The difference between Premier and First.

Satan is a liar and the father of lies. His first official act was to tell one. His first lie was elegant in it's simplicity; God said "...thou shalt surely die." Satan simply said "...thou shalt NOT surely die." Satan has since improved his efforts, until now he has a single Premier lie: "I do not exist!" This lie has the effect of making people neglect the urgency of spiritual growth on a daily basis. Seeing then that Satan had a difference between his first and his premier arguments, is the Bible any different? The New Testament self consistently claims to be premier but not first. Jesus looked at the Old Testament, which had a record of the initial ten unwritten commands, and came up with a premier one. The context of this discussion came up when he had just gotten done refuting gainsaying Sadducees by showing that God was the God of the living and that marriage would not be in heaven. Mt 22:23-46.

Christ took a moment then, so I'll do the same now, and chase a rabbit trail. He took that moment to note that if Sadducees knew the scriptures, that they would not have come up with the foolishness of the "seven brothers" example; it implied that there are more inspired writings out there than those to which we have contemporary access. Another example of this might be that he observed that Baptism was a Messianic prophecy. When he said Mt 3:
[15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
...that he wanted to fulfill ALL righteousness in this way, he was EITHER stating that there was a Messianic reference to baptism, OR that he was fulfilling the reflexive case for future Christians. A similar example is that Paul, when writing Timothy, alluded to Jannes and Jambres who are not associated with Korah in the Torah or any other part of the Talmud. The fact that they could allude to information external to what we now have does not prove them incompetent. On the other hand, Christians are promised that 2 Pet 1:
[3] According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
...we have all things that pertain to spiritual life. For more study, look at "all things whatsoever," and "pertaining to," as Bible phrases. Whatever the case, we accept only scripture validated by miracle and do not add (per 2 Jno 1:9, and Pr 30:6.) Pr 30:6 was available to Jesus' audience and they did not use it in the Matthew 22 discussion, so we suppose that the works alluded to were part of the body of "as it is written," that they used for memorization. Hopefully that rabbit stew is not too gamey.

Having silenced the Sadducees, he was probably prepared to take his rest, but the Pharisees showed up, Johnny on the spot, to add to his troubles from a different play book. In Mt 22:
[34] But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
...they apparently wanted to get at this first v premier discussion. His answer in verses
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
was appropriate to the extent that no individual seemed inclined to disagree. Like Lk 4:22, they didn't get mad in his presence, so there must have been at least SOME basis for the discussion. To those inclined to argue that the scribes were merely reporting selectively, I'll ask, "If this was fable, how would I fail to rehabilitate the witness of his cousin against Nepotism?" I instead affirm that these same scribes reported dispositions of crowds as they occurred, for example showing different reactions in Ac 2:37 and Ac 7:54.

Having silenced the Pharisees as well, Jesus left them with food for thought.
[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

The identification of the coming Christ is the main preoccupation of the sincere Jew, and this was the subject of his question. The Messianic prophecy alluded to in verse 45 is that the Christ would come from the lineage of David. How was a subject of a Patriarchal system to have authority over a progenitor? Verse 46 record their reaction:
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

In this case the response might call for research. I am not yet prepared to say if either the Scribes OR the Pharisees ever spoke to him again in the interrogative voice. I suppose that all future communications were arranged by speaking of him in the third person in his presence, or addressing him in the imperative voice only. Whatever the case, their diplomacy must have suffered politically. In refusing to dignify the queries of a Messianic pretender with response, they also departed from decorum by slighting a potential rightful heir.

Today the main prophecy he is thought to have failed to fulfill is Isa 9:
[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
[7] Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

By specificity, the increase of his peace shall be eternal. Assuming that the prospective Christ accomplishes world Peace to establish his credentials, how is his Peace to continue increasing? The story of Jesus has an answer, if one cedes a little latitude. We know that the subject of "The throne of David," was under discussion, because in Jno 6:
[15] When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
..the people seemed intent on putting Jesus on an earthly throne. While an earthly/heavenly discussion is commonplace today, it was somewhat radical in his day, witness the discussion above with the Sadducees. Radical too, was his discussion on turning the other cheek, instead of enforcing a true tit-for-tat "eye for an eye." If it was a successful move on the part of a populist, he failed to capitalize on it adequately in Jno 6. I bring it up to contrast it with Jno 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
...where he states that his kingdom is NOT of this world. In this blog, we have previously referenced this same passage to show that earthly nations have a right to self defense. The question here supplied is this: Does the Kingdom of Heaven obtain the same affection in the army of the Lord? If it did, the verse in Mt 11:
[12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
...both motivates and sets precedent that the violence is not a Crusade. I'll note in passing that the temporal "now" alludes to a place in time when the Tax Collector was writing.

A self consistent commentary on the subject is available in 2 Cor 10:
[3] For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
[4] (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
[5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
[6] And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Associated armor is listed in Eph 6:
[10] Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
[11] Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
[13] Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
[15] And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
[18] Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
[19] And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel...

Here we see that while an adversarial relationship may prevail, the dedicated target of the Christian is "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," and "spiritual wickedness in high places," rather than the Jew. For more on specific usage of the armor of God, review at Why do we sin? or search "shield of faith" in Straight Skinny or the "Authorized Version."

Returning to considerations of Heaven from Mt 11:12 above, when did this alleged increase of peace begin? To speak further, we must begin by agreeing that Christ will never be at peace with the accuser at least until the accuser owns the lowest position in all of Hell, defining subjugation. Our contemporary icons for peace inform the discussion with the "V" for victory becoming "peace" after WW II, and the inverted cross, with broken crossbar, being used for the same purpose, encircled with a ring like line. The Lord refers to "peace that passes understanding," in Phil 4:7, and most suppose that this refers to the depth, width, and urgent flowing current of the corresponding river, but I occasionally consider (Ecc 7:14) that even "such peace as we have," surpasses the comprehension of our worldly foes. This is because of the contention and strife that I have seen. Regardless, it is still the case that if evil men move kingdom against kingdom on earth to fight against his followers, an increasing peace might not prohibit the return of armed conflict to the earth. Mt 24:6 and Mk 13:7 use the future tense to refer to wars as a phenomenon to be remarked upon, rather than a commonplace, leading me to ask "During Jesus' day, were there any documentable wars?" If not, I'll share that when my cat takes ill, it occasionally eats grass, and suggest that during Jesus' day just such a sick big cat lay down with a lamb, and he came to earth to begin his efforts at eternal reconciliation as a little child.