to be judged by him, and disposed of by him, in its proper apartment, until the day of the resurrection of the body;
and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? when the beast dies, its spirit goes down to the earth, from whence it came, and is resolved into it, and is no more. But who is it that sees, or can see and know with the eyes of his body, the difference of these two spirits, or the ascent of the one, and the descent of the other?, Or who knows by the dint of reason, by the strength of his own understanding, without a divine revelation, that man has an immortal soul which goes upwards at death, when that of a beast goes downwards? No man, clearly and fully, as appears from the doubts and half faith of the wisest Heathens concerning it: or rather who knows and considers this difference between the spirit of a man and the spirit of a beast, and thinks within himself what a precious and immortal soul he has, and is concerned for the salvation of it? Very few; and hence it is they live and die like beasts, as they do. The Midrash interprets this of the souls of the righteous that go up to heaven, and of the souls of the wicked that go down to hell.”
There the Bible pinpoints the vast and fundamental difference between a man and animal. I believe the Word of God, and doubt the words of men.
Aristotle said, “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”
Martin Heidegger said, “The human body is essentially something other than an animal organism.”
Albert Schweitzer said, “Man is a clever animal who behaves like an imbecile.”
Willie Wong says, “I am opposed to hunting any animal as a sport.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.”
Immanuel Kant said, “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”
Albert Schweitzer said, “It is a man’s sympathy with all creatures that first makes him truly a man.”
Gen 2:19, “And out of the ground the LORD God
formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.”
Verse 19. – And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. To allege that the Creator’s purpose to provide a helpmeet for Adam seeks realization through the production of the animals (Kalisch, Alford) proceeds upon a misapprehension of the proper nexus which binds the thoughts of the historian, and a want of attention to the peculiar structure of Hebrew composition, besides exhibiting Jehovah Elohim in the character of an empiric who only tentatively discovers the sort of partner that is suitable for man. It is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the animals that the historian records. The Vav. consec. does not necessarily involve time-succession, but is frequently employed to indicate thought-sequence (cf. 2:8; 1 Kings 2:13, &c.). The verb (pret.) may also quite legitimately be rendered “had formed (Bush). “Our modern style of expressing the Semitic writer’s thought would be this – ‘And God brought to Adam the beasts which he had formed (Delitzsch). It is thus unnecessary to defend the record from a charge of inconsistency with the previous section, by supposing this to be the account of a second creation of animals in the district of Eden. Another so-called contradiction, that the present narrative takes no account of the creation of aquatic animals, is disposed of by observing that the writer only notices that those animals which were brought to Adam had been previously formed by God from the ground, and were thus in the line of the onward evolutions of the heavens and the earth which led up to mare As to why the fishes were not brought into the garden, if other reason is required besides that of physical impossibility, the ingenuity of Keil suggests that these were not so nearly related to Adam as the fowls and the beasts, which, besides, were the animals specially ordained for his service. And brought them (literally, brought; not necessarily all the animals in Eden, but specimens of them) unto Adam. We agree with Willet in believing that “neither did Adam gather together the cattle as a shepherd doth his sheep, nor did the angels muster them, nor the animals come themselves, and, passing by, while he sat on some elevation, bow their heads at his resplendent appearance; nor were Adam’s eyes so illuminate that he beheld them all in their places – all which,” says he, “are but men’s conceits; but that through the secret influence of God upon their natures they were assembled round the inmate of paradise, as afterwards they were collected in the ark. The reasons for this particular action on the part of God were manifold; one of them being stated in the words which follow – to see what he would call them; literally, to them. Already man had received from God his first lesson in the exercise of speech, in the naming of the trees and the imposition of the prohibition. This was his second – the opportunity afforded him of using for himself that gift of language and reason with which he had been endowed. In this it is implied that man was created with the faculty of speech, the distinct gift of articulate and rational utterance, and the capacity of attaching words to ideas, though it also seems to infer that the evolution of a language was for him, as it is for the individual yet, a matter of gradual development. Another reason was to manifest his sovereignty or lordship over the inferior creation. And whatsoever Adam (literally, the man) called every living creature (i.e. that was brought to him), that was the name thereof. That is to say, it not only met the Divine approbation as exactly suitable to the nature of the creature, and thus was a striking attestation of the intelligence and wisdom of the first man, but it likewise adhered to the creature as a name which had been assigned by its master. Genesis 2:19.”
There are animals God created just for food that mankind may eat. There are no mankind created for animals to eat.
According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smarter-you-think/202003/do-animals-think?
Environment
Do Animals Think?
We are not as unique as we think.
“A while ago, I gave a guided tour for a group of fifth-graders at the ape house of the Zoo of Leipzig, Germany. During the tour, one bright kid asked: “Are animals able to think? Our ethics teacher said they cannot; they are only driven by reflexes and react to stimuli.
I answered with full conviction: “Your teacher is wrong; animals do not only behave according to reflexes, but they can—to a certain extent—think, and they understand a lot about their environment.”
Of course, everything depends on how one defines “thinking.” In comparative psychology, scientists prefer to talk about “cognitive skills” that are investigated in animals. We want to know how animals perceive and what they understand about their environment.
Usually, we do not call animals “intelligent” or “smart” because that always includes an assessment. In order to be considered as “smart,” is it more important to be able to do statistics, to recognize yourself in a mirror, or to use a tool? I definitively do not want to judge here. In this post, I just want to share the latest findings about cognitive skills in the animal kingdom, some of which might be surprising.”
The so-called scientists have a tendency to believe what they want to believe, but the Word of God settles everything.
“This may surprise or even disappoint some people, as the differences between humans and animals have long been emphasized, especially in the Western world. The philosopher Aristotle had already begun to do so. He assumed that only man is “reasonable.”
In the conception of Christianity, man as the image of God is superior to the animal. Later, René Descartes described animals as machines in comparison to which only humans possess a soul in addition to the body. Hegel then highlighted the differences between man and animal. He was convinced—just like the ethics teacher above—that thinking is what distinguishes humans from animals.”
Won’t it be a big surprise if animals can write down what they think?
Warren Buffett said, “There is nothing like writing to force you to think and get your thoughts straight.”
Sonia Friedman said, “You have control over three things – what you think, what you say, and how you behave. To make a change in your life, you must recognize that these gifts are the most powerful tools you possess in shaping the form of your life.”
William Thurston said, “I think mathematics is a vast territory. The outskirts of mathematics are the outskirts of mathematical civilization. There are certain subjects that people learn about and gather together. Then there is a sort of inevitable development in those fields. You get to the point where a certain theorem is bound to be proved, independent of any particular individual, because it is just in the path of development.”
Robert Henri said, “There are mighty few people who think what they think they think.”
John Spence said, “Sometimes you need to distance yourself to see things clearly.”
Mahatma Gandhi said, “Keep your thoughts positive because your thoughts become your words. Keep your words positive because your words become your behavior. Keep your behavior positive because your behavior becomes your habits. Keep your habits positive because your habits become your values. Keep your values positive because your values become your destiny.”
John Eliot said, “Thinking is a habit, and like any other habit, it can be changed; it just takes effort and repetition.”
William James said, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
Thomas A. Edison said, “The best thinking has been done in solitude. The worst has been done in turmoil.”
John Spence said, “Happiness is not determined by what’s happening around you, but rather what’s happening inside you. Most people depend on others to gain happiness, but the truth is, it always comes from within.”
Willie Wong says, “Be careful what you think. For thingking has consequences.”
Marianne Williamson said, “You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. What you do comes from what you think.”
William Shakespeare said, “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”
Albert Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Winston Churchill said, “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”
W. Clement Stone said, “There is little difference in people, but that little difference makes a big difference. The little difference is attitude. The big difference is whether it is positive or negative.”
Anne Morrow Lindbergh said, “I must write it all out, at any cost. Writing is thinking. It is more than living, for it is being conscious of living.”
Robin Roberts said, “You have to CHANGE the way you THINK in order to CHANGE the way you FEEL.
- ) Mat 17:25, “He said, “Yes.” And when he came
into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying,
“What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?”
Verse 25. – He saith, Yes. Without consulting his Master, or even letting him know of the demand, Peter answered affirmatively, he knew that Christ never withdrew from conscientious obligations; Jesus may have paid the rate in former years, and might be confidently supposed to be ready to do so again. But was there not another feeling that dictated the quick reply, and made him pledge Jesus to the payment? He had a fear at his heart, caused by Christ’s late warning and prophecy, that made him morbidly anxious to live at peace with all men at this conjuncture. As far as in him lay he would shield his beloved Master from the dread result which he anticipated; at any rate, he would endeavour to postpone the fatal day; no offence that he could obviate should be given. So, thinking only of present safety, forgetting or wilfully ignoring Christ’s true position, he answered hastily, “Yes.” When he (Peter) was come into the house. The collectors had addressed Peter in the street or at the door, and the apostle, having given his reply, hastened into the house where Jesus was, either to obtain the necessary coins or to make the demand known. Prevented him. The Revised Version paraphrases, spake first to him, which gives the meaning (though the Greek does not warrant such translation) – Jesus anticipated what Peter was going to say by showing that he knew the apostle’s thoughts and all that had passed outside the house, he takes the opportunity of enforcing a needful lesson, making the listener, in the Socratic method, teach himself. What thinkest thou, Simon? By such familiar address he claims his attention. The kings of the earth. He contrasts these with the King of heaven, to whom a reference is implied in the Lord’s subsequent words. Custom (τέλη) or tribute (κῆνσον). The former of these words (which would be better rendered tolls) signifies the customs laid on goods and merchandise and other such payments – vectigalia, as the Romans called them; the tribute (not the same word as that so translated in ver. 24) is the census, the capitation tax (ἐπικεφάλαιον) imposed upon every citizen of the empire. Strangers (ἀλλοτρίων). The contrast is between the family of the monarch and those who are not connected with him by any relationship. Matthew 17:25.”
What do you think is more important than what you do, because thinking influences doing. If you think a mouse is an elephant, what do you think of an elephant? If you think hunting is a sport, you do not have qualm in shooting a little bird as target practice. I found the Southerners (Americans who live in the South) think very differently from Californians. I thank God that I never lived in the South. It was a place I once visited and never wanted to visit again. I found the Christianity practiced by the Southerns not refIecting anthing written in the Holy Scriptures. I agree with the following thoughts:
Marcus Aurelius said, “Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
Albert Einstein said, “The world we have created is a product of our thinking.”
Henry Ford said, “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.”
Marcus Aurelius said, “The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.”
Bill Meyer said, “Every thought is a seed. If you plant crab apples, don’t count on harvesting Golden Delicious.”
Laozi said, “Watch your thoughts, they become words. Watch your words, they become actions. Watch your actions, they become habit.”
According to American tax law, even a new holder of green card has to pay income tax. For sure IRS will hunt you down. Thanks God, in the Kingdom of Heaven, the children of God do not pay any taxes.
2.) Mat 18:12, “What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains, and go and search for the one that is lost?”
Verse 12. – The parable that follows teaches the same lesson as the preceding verse. It is found in Luke 15:1-7, with some variations, delivered to a different audience and under different circumstances, as Jesus often repeated his instructions and teaching according to the occasion. How think ye? What say ye to the following case? Thus the Lord engages the disciples’ attention. An hundred sheep. A round number, representing a considerable flock. If but one of these stray, the good Shepherd regards only the danger and possible destruction of this wanderer, and puts aside every other care in order to secure its safety. The ninety and nine. These must be left for a time, if he is to conduct the search in person. It may he that some idea of probation is here intended, as when Jesus let the disciples embark on the lake while he himself remained on the shore. Many of the Fathers interpret the ninety-nine as representing the sinless angels, the lost sheep as man, to seek and save whom Christ left heaven, i.e. became incarnate. This, indeed, may be a legitimate application of the parable, but is inexact as an exposition of the passage, which regards the whole flock as figuring the human race. The sheep that remained safe and true to their Master are the righteous; the errant are the sinners, which, however few, are the special care of the merciful Lord. Into the mountains (ἐπὶ τὰ ὔρη). There is much doubt whether these words are to be joined with goeth (πορευθεὶς), as in both our versions, or with leave (ἀφεὶς), as in the Vulgate, Nonne relinquit nonaginta novem in montibus? In the former case we have a picture of the toil of the shepherd traversing the mountains in search of the lost. But this does not seem to be the particular point contemplated, nor is any special emphasis assigned to this part of the transaction. In the parable as recounted by St. Luke (Luke 15:4), we read, “Doth he not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go?” So here it is best to render, Doth he not leave the ninety and nine upon the mountains? The shepherd is not regardless of the safety and comfort of the flock during his temporary absence; he leaves them where they are sure to find pasture, as they roam over (ἐπὶ with accusative) the hill tops, which, catching clouds and dew, are never without fresh grass. So Psalm 147:8, “Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.” Seeketh. The lost sheep would not return of itself. Such erring souls Jesus seeks by the inspiration of his Spirit, by allowing distress and sorrow, by awakening conscience and memory, by ways manifold which may lead the sinner to “come to himself.”
Luk 19:10, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Verse 10. – For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. A quiet rebuke to the Pharisees and priests and their followers, who would limit the redeemed. Surely the “publicans” and the great tempted mass of mankind needed him more than the happy privileged class. It was for the sake of these poor wandering sheep that he left his home of grandeur and peace. But there was a vein of sad irony running through these words of the Master. Between the lines we seem to read some such thoughts as these: “You know, O priests and Pharisees, you do not want me. You think you are safe already. But these poor despised ones, they want, they welcome me, like this Zacchaeus.” This, too, was a lesson for all time. This scene probably took place the evening of the Lord’s arrival at Zacchaeus’s house at Jericho, after the evening meal, when the room arid court of the house were filled with guests and curious spectators. Dean Plumptre has an interesting suggestion that Zacchaeus the publican was one and the same with the publican of Luke 18:10-14, who in the temple “smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner! Is it too bold a conjecture that he who saw Nathanael under the fig tree (John 1:48) had seen Zacchaeus in the temple, and that the figure in the parable of Luke 18:14 was in fact a portrait?” Luke 19:10.”
But many do not know that every human being is lost.
That which was lost must be saved. Every human being is a sinner, a sinner cannot save himself, he must be saved.
3.) Mat 21:28-32, “But what do you think? A man had
two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ But he replied, ‘I do not want to.’ Yet afterward he regretted it and went.
“And the man came to his second son and said the same thing; and he replied, ‘I will, sir’; and yet he did not go. “Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. For John
came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even have second thoughts afterward so as to believe him.”
Matthew 21:28-32. But what think ye — As if he had said, You have evaded a direct answer to my question concerning the baptism of John, and have acknowledged your ignorance whence it was; but what think you of your own conduct in these circumstances? and of all the high professions you make of an extraordinary reverence for God, and zeal in his service? I will plainly tell you my judgment of it, which is very naturally connected with the present subject. This our Lord does in two parables, in the former of which, by a question which he puts to them, he makes them condemn themselves. A certain man had two sons — Signifying two sorts of persons: some that prove better than they promise, represented by the former of these sons; others that promise better than they prove, represented by the latter. And he came to the first — Exhibiting the disobedient, profligate, and wicked Jews, and open sinners of all descriptions, who, though they neither professed nor promised to do the will of God, nor gave any reason to hope well concerning them, yet afterward being convinced of sin, and brought to repentance by the preaching of John the Baptist and Christ, turned from their sins, and sincerely embraced the gospel. The spirit and conduct of the second son was an exact picture of the temper and behaviour of the Pharisees; for in their prayers and praises they gave God the most honourable titles, and professed the greatest readiness and zeal in his service: but it was a bare profession, contradicted by all their actions. They said, I go, sir, to work in thy vineyard, but went not. Jesus having finished his parable, asked, Whether of them twain did the will of his Father? — Without hesitation, they replied, The first — Not perceiving that by this answer they condemned themselves, till Jesus, making a direct application of the parable, gave them that sharp but just rebuke; Verily I say unto you — Even the most abandoned sinners of the age, such as the publicans and harlots, go into the kingdom of God before you — Are much more open to conviction, and more readily obey the gospel than you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness — Walking in it as well as teaching it, and gave evident proofs of his mission from God; and ye believed him not — Gave no credit to the testimony which he bare to me, nor received his doctrine, and consequently would not enter the vineyard: but the publicans and harlots — The most notorious sinners; believed him — Were reformed, and obeyed the gospel, though at first they said, I will not. And ye, when ye had seen it — And could not deny that an amazing change had been wrought in them, and that persons of the most abandoned characters had been reformed by his sermons, which doubtless was a strong proof of his mission from God; yet repented not afterward — Of your opposition to that holy man, nor of your disobedience to his instructions; That ye might believe him — And therefore I solemnly warn you, (for so his words imply,) that your condition will hereafter be worse than theirs; and that you shall see those whom you now despise and abhor, entering into the glory from which you shall be excluded.”
Mat 21:32, “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even have second
thoughts afterward so as to believe him.”
Verse 32. – For John came unto you. This gives the reason for Christ’s assertion at the end of the last verse. John came with a special call to the rulers of the people, and they made some show of interest, by sending a deputation to demand his credentials, and by coming to his baptism; but that was all. They did not alter their lives or change their faulty opinions at his preaching, though they “were willing for a season to rejoice in his light” (John 5:35). In the way of righteousness. In that path of strict obedience to law, and of ascetic holiness, which you profess to regard so highly. If they had followed the path which John indicated, they would have attained to righteousness and salvation. John preached Christ who is “the Way” (John 14:6). (For “way,” meaning doctrine, religious tenet and practice, see Matthew 22:16; Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9, 23; 2 Peter 2:21.) Ye believed him not, to any practical purpose, even as it is said elsewhere (Luke 7:30), “The Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, not having been baptized of him.” Those who did receive his baptism were the exception; the great majority stood aloof. Believed him. Though these sinners may have first rejected him, yet his preaching softened their hearts; they repented, confessed their sins, and were baptized (see for examples, Luke 3:10, etc.; Luke 7:29). This was another call to the Pharisees to go and do likewise. When ye had seen it; i.e. the fruits of true repentance in these sinners, which conversion was indeed a loud appeal to the rulers to consider their own ways, and to bow to God’s hand. Repented not (see ver. 29). They profited not by this miracle of grace. That ye might believe him. The end and result of repentance would be to believe in John’s mission, and to attend to his teaching. Christ offers the above explanation of the parable (vers. 31, 32) in view of the purpose for which he uttered it. It has been, and may be, taken in different senses, and in wider application. “What is set forth in individual cases is but a sample of what takes place in whole classes of persons, and even nations” (I. Williams). Many expositors consider the two sons to represent Gentiles and Jews; the former making no profession of serving God, and yet in time being converted and turning to him; the latter making much outward show of obedience, yet in reality denying him and rejecting salvation. It is obvious that such explanation is allowable, and coincides with the letter of the parable; but it does not satisfy the context, and fails in not answering to Christ’s intention in uttering this similitude. Others see herein a picture of what happens in Christian lands, and is the experience of every Christian minister – how the irreligious and apparently irreclaimable are by God’s grace brought, to repentance unto life; how the seemingly pious often make much show, but fall away, or bring no fruit unto perfection. And as the parable involves a general principle, so it may be applied universally to those who make great professions of religion, and are for a time full of good resolutions, but in practice fall very short; and to those who have been the slaves of lust, covetousness, or some other wickedness, but have been recovered from the snares of the devil, and have learned to lead a godly, righteous, and sober life. Matthew 21:32.”
4.) Mat 22:15-22, “Then the Pharisees went and plotted
together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and do not care what anyone thinks; for You are not partial to anyone. “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it permissible to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? “Show Me the coin used
for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” And hearing this, they were amazed; and they left Him and went away.”
Matthew 22:15-17. Then went the Pharisees — Greatly incensed by the two last parables delivered by our Lord; and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk — Gr. παγιδευσωσιν εν λογω, might entrap him in his discourse, so as to find something on which they might ground an accusation against him, and effect his destruction. And they sent out their disciples — Persons who had imbibed their spirit of hostility against him, and entered fully into their designs; with the Herodians — “Probably,” says Dr. Campbell, “partisans of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, who were for the continuance of the royal power in the descendants of Herod the Great, an object which, it appears, the greater part of the nation, especially the Pharisees, did not favour. They considered that family not indeed as idolaters, but as great conformists to the idolatrous customs of both Greeks and Romans, whose favour they spared no means to secure. The notion adopted by some, that the Herodians were those who believed Herod to be the Messiah, hardly deserves to be mentioned, as there is no evidence that such an opinion was maintained by any body.” On account of their zeal for Herod’s family, they were of course also zealous for the authority of the Romans, by whose means Herod was made and continued king. Their views and designs being therefore diametrically opposite to those of the Pharisees, there had long existed the most bitter enmity between the two sects. So that the conjunction of their counsels against Christ is a very memorable proof of the keenness of that malice which could thus cause them to forget so deep a quarrel with each other. In order to insnare Christ, they came to him, feigning themselves just men, (Luke 20:20,) men who had a great veneration for the divine law, and a dread of doing any thing inconsistent with it; and, under that mask, accosted Christ with an air of great respect, and flattering expressions of the highest esteem, saying, Master, we know that thou art true — A person of the greatest uprightness and integrity; and teachest the way of God in truth — Declarest his will with perfect impartiality and fidelity; neither carest thou for the censure or applause of any man; for thou regardest not the person of men — Thou favourest no man for his riches or greatness, nor art influenced by complaisance or fear, or any private view whatever, to deviate from the strictest integrity and veracity. Tell us, therefore, Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar? — In asking this question they imagined that it was not in Christ’s power to decide the point, without making himself obnoxious to one or other of the parties which had divided upon it. If he should say, it was lawful; they believed the people, in whose hearing the question was proposed, would be incensed against him, not only as a base pretender, who, on being attacked, publicly renounced the character of the Messiah, which he had assumed among his friends; (it being as they supposed, a principal office of the Messiah to deliver them from a foreign yoke;) but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties of his country. But if he should affirm that it was unlawful to pay, the Herodians resolved to inform the governor of it, who they hoped would punish him as a fomenter of sedition. Highly elated therefore with their project, they came and proposed their question.”
Out of a malicious political trap, Jesus proclaims a great truth: pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.
5.) Mat 26:63-68, “But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I place You under oath by the living God, to tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have
of witnesses? See, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!” Then they spit in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him,and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”
Ver. 62,63. Mark speaks to the same purpose, Mark 14:60,61. The high priest expected a long defence, and so to have had matter of accusation against him out of his own mouth. Christ disappointeth him, saying nothing at all, either out of modesty, or not thinking what they said of any moment, or worthy of any reply, or perhaps seeing that they could not agree in their tale, so as what they said was of no force against him. The high priest therefore comes at last to examine him, ex officio. Mark saith, Mark 14:61, Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. Luke, to give us the story of Peter, from his first coming into the high priest’s hall to his going out, entire, interrupts himself a little in his relation of their dealings with Christ, and then relates some indignities offered him which the other evangelists do not mention; which seem to have been offered him where the soldiers and the rabble had been before he appeared in the council: Luke 22:63-67, And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together, and led him into their council. Then he mentions nothing of what the witnesses said, possibly because it was nothing of moment, nothing upon which they proceeded against our Saviour for his life, but goes on, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. Matthew saith, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the living God? Mark, the Son of the Blessed. It is plain both from this text, and from John 1:49, that the Jews did expect a Messiah who should be the Son of the ever living and blessed God; but whether they understood that he should be the Son of God by nature and eternal generation, or only by a more special adoption, than the whole Jewish nation was, (to whom the apostle saith belonged the adoption), I cannot say.
I adjure thee that thou tell us, that is, as some say, I charge thee upon thy oath to tell me; but it doth not appear that they had given any such oath to him, the guilty person was not wont to be forced by an oath to accuse himself, neither is it very probable that our Saviour would have taken such an oath. The sense therefore seemeth to be rather, I command, or require, or charge thee, as solemnly as if thou hadst taken an oath, (as in the presence of God), to tell us. Or, I charge thee with a terrible imprecation on thee, if thou speakest falsely, or wilt be silent, to declare if thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mark saith, Mark 14:62, And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see, &c. Luke saith, Luke 22:67-69, And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. What all the evangelists say put together, makes up our Saviour’s perfect answer. To what purpose (saith Christ) should I answer you? This is now but a captious question, not propounded by you to that end that you might be satisfied as to the truth, but only to ensnare me, for if I should tell you I am, you would not believe it. If I should argue the matter with you, you would give me no answer. I have given you proof enough, but yet, Caiaphas, thou hast said the truth, I am the Christ, the Son of the ever living, blessed God; and, to confirm you further, hereafter you shall see me, whom you think to be no more than the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven. There is a time for a man to speak, and a time for him to hold his peace; in the matter of confession of truth. The seasons for silence, or speech, are to be judged from the honour and glory of God; when we cannot be silent without betraying the truth, we are bound to speak. Our Lord therefore, being so solemnly adjured in the name of God to tell them what was the truth, now confesseth, and denieth not, that he was the Son of God, and tells them, hereafter they should see it. Whether the term hereafter refers to the time soon following, (as ap’ arti, in this evangelist, and ’ Apo tou nun, in Luke, seem to signify), and be to be understood of Christ’s resurrection, his ascension into heaven, the coming of the Holy Ghost, and the carrying of the gospel to all nations, or to the day of judgment (which the New Testament often speaks of as a thing at hand, and that phrase, coming in the clouds of heaven, seems rather to signify); or (as others think) to both, referring the sitting on the right hand of power to the former, and the coming in the clouds to the latter; is hard to determine.”
Verse 66. – What think ye? He wishes to get a vote by acclamation, not in a formal way, as to the guilt of Christ and the punishment which he deserved. He is guilty of (ἔυοχος, worthy of, liable to) death. This was the punishment pronounced by the Law on blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16); the death was, however, to be by stoning (Acts 7:58). This detail, as they considered it, was now exclusively in the hands of the Romans. We see that this meeting, which virtually doomed Christ to death, was not a regular council of the Sanhedrin; for it was not held in the appointed chamber, and was conducted at night, when criminal processes were forbidden. The meeting next morning (Matthew 27:1) was convened for the purpose of considering how this informal sentence should be executed. Matthew 26:66.”
Ver. 67,68. Mark hath much the same, Mark 14:65: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. Though there be nothing more barbarous and inhuman than to add to the affliction of the afflicted, yet this is no more than we ordinarily see done by a rabble of brutish people; spitting in the face was but an ordinary token of contempt, Numbers 12:14 Deu 25:9. And perhaps in all these indignities Isaiah was a type of Christ, Isaiah 1:6, if that text be not to be understood of Christ immediately. In the mean time, it lets us see that there is no degree or mark of contempt, or shame, or suffering which we ought to decline and grudge at for the name of Christ; who, through much more excellent than us, yet for our sake endured the cross, and despised the shame.”
Out of hatred and malice, the crowds reply to the question: What do you think? They answerd, He deserves death!
Hatred and jealousy can blind the experts of the law. Pro 6:34, “For jealousy enrages a man, and he will not have compassion on the day of vengeance.”
The high priest AND Pharisees out of jealousy they wanted to kill Jesus without a reason.
Verse 34. – For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. The first hemistich is adduced as a reason for what has preceded, while the concluding hemistich and the following and last verses are a deduction strengthening what has been stated before, and also showing that the punishment will be inevitable. The general consensus of commentators and texts is to connect the two hemistiches of this verse. Thus the LXX., Μεστὸς γὰρ ζήλου θυμὸς ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς οὐ φεισεται ἐν ἡμέρα κρίσεως, “For the wrath of her husband filled with jealousy shall not spare in the day of judgment;” the Vulgate, Quia zelus et furor viri non parcet in die vindictae, “For the jealousy and rage of a man shall not spare in the day of vengeance;” the Syriac, Nam quia furor mariti plenus est zelotypia non parcet in die retributionis, “For because rage of a husband is full of jealousy he shall not spare in the day of retribution.” So the Arabic, and the Tigarina Versio, and among the commentators Durandus. Dathe, Doderlein, Holden. But the Hebrew simply makes the statement, ki-kimah khamath-gaver, quia zelus excandescentia viri, i.e., as in the Authorized Version, “for jealousy is the rage of a man,” ki, equivalent to the Greek γὰρ, “for” and kinah is the subject of the sentence. The Hebrew kinah is “jealousy” as in Proverbs 27:4, “Who is able to stand before envy?” or, as margin, “jealousy.” The ordinary copulative verb “is” is best understood as connecting the subject and the predicate; “the rage of a man,” Hebrew kamath-gaver, as above, i.e. “the glow of a man’s anger” (Delitzsch), or “a man’s fierce anger” (Zockler). Jealousy awakens and inflames the wrath and anger of a man or husband to its highest pitch. It evokes the strongest feelings for revenge. Man; Hebrew, gaver, equivalent to ish, “a man,” in opposition to “a wife” – “a husband,” as here. The word is chiefly found in poetry. Its derivation, from gavar, “to be strong,” serves to bring out the idea also of the intensity or force of the jealousy – it burns or rages with all the might of the man. The latter part of the verse in the Hebrew is simply, “and he will not spare (v’lo-yakh’mol) in the day of vengeance.” The Authorized Version “therefore” serves to bring out the deduction, though it does net occur in the original. He will not spare; i.e. the injured husband will not show any clemency or mercy to the adulterer, the man who has wronged him so deeply. In the day of vengeance; Hebrew, b’yom nakam. The expression may refer to the time when the adulterer is brought before the judges, but more probably to every occasion on which the husband can exercise his vengeance. So Gejerus. For the expression, cf. Isaiah 34:8, “The day of the Lord’s vengeance;” Job 20:28, “The day of his wrath;” and Proverbs 11:4, “The day of wrath.” Jealousy is implacable (see Song of Solomon 8:6, “Jealousy is cruel as the grave”). Proverbs 6:34.”
- ) Jhn 11:55-57, “Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up to Jerusalem from the country prior to the Passover, in order to purify
themselves. So they were looking for Jesus, and saying to one another as they stood in the temple area, “What do you think; that He will not come to the feast at all?” Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone
knew where He was, he was to report it, so that they might arrest Him.”
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
- Now both the chief priests, &c.] Omit ‘both.’ The word is wanting in authority, and even if it were genuine it would not mean ‘both’ but ‘moreover.’ The verse explains why the people doubted His coming to the feast. Note that once more the Sadducaean hierarchy takes the lead. Comp. John 11:47, John 12:10, John 18:3; John 18:35, John 19:6; John 19:15; John 19:21. In the history of the Passion the Pharisees are mentioned only once (Matthew 27:62), and then, as here, after the chief priests.
a commandment] The better reading is, commands, which has been made singular because only one command is mentioned. Comp. our phrase ‘to give orders.’
that] Literally, in order that (see on John 11:50).
“We are not told how long our Lord stayed at Ephraim. If we are to put faith in the tradition in the Talmud, and in the inferences which Dr Caspari draws from it, an actual verdict of death was passed at the recent meeting of the Sanhedrin, and was only waiting for its execution until an opportunity offered, and the legal period for the production of witnesses in the defence had expired. This would make the interval between the retreat to Ephraim and the Passover coincide more or less nearly with the forty days allowed. The data, however, are not such as we can build on confidently.” S. p. 191. So that once more we have an interval of uncertain amount. See the introductory note to chapter 6 and the note on John 6:1.”
Mat 27:17-26, “So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew that it was because of envy that they had handed Him over. And while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, “See that you have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.” But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas, and to put Jesus to death. And the governor said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate *said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Crucify Him!” But he said, “Why, what evil has He done?” Yet they kept shouting all the more, saying, “Crucify Him!” Now when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in
front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; you yourselves shall see.” And all the people replied, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus flogged, he handed Him over to be crucified.”
For he knew that for envy … – This was envy at his popularity.
He drew away the people from them. This Pilate understood, probably, from his knowledge of the pride and ambition of the rulers, and from the fact that no danger could arise from a person that appeared like Jesus. If Pilate knew this, he was bound to release him himself. As a governor and judge, he was under obligation to protect the innocent, and should, in spite of all the opposition of the Jews, at once have set him at liberty. But the Scriptures could not then have been fulfilled. It was necessary, in order that an atonement should be made. that Jesus should be condemned to die. At the same time. it shows the wisdom of the overruling providence of God, that he was condemned by a man who was satisfied of his innocence, and who proclaimed before his accusers his “full belief” that there was no fault in him.”
Matthew 27:23. The governor said, Why? what evil hath he done? — A proper question to be asked before we censure any in common discourse, much more for a judge to ask, before he pass a sentence of death. It is much for the honour of the Lord Jesus, that, though he suffered as an evil doer, yet neither his judge nor his prosecutors could find that he had done any evil. Had he done any evil against God? No: he always did those things that pleased him. Had he done any against the civil government? No: as he did himself, so he taught others to render to Cesar the things that were Cesar’s. Had he done any against the public peace? No: he did not strive or cry, nor was his kingdom of this world. Had he done any evil to particular persons? Whom had he defrauded, or otherwise injured? Not one: so far from it, that he continually went about doing good. But they cried the more, LET HIM BE CRUCIFIED. They do not go about to show any evil he had done, but, right or wrong, he must be crucified. Quitting all pretensions to the truth of the premises, they resolved to hold fast the conclusion, and what was wanting in evidence to make up in clamour.”
7.) Mat 22:42, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Saying, what think ye of Christ,…. Or the Messiah; he does not ask them whether there was, or would be such a person in the world. He knew, that he was so plainly spoken of in the writings of the Old Testament, which they had in their hands, that they could not be ignorant, that such a person was prophesied of: he knew that they believed that he would come, and that they were in continual expectation of his coming; wherefore he asks them what they thought of him, what were their sentiments and opinions concerning him; as about his person, whether they thought him to be divine, or human, a mere man, or God, as well as man; what they thought of his work and office he came to perform, whether it was a spiritual, or temporal salvation, they expected he should be the author of; and so of his kingdom, whether it would be of this world or not; and particularly, what thoughts they had of his sonship, and who was his father,
whose son is he? and which the Pharisees understanding only as respecting his lineage and descent as man, as, of what family he was? who were his ancestors and progenitors?
they say unto him, the son of David. This they said directly, without any hesitation, it being a generally received notion of their’s, and was very right, that the Messiah should be of the seed and family of David: and hence he is frequently, in their writings, called by no other name, than the son of David; See Gill on Matthew 1:1. If this question was put to some persons, it would appear, that they have no thoughts of Christ at all. The atheist has none; as God is not in all his thoughts, nor in any of them, for all his thoughts are, that there is no God; so neither is Christ the Son of God. The deist thinks thing of him, for he does not believe the revelation concerning him. The epicure, or voluptuous man, he thinks only of his carnal lusts and pleasures: and the worldling, or covetous man, thinks nothing but of his worldly substance, and of the much good things he has laid up for many years: to say nothing of the Heathens, who have never heard of him; others, and such as bear the Christian name, have very wrong thoughts of Christ, mean, and undervaluing. The Arrian thinks he is a created God, of a like, but not or the same nature with the Father. The Socinian thinks he is a God by office, and did not exist until he was born of the Virgin Mary; and has no notion of his sacrifice, and satisfaction for the sins of men. The Arminian thinks meanly of his righteousness, and denies the imputation of it to them that believe. And indeed, all such think wrongly of Christ, who divide their salvation between their works and him, and make them their Christ, or their frames their Christ, or their graces, and particularly their believing in him; that is, that ascribe that to them, which properly belongs to him. And as for those who do not bear the name Christians, it is no wonder that they entertain wrong and low thoughts of Christ. The Jews thought him to be a mere man, and the carpenter’s son. The Pharisees thought that he was an Antinomian, a libertine, a loose, and licentious person, that had no regard to the law, and good works: hence those words of his, “think not that I am come to destroy the law”, Matthew 5:17. Yea, they thought him to be a Samaritan, and to have a devil, and to cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. The Mahometans, though they allow him to be a prophet, yet think that he is inferior to Mahomet their prophet. There are others that think well of Christ, admire the loveliness of his person, and the fulness of his grace, but are afraid Christ does not think well of them: they think well of the suitableness there is in Christ, of his righteousness to justify, of his blood to cleanse and pardon, and of the fulness of his grace to supply all wants, but think these are not for them: they often revolve in their minds his ability to save, and firmly believe it, but question his willingness to save them: they often think of Christ, what he is to others, but cannot think of him for themselves; only believers in Christ have a good thought of him, to their own joy and comfort: faith is a good thought of Christ; to them that believe, he is precious; and such, through believing in him, are filled with joy unspeakable, and full of glory; such think often, and well, of the dignity of Christ’s person, of the excellency and usefulness of his offices, of the virtue of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice, and of the sufficiency of his grace for them: they think well of what he did for them in eternity, as their surety, in the council and covenant of peace; and of what he has done for them in time, by suffering and dying for them in their room and stead; and of what he is now doing for them in heaven, as their advocate and intercessor.”
Mat 22:43-46, “He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES UNDER
YOUR FEET”’?
“Therefore, if David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” No one was able to offer Him a word in answer, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him any more questions.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Lord said unto my Lord,…. By the Lord that said, is meant “Jehovah” the Father, who said the following words at the time of Christ’s ascension, and entrance into heaven, after he had finished the great work of man’s salvation; prophetically delivered by the Psalmist, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, being what was before purposed and promised: by “my Lord”, the person spoken to, the Messiah is designed, who was David’s “Adon”, or Lord, by right both of creation and redemption: as God, he made him: and as the Messiah and Saviour, redeemed him; and on both accounts had a right to rule over him. The words said unto him are,
sit thou on my right hand; which is a figurative phrase, and expressive of the exaltation, dignity, power, and authority of the Messiah; and of an honour done to him, which was never granted to the angels, nor to any mere man:
till I make thine enemies thy footstool; till all the enemies of him, and his people, are subdued under him; carnal professors, as the Pharisees, and profane sinners, who neither of them would have him to rule over them; the world, the devil, antichrist, and all the powers of darkness, and the last enemy, death itself. That these words were spoken of the Messiah, and therefore pertinently cited, and properly applied to him, by Jesus, is evident from the silence of the Pharisees; for had it not been the generally received sense of the Jewish church, they would, at once, have objected it to him; which might, in some measure, have relieved them under that distress, into which they were brought by this passage proposed unto them: but by their silence they acknowledged, that the Psalm was wrote by David; that it was wrote by him under the inspiration of the Spirit of God; and that the Messiah was the subject of it. And the same is owned by some of their doctors, ancient, and modern,
“Says R. Joden, in the name of R. Chijah, in time to come the holy blessed God will cause the king Messiah to sit at his right hand; as it is said, “the Lord said unto my Lord”, &c. (f).
And the same says, R. Berachiah, in the name of R. Levi, elsewhere (g). And, says, another of their writers (h),we do not find any man, or prophet, whose birth was prophesied of before the birth of his father and mother, but Messiah our righteousness; and of him it is intimated, “from the womb of the morning”, &c. i.e. before the womb of her that bore thee was created, thy birth was prophesied of: and this these words respect, “before the sun, his name is Yinnon”, Psalm 72:17 i, e. before the creation of the sun, the name of our Messiah was strong and firm, and he shall sit at the right hand of God; and this is what is said, “sit at my right hand”.
In some writings of the Jews, esteemed by them, very ancient (i), the “Adon” or Lord, to whom these words are spoken, is interpreted of Messiah ben Joseph, whom they make to sit at the right hand of Abraham; which, though a false interpretation of the words, carries in it some marks and traces of the ancient sense of them: yea, even some of the more modern Jews (k) have owned, that they belong to the Messiah, and apply them to him. Though others, observing what confusion their forefathers were thrown into by Jesus, and what improvement his followers have made of this sense of the words since, have quitted it, and introduced strange and foreign ones. Some (l) of them would have Abraham the patriarch to be the subject of this Psalm; and that it was composed either by Melchizedek or by Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; or by David, on account of the victory Abraham obtained over the four kings, in rescuing his kinsman Lot: but Melchizedek could not be the author of it, because he was a far greater person than Abraham; he blessed him, and took tithes of him, and therefore would not call him Lord. Eliezer might indeed, as being his servant; but then he could not assign to him a seat at the right hand of God, or say of him, that he had an everlasting priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek: and though the Psalm was composed by David, yet not on the above account, for the same reasons. Nor is David the subject of it, as others (m) have affirmed; for it cannot be thought that David would say this of himself, or call himself his Lord, which this sense of the words makes him to do: and whereas others of them say, that it was wrote by one of the singers concerning him; it may be replied, that the title declares the contrary: besides, David is not ascended into heaven, nor is he set down at the right hand of God, nor had he any thing to do with the priesthood, much less was he a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and that for ever: but all is true of the Messiah Jesus, of whose kingdom and priesthood, sufferings, and exaltation, conquest of his enemies, and success of his Gospel, this whole Psalm is a very plain and manifest prophecy.”
Plainly, according to the flesh Christ was a decendant of David. According to the Spirit, in fact Christ is the Son of God, the Savior of mankind.
Now you have learned a lot from the Scriptures what you should think. Thinking has consequences. Do not ever get it wrong with Jesus Christ, for your eternity depends on Him. So now repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus, the Son of God and your Savior. You can do it now.
WILLLIE WONG THOUGHT
WILLIE WONG
FEBRUARY 7, 2026
Copyright © 2018 – 2026 by Willie Wong
All African nations, South America, Asia and the world, where can you find a country which does not have large national debts and deficits? Africa is different because for 500 years, not one country has become self-sufficient and solvent, they glorify with their primitive cultures and brag about their scientists and experts, joy to kill each other. International aid actually fuel their official corruption. Any nation that shares destinies with Africa will be doomed! No resources can fill the Black holes! The international community should leave Africa alone, let them do or die.
China modernization must focus that every village will have:
- Electricity.
- Running water to drink and wash.
- Gas to cook and heat.
- Internet.
- Livelihood.
- New toilet by law.