Matthew Questions:

Chapter and Verse

55c) My "issue" is with the wording "symbolized the ministry"; what was at issue was only the behavior of John vs. that of Jesus – a very small detail in two ministries which were complementary in every way. It is true that John called to repentance – but so did our Lord. It is true that our Lord promised the Kingdom – but John proclaimed the coming King. I would be hesitant in the extreme to back-characterize anything important from the facts that John lived ascetically as an example while Jesus met with people where they were (and certainly not in any sort of profligate way).

Matthew 11:19 (NASB)
¹⁹ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

What does our Lord mean by "wisdom is vindicated by her deeds"? Are these words spoken to say that the effectiveness of both John's and Jesus' ministry proves their way of living was right? I read numerous interpretations, your clarification will be most helpful.

55d) The Greek conjunction which connects this sentence with what goes before is kai, not alla. And while kai can occasionally be adversative in biblical Greek, there are no indications that such is the case here. So what we have here is a case of faulty punctuation (there being no punctuation in the original Greek, of course). This sentence is something else that the "know-it-alls" said about Jesus, implying with these sanctimonious words that if our Lord had true wisdom, He would not be associating with this rabble or acting in a way contrary to the national expectations for a "prophet" (eating and drinking as opposed to fasting and living ascetically like John).

I'm still not entirely sure why our Lord says "Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds"?

55e) I guess I didn't make this one clear enough. Jesus didn't say this. This is what the Pharisees said in their self-righteousness about Him, implying that because He ate with sinners His deeds proved that He was not wise. The versions punctuate incorrectly to make it sound as if Jesus is quoting this as a proverb rather than quoting the Pharisees (which is the true case).

Matthew 11:21 (NASB)
²¹ "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Could you explain the reference to Tyre and Sidon?

56) Tyre and Sidon are gentile cities, so our Lord's remark casts the lack of gratitude and lack of spiritual responsiveness in these two Jewish cities in a starkly negative light.

Matthew 11:27 (NASB)
27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

What does our Lord mean by "no one knows the Son except the Father"?

Matthew 11:28 (NASB)
²⁸ "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

NIV SB: 11:28 weary and burdened. Probably a reference to the "heavy … loads" the Pharisees placed "on other people's shoulders" by insisting on a legalistic interpretation of the law (23:4).

Do you agree that the reference is to the heavy loads placed by pharisaical legalism?

57) I would not want to limit this wonderful passage. Sin is a heavy load, as is the consciousness thereof. Every human being becomes aware from an early age of the problem of death and imperfection – and, as Romans chapter one tells us, also of the existence, magnitude and righteousness of God. Facing death and judgment under the burden of sin is indeed a heavy load whose only relief is the salvation which comes through faith in Christ alone.

Matthew 12:8 (NASB)
⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Was it our Lord who gave the Law to Moses? If so, could we understand that since He is the One who gave it, He can also change it?

58) Yes (see Q/A #18 and #33 above). This really is the point: the Sabbath was designed by God for the benefit of man; Jesus Christ took on true humanity and as Lord of the Sabbath made use of that day for the benefit of man – the true purpose of the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:17-21 (NASB)
17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
18 "Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen;
My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased;
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
19 "He will not quarrel, nor cry out;
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
20 "A battered reed He will not break off,
And a smoldering wick He will not put out,
Until He leads justice to victory.
21 "And in His name the Gentiles will hope."

Could you clarify why Matthew quotes Isaiah at this particular point and how this quotation is linked to the events presented so far in the chapter?

58b) This affirmation of our Lord as the Messiah and the fulfillment of all the Messianic promises comes after the deliberate rejection of Him by the nation's leaders. As a result, He will die for the sins of the people – and for all people – with the result that He will be the hope of all nations, the Savior of the world.

Could "not quarreling" nor "crying out" be matched with the fact that our Lord withdraws (verse 15) and the battered reed to be the man whom our Lord healed (verses 10-13)?

Matthew 12:19 (NASB)
¹⁹ "He will not quarrel, nor cry out;
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.

Is this prophecy a reference to our Lord's humility?

59) Yes: to His kenosis and the uniqueness of the first advent (see the link), and in particular also to the courage with which He endured the gauntlet of suffering in order to get to the cross (cf. Is.53:7 quoted at Acts 8:32).

Does this verse mean that there were other Israelites capable of casting out demons who were not among the apostles?

60) No. What it means is that contemporary Jews recognized that demon possession was common enough in their day and made efforts to cast them out – one would think by invoking the Name of the Lord. Those who criticized our Lord for doing something effectively which others whom they approved of were actually unable to do were thus indirectly condemning their own judgment: Jesus establishes with these words that He is doing nothing other than what Jews in very good repute were trying to do – except that He was not vainly "play acting". Clearly, criticizing Him for this (in blasphemous terms) was completely inconsistent with applauding others who vainly tried to do the same thing.

How should we understand our Lord's words "For this reason they will be your judges"?

60b) Since even the Pharisees' own sons are doing what Jesus is doing (although without the Spirit and therefore without effect), they bear witness to the fact that the Pharisees' objection/accusation is groundless.

Matthew 12:31 (NASB)
³¹ "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.　

NIV SB: 12:31 blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. The context (vv. 24, 28, 32) suggests that the unpardonable sin was attributing to Satan Christ's authenticating miracles done in the power of the Holy Spirit (see note on Mk 3:29).

NIV SB provides an explanation which sounds very reasonable - do you agree it's correct?

61) Yes, as far as it goes; since the Spirit testifies to the truth of the gospel, calling the Spirit satanic is a firm rejection of the gospel; and rejection of the gospel is always thus blasphemy because it calls God a liar, impugning the truth of the message the Spirit is mediating. Thus the only unpardonable sin is rejecting the gospel, rejecting Jesus Christ: the refusal to accept Him and His sacrifice was the only sin for which Christ could not die since it is by taking on humanity and dying for sin that all are saved who accept Him and His work on the cross.

Matthew 12:32 (NASB)
32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

What does our Lord mean by "the age to come"?

61b) Eternity is meant: refusing to accept Jesus as Savior results in eternal condemnation

Matthew 12:36 (NASB)
³⁶ But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

NIV SB: 12:36 day of judgment. At Christ's second coming; sometimes referred to as "that day" (7:22; 2Ti 1:12, 18), "the day of slaughter" (Jas 5:5; see note there).

How do we know that Christ's second coming is meant here rather than the final judgment?

62) As you discern, the note is incorrect; our Lord is speaking about unbelievers here. Those who are held to account at the last judgment are unbelievers and their judgment comes at the end of history (the Great White Throne of Revelation 20 = the judgment of the goats in Matthew 25).

Could you please explain the relationship between the teaching given in Matthew 12:42 and the one which follows - Matthew 12:43-45?

Matthew 12:47 (NASB)
⁴⁷ Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."^[a]

Matthew 12:47 This verse is not found in early mss

Should verse 47 be a part of the scripture?　

64) It's a little hard to say. It's not present in Vaticanus; Sinaiticus doesn't have it in the text per se but Aleph also accidently omits another short phrase; both that phrase and verse 47 are in the bottom margin and appear to be in the same hand or the hand of a contemporaneous corrector. Since the omission may be explained by homoioteleuton (similar ending of a phrase causing the eye to jump forward), there are good reasons for including it. Moreover, since the sentence may be the basis for our Lord's reply in the next verse, there is much evidence to consider it original. On the other hand, these reasons also explain an inclusion of something not actually present in the original. What we can say is that Mark 3:32 and Luke 8:20 do reference the interlocutors telling our Lord about the presence of His family – so it happened like this, whether or not we ought to include the additional words here.

Matthew 13:3 (NIV)
¹² He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

Why did Jesus include the very specific number of 60 pounds in a parable?　

64b) This amount ("three dry measures" tria sata) was apparently a standard amount  of flour for baking up a batch of bread. So this is analogous to a "six pack of beer" or a "dozen donuts" where no one in our culture would say "five beers" or "ten donuts". Analogously, few people would bother going through the process for one loaf of bread (that's not efficient in time, fuel or effort).

65) Yes! That is precisely it!

Psalm 78:2 (NASB)
² I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,

Matthew 13:35 says "hidden since the foundation of the world", but Psalm 78:2 "dark sayings of old"?

66) The Greek is a closer translation of the Hebrew than the respective English versions seem to suggest: our Lord uses κεκρυμμενα to translate חִידֹות, and ἀπὸ καταβολης κοσμου to translate מִנִּי־קֶֽדֶם. Both of these seem to me to be essential equivalents, suggesting "not easily known" and "very old" respectively. I don't think either element is meant to have a technical meaning beyond that.

Matthew 13:52 (NASB)
⁵² And Jesus said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old."

Could you clarify this passage?

67) To me this means that someone versed in the Law who becomes a believer in Christ will be able to draw on the store of information and truth in the Law (now correctly appreciated and understood) as well as from the new truths he has learned as a result of being born again and indoctrinated in the New Covenant.

Matthew 14:3-4 (NASB)
³ For when Herod had John arrested, he bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. ⁴ For John had been saying to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her."

a) Why was Herod's marriage unlawful?

b) Do you agree with the facts presented in NIV SB: 14:3 Herod had arrested John. See note on Mk 6:17. Herodias. A granddaughter of Herod the Great (see this chart). First she married her uncle, Herod Philip (Herod the Great also had another son named Philip), who lived in Rome. While a guest in their home, Herod Antipas persuaded Herodias to leave her husband for him. Marriage to one's brother's wife while the brother was still living was forbidden by the Mosaic law (Lev 18:16). Philip's. The son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, and thus a half brother of Herod Antipas, born to Malthace (see chart).

Matthew 14:22 (NASB)
²² Immediately He made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side, while He sent the crowds away.

Why did Jesus not go with the disciples? Do you agree with the argument presented in NIV SB: 14:22 made. The Greek word used here means "to compel" and suggests a crisis. John records that after the miracle of the loaves and fish the crowds "intended to … make him [Jesus] king by force" (6:15). This involved a complete misunderstanding of the mission of Jesus. The disciples may have been caught up in the enthusiasm and needed to be removed from the area quickly.

69) Mark 6:46 says that our Lord had gone up the mountain "to pray"; having some time of His own to spend in prayer to the Father was essential, and our Lord found just the right means to keep current in His prayer life – even at the cost of sleep and convenience.

Matthew 15:2 (NASB)
² "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

NIV SB: 15:2 tradition of the elders. After the Babylonian exile, the Jewish rabbis began to make meticulous rules and regulations governing the daily life of the people. These were interpretations and applications of the law of Moses, handed down from generation to generation. In Jesus' day this "tradition of the elders" was in oral form. It was not until c. AD 200 that it was put into writing in the Mishnah (see note on Ne 10:34).

Why was it after the exile that the rabbis began to make rules and regulations?

70) Israel had fallen into gross sin resulting in exile primarily because of idolatry. Those who returned were conscientious about "keeping the Law" instead of this past pattern of bad behavior, but, unfortunately as often happens, after a few generations teaching and guidance meant to reinforce the truth began to take on the character of "truth itself" – which is always especially unfortunate when the suggestions and guidance are completely misinterpreted in the bargain. Herein we see the problem with most traditional Christian "churches". And it is not only the R.C. church or hyper-Calvinism which are at fault; I have seen this phenomenon develop in the very next generation after a good teacher leaves the scene for heaven-home. I certainly hope this never happens to Ichthys! The shortness of the time would seem to be likely to prevent that if nothing else; however it should be said that what is posted to this site is interpretation of the Word of God not the Word of God, and it is "good" only to the extent that 1) it is correct, and 2) it is used/understood correctly.

Matthew 15:12 (NASB)
^{1 2} Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were ^[a]offended when they heard this statement?"

Matthew 15:12 Lit caused to stumble

Would you agree that "caused to stumble" is best rendered "offended"? Is that the true meaning?

71) A skandalon is a "stumbling block" and the verb here is derived from that noun. Our English word "scandal" comes from this root directly and gives I think a good guide to the meaning: the "stumbling" is metaphorical rather than literal, so that "offense" is a good translation often ("give offense" for the verb); by the way, "offense" comes from Latin ob-fendo which means literally to "knock against" so that it too can be considered a virtual calque.

Matthew 15:13 (NASB)
¹³ But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

Does Jesus say that to indicate that Pharisees did not rise to prominence according to God's will?

72) Yes, as the next verse indicates as well. Just because a person is recognized by the society as a "great religious leader" does not mean that he/she is even of God in the first place. Only those planted and tended by the Lord will grow to the point of actually producing a crop blessed and rewarded by the Lord – and the same is true today as well.

Matthew 15:14 (NASB)
¹⁴ Let them alone; they are blind guides ^[a]of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Matthew 15:14 Later mss add of the blind

Should the "of the blind" be a part of this verse?

73) It is not in the original of Sinaiticus; it is in B. This is a tough call because on the one hand with the word typhlos occurring three (or four) times there is plenty of opportunity for it to have fallen out; on the other hand the addition of "of the blind" is a likely candidate for a gloss (and that would explain its absence from some parts of the manuscript tradition). The word is not necessary since our Lord immediately adds that the guides are leading the blind – in case that part was not understood. So I would prefer to leave it out. Also, adding "of the blind" detracts from the emphasis that would otherwise fall on the Pharisees as "blind guides" by sharing the characteristic of blindness with those being guided; but it is clear that the guide bears the greater responsibility for that blindness.

Matthew 15:19 (NASB)
¹⁹ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,

Is there a reason why Jesus mentions both adulteries and fornications, which seem to mean the same thing?

74) There is certainly overlap, but while "adultery" qualifies as "fornication", not all "fornication" (pornia) is necessarily adultery, since the latter entails any sort of sinful sexual or sexually related behavior, whereas the former requires violation of the marital pledge.

NIV SB: 15:22 Canaanite. A term found many times in the OT but only here in the NT. In NT times there was no country known as Canaan. Some think this was the Semitic manner of referring to the people of Phoenicia at this time. Mark says the woman was "a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia" (7:26; see note there).

How should Matthew's calling the woman "Canaanite" and Mark's calling the woman "a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia" be reconcile?

75) The two terms are synonyms as the Phoenicians were Canaanites. Matthew is writing from a Jewish perspective while Mark, writing from Rome under Peter's authority, goes out of his way in a number of places to make what he writes more accessible to gentile readers who may not be conversant to the same degree with Jewish culture and history.

Matthew 15:27 (NASB)
²⁷ But she said, "Yes, Lord; ^[a]but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table."

Matthew 15:27 Lit for

I understand how "but" seems to be more fitting here than "for", but doesn't that slightly change the tone of the sentence?

76) This is a translation problem. What we have here is actually a particle combination, kai gar; this usually introduces an emphatic response (often translated in English "in fact" or "indeed"); since the woman is picking up what our Lord has said and taking it a step farther, something like, "Yes, Lord, but don't . . . ?, might convey the idea best.

Matthew 15:36 (NASB)

Should we also make it a practice to give thanks before meals?

77) In my opinion that is not a bad idea, but I would be very reluctant to lay that down as a necessary principle of behavior (for then it would be bound to lose all meaning); if it becomes too ritualized, it also is likely to become a pointless exercise. The attitude of gratefulness to the Lord for what He has done and provided is the key thing (secondarily I suppose the positive witness it might provide for those who hear the prayer); but an attitude which is never expressed is a problem too. Something in the middle done from the heart could not be far wrong.

Matthew 15:39 (NASB)
³⁹ And sending away the crowds, Jesus got into the boat and came to the region of Magadan.

NIV SB: 15:39 Magadan. Also called Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene. In 2009 the remains of a 2,000- year- old synagogue were discovered in Magdala. Mk 8:10 has "Dalmanutha" (see note there; see also map).

Would you say "Magadan" (or "Magdala") and "Dalmanutha" are two names for the same place, or are these two places located in close proximity?

78) I would certainly disagree with the note that the town has anything whatsoever to do with Mary Magdalene; see the link:

https://ichthys.com/4A-Christo.htm#1%29_To_Mary_Magdalene_%28Jn.20:11-18

Whether or not Madagan and Magdala are the same place I would not be willing to say. Contemporary identification of biblical name sites, especially less well-known ones, is a treacherous morass. As to the names themselves, they are little attested (especially Dalmanutha). They are pretty clearly the same place since our Lord's departure thence occurs directly after the feeding of the 4,000. My own guess would be that Magadan is the chief city and Dalmanutha is the region/territory, for one reason because Mark says "parts" (Greek: mere) of Dalmanutha.

Matthew 16:2 Early mss do not contain the rest of v 2 and v 3

a) Should the second part of verse 2 and verse 3 be a part of the scripture?

b) Could you explain what our Lord means by the prediction of the weather presented here? How is it that red sky is a sign of fair weather and a sky which is "red and threatening" is a sign of a storm? It seems that both have the same colour, yet signify opposite conditions.

79) a) No (absent, e.g., in both Aleph and B); b) This is a longstanding truism often repeated by sailors, and apparently generally accurate where the wind normally comes from the west and move to the east (as is true in Palestine). So a red sky at morning highlighted by the sun coming up in the east indicates the reflection of the sun off clouds coming in from the west.

NIV SB: 16:7 because we didn't bring any bread. Apparently the disciples took Jesus' statement about "yeast" (v. 6) to somehow relate to their being short of bread. Perhaps they thought they would be required to bake bread when they arrived at the other side of the lake and were being warned by Jesus not to use any yeast provided by the spiritually contaminated religious leaders.

Would you agree this is what disciples' thinking was?

80) Only about the fact that, as the scripture says, they thought His mention of yeast had to do with their failure to remember to bring bread. I don't think the rest of the speculation makes much sense. The disciples were often fixated on mundane things and thus failed to "get the message" our Lord was trying to communicate to them.

NIV SB: 16:16 Peter answered. See note on Lk 9:20. Messiah. See second NIV text note on 1:1; see also note on Jn 1:25. The Hebrew word for Messiah ("anointed one") can be used of anyone who was anointed with the holy oil, such as the priests and kings of Israel (e. g., Ex 29:7, 21; 1Sa 10:1, 6; 16:13; 2Sa 1:14, 16). The word carries the idea of being chosen by God, consecrated to his service, and endowed with his power to accomplish the assigned task. Toward the end of the OT period the word assumed a special meaning. It denoted the ideal king anointed and empowered by God to rescue his people from their enemies and establish his righteous kingdom (Da 9:25–26). The ideas that clustered around the title Messiah tended to be political and national in nature. Probably for that reason Jesus seldom used the term. When he did accept it as applied to himself, he did so with reservations (cf. Mk 8:27–30; 14:61–63).

Since Jesus answers Peter "Blessed are you", should we understand that Peter's understanding of the word "Christ" was correct and referred to the One and only Messiah rather than "anyone who was anointed" or being political and national in nature?

81) Absolutely. Peter uses the definite article here: "the Christ/Messiah"

Matthew 16:19 (NASB)
¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

NIV SB: 16:19 keys. Perhaps Peter used these keys on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2) when he announced that the door of the kingdom was unlocked to Jews and converts to Judaism and later when he acknowledged that it was also opened to Gentiles (Ac 10; cf. Isa 22:22; Rev 3:7 and notes). bind … loose. Not authority to determine, but to announce, guilt or innocence (see 18:18 and context; cf. Jn 20:23 and note; Ac 5:3, 9).

Do you agree with the interpretation that Peter used the "keys" during Pentecost and by acknowledging the kingdom of God being opened to the Gentiles?

82) In my view, the keys are the gospel. The apostles had a special mandate and also special gifts and authority to spread the gospel to the gentiles during the incipient period of the Church or "apostolic period". Here is a link on this:

https://ichthys.com/mail-Enoch%20and%20Gospel%20questions.htm#binding

Matthew 16:20 (NASB)
²⁰ Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Why does our Lord warn the disciples here not to tell that He is Christ?

83) Because our Lord's divinely ordained approach – and, indeed, the plan of God generally – is designed to allow for maximum freedom of determination for the human race to choose its own eternal destiny. We live with a veil between us and eternity so that we can only see what is coming "through a glass darkly" (1Cor.13:12 KJV). That is true of unbelievers (who don't see God in His glory or their eternal fate in the lake of fire) and also for us believers – if we were able to see God in His glory and not perish, Jesus in His resurrected glory, and heaven above and the New Jerusalem, we would not be able to think about anything else (so what we choose would not be such a matter of faith). As it is, we and they see the world in its mundane material appearance and must see beyond in faith (for believers) or are able to ignore the spiritual realities which lie behind (in the case of unbelievers). For our Lord's situation, there is also the added reason that the freedom of movement He required to carry out the divine plan for His ministry necessitated refraining from being absolutely direct about His status when dealing with the ruling elite. If He had proclaimed Himself as the Messiah openly and directly in Jerusalem, that would have forced immediate action – either of worshiping Him (for He is the Messiah) or putting Him to death immediately. As it was, things ran their perfect course in their perfect time so as to accomplish all righteousness.

Matthew 16:28 (NASB)
²⁸ "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

a) Could you explain the meaning of this verse?

b) Do you agree with either of the two interpretations presented in NIV SB: 16:28 There are two main interpretations of this verse:(1) It is a prediction of the transfiguration, which happened a week later (17:1) and which demonstrated that Jesus will return "in his Father's glory" (16:27). (2) It refers to the Son of Man's authority and kingly reign in his postresurrection church. Some of his disciples will witness—even participate in—this as described in the book of Acts. The context seems to favor the first view. See note on 2Pe 1:16.

84) The first NIV SB point is correct: it is the transfiguration which is in view; that is why it is only "some" whom our Lord says will see it (Peter, James and John).

Matthew 17:1 (NASB)
17 Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves.

Is there a reason Jesus chose these particular apostles? Were they the most prominent?

84) Peter and John were, along with Paul, the two disciples whose ministries to the gentile world would be the most long-lasting and most profound. Why James? John never did anything without his brother (cf. Mk.5:37; 10:35-41; 14:53; Lk.8:51; 9:54), who seems to have been the elder whose lead John followed (until his death).

Matthew 17:2 (NASB)
² And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

How specifically should we understand the word "transfigured"?

85) One could translate, "His appearance was changed", with the rest of the verse explaining the change. Specifically, our Lord appeared "in glory" in some similar way to how He will appear at the second advent. I would not want to invest the Greek word metamorphoo here with any special technical sense; the change is explained, and it is one of appearance only (our Lord in His humanity was not resurrected until after His death on the cross).

Matthew 17:9 (NASB)
⁹ As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead."

Why didn't Jesus want anyone to know about the vision until He was risen?

86) Probably to keep the focus on the issues at hand: His crucifixion, propitiation of the sins of the world, and rising from the dead. The events on the mount have to do with the second advent, not the first.

Matthew 17:20 (NASB)
20 And He *said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

NIV SB: 17:20 little faith. Not so much the quantity of their faith as its quality-a faith that is bathed in prayer (see Mk 9:29). mustard seed. See 13:31-32 and notes. say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there. ' A proverbial statement meaning to remove great difficulties (cf. Isa 54:10; Zec 4:7 and note; 1Co 13:2). In this context it probably refers to removing the problems associated with the work of the kingdom.

I'm not clear about the distinction between the quantity and quality of faith here.

86b) The Bible does not distinguish between the two and trying to make such a distinction only confuses the issue. We all know what our Lord means when He says "Ye of little faith" and "Your faith is great", so we all wish to emulate the latter rather than the former.

a) I don't know how to understand Peter's reply. Does "yes" here mean that our Lord didn't pay or does it mean that He did pay? The question is "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax", so the answer "Yes" could mean "Yes, He doesn't pay" or "Yes, He does pay".

89a) Greek is often odd-sounding to English speakers when it comes to questions and answers because Greek assumes much that English is loath to assume. A long way of saying that "Yes" means "Yes He does" – Peter has jumped past one step as is common in Greek.

b) Could you clarify the meaning of our Lord's words - why does He phrase things this way - "from their sons or from strangers" - as if it was not possible to collect it from both?

89b) I think this is just to make the point that the Heir is exempt from taxation because of His position. Peter gets it immediately, so it can't be too complicated.

NIV SB: 17:26 the children are exempt. The implication is that Peter and the rest of the disciples belonged to God's royal household, but unbelieving Jews did not (see 21:43).

Do you agree with this note? I thought that only our Lord was meant as a child who is exempt.

Matthew 18:6 (NASB)
⁶ but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

NIV SB: 18:6, 10 14 little ones. All believers, regardless of age (see Mk 9:42 and note; Lk 17:2).

Do you agree that believers are meant by "the little ones"?

Matthew 18:8-9 (NIV1984)
⁸ If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. ⁹ And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Please explain how we should interpret these passages. Do you agree with NIV SB: 18:8–9 Hyperbole: Deal as drastically as necessary with sin in order to remove it from your life. This calls for self- discipline. See note on 5:29–30.

Matthew 18:10 (NIV1984)
¹⁰ "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.^[a]　

a) Could you relate to the point made in the footnote? Should verse 11 be a part of the scripture?

b) Why does our Lord give as a reason for not looking down on the little ones the fact that their angels see God's face in heaven?

NIV SB: 18:12–14 The parable of the lost/wandering (see vv. 12–13) sheep is also found in Lk 15:3–7. There it applies to unbelievers, here to believers. Jesus used the same parable to teach different truths in different situations.

How do we know that Matthew 18:12-14 refers to believers and Luke 15:3-7 to unbelievers?

91) It applies to both in both places: our Lord's attitude of wanting all to be saved applies to unbelievers (1Tim.2:4); His attitude of wanting all believers to come back after wandering is likewise applicable to all (cf. the prodigal son: Lk.15:10-32).

Matthew 18:15 Some manuscripts do not have against you.

Could you relate to the point made in the footnote?　

92) "Against you" is not part of the text, but it is a legitimate translation. Greek often leaves things out which are understood (like the direct object which is impossible to do in English). Here the verse makes no sense at all unless we understand that "you" are the one who has been offended.

Could it not be that a sin is meant here that has not been committed against the person who is then told to show the sinner's fault, but rather our Lord here teaches how to help others recognize where they have done wrong? Is this possible?

Matthew 18:17 (NIV1984)
¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Our Lord says: "and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector", and yet he showed mercy to tax collectors and sinners, treating them like the lost sheep that He wanted to reunite with the flock, hence I'm not sure how to understand these words.

93) In my view we should understand this to be a breach of a very serious nature rather than a garden variety disagreement. Paul commanded the exact same treatment for the incestuous Corinthian man, and yet his motive was not for the person's destruction but his salvation (1Cor.5:5); when the man did repent, Paul took pains to make sure that he was accepted again into fellowship:

If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.
2nd Corinthians 5:2-8 NIV

Do you mean here that the man who was handed over to Satan in 1 Corinthians 5:5 is the same man referred to in 2 Corinthians 5:2-8? If so, how do we know that? Also, since 1 Corinthians 5:5 says that the man was handed over "for the destruction of the flesh", doesn't that imply that he died?

93b) He was handed over "so that his spirit might be saved" which indicates first and foremost a recovery (and from what we know about the sin unto death deliverance in respect of his eternal life even if he refused to recover). As to "How do we know?", this is an issue among interpreters with two schools of thought: 1) it is the same man; 2) it is not the same man. The first opinion is the more venerable – and I would say also the most logical. The Spirit has given us a second letter to the same congregation and the 2nd Corinthians 5:2-8 is most naturally taken to be this same individual on first (and second and third) readings. The better question might be "why don't some people think so?", and the reasons usually have to do with perceived non-matching details between the two accounts (not only what you mention here, but also the different impression received on a number of points in the second account as compared to the first). However, having read these epistles many times, I don't see any difficulties that cannot be explained, and in fact the second passage only seems to make good sense when understood in light of the first – not to mention that it illuminates the first. Also I think that any serious Christian who has read Acts and the Pauline epistles carefully and closely will understand that there are "different impressions" all around when it comes to lining up the historical details. To me, that is not a problem but is rather an indication of what happens when we have a very lacunose record that we may mistakenly assume is complete because of our familiarity with it (the same thing is apt to happen in interpretation of the gospels if we are not careful: cf. 21:25). When dealing with the historical portions of the New Testament, therefore, we need to take care to remember that it is not as if we had the complete jig-saw puzzle and were trying to fit the pieces in correctly, but more of a situation where we have about five percent of the pieces and will want to put them in the approximate area where they belong in order to be able to fill in a general idea of the rest by godly interpretation.

Matthew 18:18 (NASB)
¹⁸ Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

This is a difficult verse - could you clarify it? What does Jesus mean here?

94) I believe that our Lord is speaking about the power of the gospel. For our Lord also says: "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Jn.8:32). By giving the gospel, the apostles would most definitely be the instruments whereby many, Jew and gentile alike, would be liberated from the bondage of sin, both on earth (saved with the opportunity to serve), and in heaven (looking forward to life eternal). This is connected to the issue of the "keys to the kingdom", on which please see the link: https://ichthys.com/mail-Enoch and Gospel questions.htm#binding

Matthew 18:19 (NASB)
19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

NIV SB: 18:19 anything. Probably not a reference to prayer generally but to disciplinary decisions, especially in the context of vv. 15-18.

Do you agree that this verse refers to the disciplinary decisions? So far I have not interpreted it in this way.

94b) No, I don't agree, especially in light of the next verse: "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (Matt.18:20 NIV).

Matthew 18:24 (NASB)
²⁴ When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ^[a]ten thousand talents was brought to him.

Matthew 18:24 A talent was worth more than fifteen years’ wages of a laborer

If one talent was worth more than fifteen years' wages, it seems that the sum of ten thousand talents is extortionate?

95) Nice observation. Codex Sinaiticus has "many" instead of "myriads". This is corrected to the majority reading in that ms. by what is thought by most to be corrector "C" (ca. 7th century). Sinaiticus is (apparently) the only ms. to have the reading "many", so most critical texts don't even take notice of the "issue".

Do you think "many" is the correct reading, or is the majority reading right on this?

Matthew 19:8-9 (NIV1984)
⁸ Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

What was the purpose of Moses' teaching? Why were the Israelites given a statute regarding divorce that was later to change?

96) The purpose of the Law was to set apart a special people for the Lord amidst a pagan world. I would not say that the statute changed; it is merely that all law has, to some degree, to be interpreted and applied with a measure of flexibility. That is because human circumstances are infinitely variable. If statute-making were crystal clear, there would be no need of judges, but we do have that function throughout the history even of Israel (Ex.18:26), and even from the earliest days (cf. Matt.18:13-26). We add to this the additional and important "layer" that the Law in its entirety was a shadow of the plan of God, and as such taught the imperfection of humanity and the need for a Savior (especially in all of its behavioral pre- and proscriptions). Finally, since human beings were the ones doing the judging/interpreting, of necessity there would be, over time, imperfections creeping into such analysis. In a legalistic and self-serving environment such as obtained in our Lord's day (and also apparently for many generations prior to His first advent), this would inevitably result in traditions that bore little relationship to the spirit of the commandments, even as they seemed to the untrained (and unbelieving) eye to be legitimate interpretations. This is why Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law . . . for all who believe (Rom.10:4).

Is your point here about the Law teaching the imperfection of humanity that at least some of ordinances, like the one on divorce, were given in acceptance of our weakness - so that ideally there should be no divorce at all, but since God knew there would be marital problems, He decreed how such issues were to be dealt with? So taken together, could we say that the Law exposes the imperfection of humanity in two ways - firstly, by showing our inability to fulfill at least some parts of it (that has been my understanding so far), and secondly, by helping us understand that at least some ordinances which we are able to fulfill, we are able to fulfill only because in the first place they accommodate for our sinful nature and inability to live a perfect life (in this case, resulting in no instance of a divorce)? Wouldn't this mean that the Law is both a perfect standard which is unattainable and a realistic behavioural instruction for Israel?

96b) I agree completely with the first part; the second thing the Law does is give the solution by foreshadowing the death of Christ for our sins. The part of the Law we are talking about here is the legal code (as opposed to the spiritual code) which was necessary for Israel as a nation "in the world", and in that part of the code there most certainly were accommodations, regulating slavery, for example (which no one would consider a "good" institution), and the taking of interest (even though in a world of perfect believers "there need be no poor people among you" ; Deut 15:4); marriage falls into this same category: realistically (and we are talking now about the "real world" nation of Israel being regulated) there would be imperfect marriages and there would be divorces. As is the case with all such regulation, the purpose is to prevent abuse (the woman has a documented legal status in such cases and is free to remarry).

How do we distinguish between the spiritual and the legal code? Isn't your point about the legal code similar to what I wrote about ordinances which were given in accommodation for our weaknesses?

96c) Yes, I would say so. Whether purely religious strictures or purely functional societal rules or a combination thereof, it would be hard for anyone to point to any aspect of the Law which ever came close to being consistently followed in general terms – let alone obeyed perfectly.

Matthew 19:9 (NASB)
⁹ And I say to you, whoever ^[a]divorces his wife, except for ^[b]immorality, and marries another woman^[c]commits adultery ^[d]."

Matthew 19:9 Or sends away
Matthew 19:9 Lit fornication
Matthew 19:9 Some early mss read makes her commit adultery
Matthew 19:9 Some early mss add and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery

Could you refer to the last two footnotes?

97) The variations indicated by note "c" are results of attempted harmonization with the text at Matthew 5:32, "makes her commit adultery" (NASB); the insertion is not original, but, as mentioned, the wording does occur earlier. The variation in note "d" is only backed up by P25, a fourth century papyrus (and seems to me from the Greek to constitute a gloss); it is not part of scripture.

a) I'm not sure about the basis of disciples' words. They say that if such is the relationship between spouses, it's better not to marry, but what do they mean by that? Do they mean that it's better not to make a commitment that's hard to keep, either for the man or for the woman?

b) Who does our Lord mean by the first two types of eunuchs - those "who were born that way" and those "who were made eunuchs"?

c) NIV SB: 19:12 born that way. Impotent. made eunuchs. By castration. choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Those who have voluntarily adopted a celibate lifestyle in order to give themselves more completely to God's work. Under certain circumstances celibacy is recommended in Scripture (cf. 1Co 7:25–38), but it is never presented as superior to marriage.

Would you not say that celibacy is presented as superior to marriage, as it allows a greater commitment to the ministry?

98a) I think they are seeing it from the man's point of view. They had grown up in a patriarchal society where a man's authority at home was bounded only by his will and good nature. Contemplating marriage where a woman could not be divorced at will made it seem wholly unworkable from their cultural point of view.

98b) I think everyone understands that some people born male are not able to fulfill the male role in a marriage (for a variety of reasons we need not get in to any more than our Lord did). Those who are "made" are those castrated by others (as was common in oriental courts, for example, cf.: Is.39:7).

98c) Yes, but with emphasis on the important caveat, "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it". The vast majority of human beings most definitely cannot remain unmarried without falling into sexual sin. And it is far "better to marry than to burn", as Paul points out (1Cor.7:9). No one should think of physically altering him/herself – as that is not only contrary to scripture but also would do no good in terms of the incontinence of the lust in any case. "Single bliss" is only for those who can handle it, and very few can handle it. Many married men win wonderful eternal rewards. David was married (and then some); Abraham was married; Peter was married. In fact, most of the great believers of the Bible were married. Paul achieved a tremendous amount for the Lord and his single status was clearly a help in that regard (as well as a sacrifice; cf. 1Cor.9:5); but then Paul endured many things that few of us can convince ourselves of being capable of emulating, even in the comfort of our easy-chairs (cf. 1Cor.4:8-13; 2Cor.4:7-12; 6:3-10; 11:16-33; Phil.3:7-11).

Matthew 19:17 (NASB)
17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Some commentators reconcile the wording used by our Lord in this verse through manuscript tradition - apparently some good manuscripts have here an identical reading to that used in Mark and Luke - what is your take on this?

Matthew 19:29 One early ms adds or wife
Matthew 19:29 One early ms reads a hundred times

a) Could you refer to both footnotes? How should the verse read?

b) Could you explain the link between Jesus' words from verse 30 and 29?

99a) Both phrases should be included (they are both in Sinaiticus).

99b) I think the connection is that while the disciples are focused on what is going on here on planet earth (cf. Matt.19:27), our Lord, after assuring them that they have made the right choice, is also quick to remind them (and us) that this world is temporary, and that what really counts is not our status or possessions or situation here in this ephemeral and fundamentally compromised world, but where we will come out in the ranking at the judgment of the Church: better to be among the first then even if that means we are among the last now, because that ranking is from Him and is eternal, whereas where we rank in the eyes of the world is unimportant and incredibly short-lived.

Matthew 19:30 (NASB)
30 But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.

I read an interesting interpretation according to which this verse could apply not only to the young ruler from verses 16-26, who might be considered among the first in this world through his wealth and status, but also to Peter and the apostles. In verse 27 Peter says "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?", which some take as an assumption that they were among the first and our Lord's words are a warning against complacency - what is your take on such a view?

99c) I don't have a problem with that as an application. Clearly, the reversal of the worldly order of things at the last judgment is what is meant. We who serve the Lord as our first priority are often disadvantaged in worldly terms and in the estimation of the world. In truth, God is blessing us now even as we are tested and tried, and the rewards that are to come to those who persevere and truly live their lives for Christ will put all such worldly concerns in the shade. The reversal will truly be great, even among believers (not to mention the difference between heaven and hell for believers and unbelievers respectively).

Matthew 20:13-16 (NASB)
¹³ But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? ¹⁴ Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. ¹⁵ Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’ ¹⁶ So the last shall be first, and the first last."

a) How should we understand this parable? Doesn't it say that eternal rewards will be equal for all who have been saved? I read a number of interpretations and some make more sense than others, your input will as always be greatly appreciated.

b) How should landowner's last words be interpreted? Normally the words "the last shall be first, and the first last" have been said in the context of the eternal status being opposite to one's earthly status (Matthew 19:30), but here it seems to suggest that those who worked least will be put above those who worked longest - please clarify.

100) On this one, the best thing seems to give you the interpretation I have written up in CT 6 under "the judgment and reward of the Church":

With the use of the word "so" (Greek houtos, οὕτως, "thus / in this way") in verse sixteen above, we see that it is the reversal of the expected order that constitutes the fulfillment of the "last/first – first/last" prophecy. Applying this to the Church at large, the denarius represents the award of salvation which all who trust in Christ will possess equally. The workers hired first represent those who seem in the world's eyes according to the world's standards as likely to receive a larger reward, while those hired last appear to be precisely the opposite, namely, those whose reward will be the least. But in fact, the situation is exactly the reverse of worldly impressions. For our purposes here, the critical point of interpretation is the greater honor given to those whose production is often invisible to us here and now being represented by the order of evaluation: rather than having to wait at the end of the line, this group is promoted by being given their wages first (while on the contrary those who appear to our sight to be worthy of more, are not, and are in fact placed behind the truly more worthy). Thus this parable indicates that those who are truly first in God's eyes will receive their judgment and reward first, while those who may seem more prominent to us but are actually not so in truth will have to wait until later, a situation which also reflects their relatively lesser rewards.

I'm not clear about this - one the one hand you wrote that "the denarius represents the award of salvation which all who trust in Christ will possess equally", which is an identical reward for all saved, but on the other you still wrote that some will receive more honour than others.

100b) The focus is salvation, and salvation is our goal. As when Peter says "you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls" (1Pet.1:9 NIV) – even though he certainly understands that there will be a judgment before Christ's bema for the purpose of evaluation and reward. So we all hope for salvation, and to be saved is the entire point of this life; within our individual lives, some will respond better to the Lord than others, and will be rewarded more than those others – within the community of those saved.

You wrote that the work of those who receive their rewards first was invisible, but more effective, so should we take the parable to mean that what they have done in the short time was equal to the production of those who have laboured for longer?

100c) This is not an individual evaluation (as with the other parables), but a collective one – and we shall all be individually evaluated. So we have to take care in matching the details here. The point, I think, is a collective one. Israel has been around a long time, and the Church Age is relatively new – and yet even though Israel has born "the burden of the day", the gentiles of the Church Age will not be disadvantaged nor those of Israel advantaged by their status – all will be equally part of the Bride of Christ. Individually, reward will depend upon what we have done (or not) as individuals, and the level of reward achieved will be justly rewarded by the Lord, not on the basis of appearances but on the basis of actual spiritual accomplishments.

NIV SB: 20:1-16 This parable occurs only in Matthew's Gospel. In its original setting, its main point seems to be the sovereign graciousness and generosity of God extended to latecomers (the poor and the outcasts of society) into God's kingdom. It is addressed to the grumblers (v. 11) who just cannot handle this amazing expression of God's grace. They almost certainly represent the religious leaders who opposed Jesus.

Would you say that this interpretation could be true? I know you take this passage as referring to believers of varying productivity, which is in accordance with the fact that in the parable all workers receive the payment, but the NIV SB proposes that those who grumble against the landowner are religious leaders. One aspect of this interpretation which seems to be in its favour is that many religious leaders could be considered as having been in the vineyard for a long time, whereas those who come late can be taken as being the sinners who repent. Your view on this will be appreciated.

100d) No, because the religious leaders were in fact not even doing the work of the vineyard – and they will not be paid. They are the ones who will kill the Son and throw Him out of the vineyard. So this interpretation fails on several critical counts.

Matthew 20:29-34 (NASB)
29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. 30 And two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" 31 The crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" 32 And Jesus stopped and called them, and said, "What do you want Me to do for you?" 33 They *said to Him, "Lord, we want our eyes to be opened." 34 Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him.

The fact that Matthew mentions two blind men and Mark and Luke only one can perhaps be reconciled with there being one who was more prominent and spoke, but how should we understand that according to Matthew our Lord was leaving Jericho when this miracle took place, but according to Luke - as He was coming towards it?

100e) I'm not sure that the the two are not a different incident, but it is true that Matthew often calls attention to all participants instead of the most prominent one (as in the case of the Gadarene demoniac: Matt.8:28ff.; see the link: https://ichthys.com/mail-double.htm). As to where the incident involving Bar-Timaeus took place, I don't think that in fact the accounts of Mark and Luke are irreconcilable. Mark says in verse 46b, "while He was going through [the city] away from Jericho" – which two phrases taken together most likely mean "moving away from the city center but still technically in the greater area called "Jericho". Luke says in verse 36 that Bar-Timaeus heard the noise of the crowd "passing through" i.e., the center of town (verse 35 says that he was sitting by the road, no doubt on the far side of the town) when Jesus had approached the city from the east. After the healing, Luke has in verse one of chapter nineteen, "and having come in (i.e., to the city), He passed [completely] through Jericho". This means that Bar-Timaeus was sitting in the "suburbs", so to speak, on the west side, but still in what was known as "Jericho". In fact, that is the only way to understand eiselthon in verse one of chapter nineteen. So Luke adds a wonderful detail explaining how the blind man could have gotten prepared (physically and also in his heart) for what he would do when Jesus came by (i.e., he heard the commotion in the city center – something that might not have happened had he been on the eastern side of town outside of the city where our Lord first entered).

Matthew 21:11 (NASB)
¹¹ And the crowds were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee."

21:11 the prophet. Refers either to a prophet in general (see 13:57) or to the prophet predicted in Dt 18:15–18 (see note on 18:15; see also Dt 34:10–12 and note on 34:12).

Do you think that "prophet" here has a generic meaning, or is it the reference to "the" prophet?

101) It is hard to know what the multitude who had come up to Jerusalem for Passover really thought about our Lord – who is the Prophet in fact – but it seems unlikely that they recognized that He was the Messiah (which is who the Prophet is), even if that was implied in using this phrase on behalf of many. Here we have a case of the words being true in every respect, but of those uttering them not understanding the significance of what they are saying (as happens in unbelieving and undernourished churches all over the world every Sunday morning):

And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.
John 11:49-51 NKJV

Matthew 21:12-17 (NASB) ¹² And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.¹³ And He *said to them, "It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den."

NIV SB: 21:12–17 In the Synoptics the clearing of the temple occurs during the last week of Jesus' ministry; in John it takes place during the first few months (Jn 2:12–16). Two explanations are possible:(1) There were two clearings, one at the beginning and the other at the end of Jesus' public ministry. (2) There was only one clearing, which took place during Passion Week but which John placed at the beginning of his account for theological reasons—to show that God's judgment was operative through the Messiah from the outset of Jesus' ministry. However, different details are present in the two accounts (the selling of cattle and sheep in Jn 2:14, the whip in Jn 2:15, and the statements of Jesus in Mt 21:13; Jn 2:16). From Matthew's and Luke's accounts we might assume that the clearing of the temple took place on Sunday, following the so- called "Triumphal" Entry (21:1–11). But Mark (11:15–19) clearly indicates that it was on Monday. Matthew often compressed narratives.

a) Did the clearing take place on Sunday or Monday? How can Matthew's and Luke's accounts be reconciled with Mark's?

102) First, there were two clearings of the temple, one at the inception of our Lord's ministry (John's account), and the one during Passion week (recorded in the synoptic Gospels). As to the chronology of the withering of the fig tree, Mark's rendition is chronological; Matthew's is presented as a flashback. One should translate Matthew 21:19 "Now when He was going back to the city early [that morning], He had become hungry and . . . ". This also explains why it seems in many English translations that Matthew is describing an immediate and visible withering of the fig tree (whereas Mark places the days events in between cursing and withering); but in fact what the disciples say in verse twenty is "How did the fig tree dry up so quickly?" – a question which calls attention to the fact and speed of its withering and not to a miracle of instantaneous transition before their very eyes – they are seeing this after the passage of a day.

When did the triumphal entry take place? Could you comment on the point made in the NIV SB?

102b) Our Lord entered Jerusalem on a Sunday (see the link: https://ichthys.com/mail-Death-Martyrdom-Resurrection.htm#Palm Sunday). "We might assume" many things . . . without doing our "homework" first. Matters of chronology are difficult in all ancient history and the reconstruction of "passion week" is a vexed issue because there are many groups which, for reasons that escape me, wish to argue about when the crucifixion took place (in addition to the traditional position, there is also a "Wednesday" and a "Thursday" school of thought). I have a lot at the site about these and related issues. For an overview of the week please see the link: https://ichthys.com/4A-Christo.htm#2)_The_triumphal_entry_

Was the temple cleansed on that prior Sunday also?

102b) That is what I have concluded (see prior link).

a) Could you explain the meaning of this occurrence? If there were no figs on the fig tree, was it not due to this not being the time when it would bear the fruit? And yet Jesus curses the tree?

b) How can Matthew's and Mark's accounts of this event be reconciled, particularly with regard to chronology?

103) I think the point is that while in our human estimation we might not see ourselves as "ready", we have to adopt out Lord's point of view instead so as to have fruit at the time He wants us to have it (even if that doesn't seem like "the right time" to us). Had this tree done so, it would have served the Son of God; if we do so, we will serve those who belong to Him in ways we never could have imagined. The tree is a tree so not really culpable; but we have free will, after all, and so do have to answer for all we do – and fail to do.

Was our Lord's question about John's authority in some way linked to Pharisees' question about His own authority? Why did Jesus give this particular reply?

104) The Pharisees have nothing to do with Jesus' authority; He put things this way to demonstrate that they had absolutely no interest in hearing a truthful answer inasmuch as they were not after truth but only seeking to muzzle our Lord and counter His ministry.

Would you say it's possible that our Lord asks this question, because it's directly related to answering the question which Pharisees asked? So whatever they answer with respect to John, would be true with respect to Jesus? If they say "From heaven", then they will condemn their own unbelief, since they rejected John (Matthew 21:32) and in the same way they rejected Jesus. If they say "From men", then just as they feared the reaction of the people if they stated that about John's ministry, then even more the fear would be warranted if they said that Jesus' ministry was from men. So would you say our Lord here answers with a question, because Pharisees' treatment of John directly parallels treatment of our Lord?

104b) Your analysis is "spot-on". As to "So would you say our Lord here answers with a question, because Pharisees' treatment of John directly parallels treatment of our Lord?", I would say that He answers their question with a question because they are not really looking for an answer to the question they ask but really only seeking a way to accuse Him and trap Him.

Matthew 21:32 (NASB)
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 feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.

How specifically should we understand the expression "way of righteousness"?

104c) Jesus is "the Way" and everything He did "fulfilled all righteousness". So the "way" here is the only way to please God, the only way of salvation. John revealed that "way" because He bore witness to Him who is the "Way", our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in whom we have the righteousness of God by grace through faith.

Matthew 21:33-46

a) Could you explain the meaning of this parable of "the tenants"?

105) As it says in verse 45: "Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them". These leaders of the Jewish state and religion had purloined the vineyard and were using it to their own advantage, meaning that they were not doing what God wanted (learning and teaching the truth), but merely supporting their comfortable lifestyles through mulcting the nation; when the Messiah came, therefore, they would do to Him as they had done to all God's prophets who had likewise called them to account.

b) Matthew 21:44 (NIV1984)
⁴⁴ He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."^[a]

Matthew 21:44 Some manuscripts do not have verse 44.

Could you comment on the point made in the footnote?　

106) Verse 44 is part of the text and is in most of the most ancient mss. Some critics want to exclude it because of its similarity to Luke 20:18 and because it is absent in one strain of text. Please see the fine analysis in Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London 1970).

Matthew 22:7 (NASB)
⁷ But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.

22:7 burned their city. A common military practice; here possibly an allusion to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Do you think our Lord here alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?

107) I certainly would not exclude that possibility; however, its main reference is eschatological referring to the Messiah's return when all of His enemies will be made "the footstool of your feet" (Ps.110:1).

Matthew 22:11 (NASB)
¹¹ "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes,

NIV SB: 22:11 not wearing wedding clothes. It may have been the custom for a host to provide guests with wedding garments. This would have been necessary for the guests at this banquet in particular, for they were brought in directly from the streets (vv. 9–10). The failure of the man in question to avail himself of a wedding garment was therefore an insult to the host, who had made the garments available.

a) Do you agree with this interpretation?

b) I know from the previous question regarding this passage that this man represents the Gentiles who are invited to the feast and given the good news, but refuse to act accordingly (believe in Jesus Christ). What I'm not sure about is how to interpret the fact that his man does actually enter the feast.

108) As you say in "b", that is my understanding of the passage; the banquet per se I take to be the Millennium; many will come into the Millennium (and many more will be born into it) who will not, for all the generosity of the King, accept Him in their hearts (no wedding clothes: cf. Rev.3:4-5; 4:4; 7:13; 16:15).

Matthew 22:35-37 (NASB)
³⁵ One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, ³⁶ "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" ³⁷ And He said to him, "‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

What is the nature of the test here? What answer was the Pharisee hoping for?

109) Apparently this was the answer he was looking for – which demonstrates that he was thinking of things in the correct way (rather than that Jesus "passed the test"); for he says (as recorded in Mark 12:32-33):

So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And our Lord says of him (v.34):

Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." But after that no one dared question Him.

How do you think we should understand the list used by or Lord in this verse and in Mark 12:30? Do we know if our Lord read the Septuagint?

109b) I would imagine that He had the text of the LXX and of course the Hebrew scriptures memorized at a very early age. All of these expressions, in their original forms and in the New Testament express the same thing: giving God our "all".

Was this question by our Lord in any way linked to the previous test by the Pharisee (verse 36 - "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?")?

110) At this point of finally being asked the right question and having received an affirmation from at least one of their number as to what was really important in the Law, our Lord slices through several layers of pharisaical thinking to expose the hollowness of all of their unbelieving thoughts towards Him. For by asking this question Jesus makes it clear that the Son of David, the Messiah, had to be also the Son of God, divine as well as human, otherwise David would not be subordinate to Him (calling Him "Lord").

a) I find these verses difficult to understand. Jesus has exposed and rebuked on numerous occasions not only Pharisees' deeds, but also their lack of understanding of the true meaning of the scriptures and yet He commands the people to observe "all that they tell you". I don't know how to reconcile these words with Matthew 15:1-14 or Matthew 16:11-12 and even with the words which quickly follow in Matthew 23:13 (NASB):

Matthew 23:13 (NASB)
¹³ "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

b) NIV SB note on Pharisees: On free will and determination, they held to a mediating view that did not allow either human free will or the sovereignty of God to cancel out the other.

Could you clarify this view and explain how can it be derived?

111) In addition to being religious leaders, the Pharisees were to a large degree secular officials – and the Bible is always strong on obeying secular authority, even when it is far from perfect. They were the ones who carried out a good deal of the judicial and administrative oversight of the state. Indeed, it was mostly only in the area of foreign policy and the taxation necessary to maintain the defense establishment which protected it that the Romans interfered in those days. In addition, while our Lord tells the people to follow their judicial/administrative commands, He also is quick to tell them not to behave the way they behave. To me this is a clear dividing line between secular measures ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's") and spiritual matters ("and render unto God what is God's").

Matthew 23:5 (NASB)
⁵ But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.

I can understand how broadening a phylactery could be taken as an act of outward piety, but what is the meaning of lengthening the tassel of a garment?

How should we understand these words? Particularly with the reference to not calling one a "Father"?

113) The sentiment is that even supposedly humble acts which are only done out of flattery have the tendency to elevate human beings beyond their proper due to the detriment of our appreciation of the Lord. As to "father"; this is not speaking of refraining from calling one's biological father by that name, but refraining from calling another human being "father" out of misplaced respect or adulation which elevates the person beyond any legitimate status. It's not the technical detail which is as important here as it is the mind-set of making "gods" of men in the supposed Name of God. If a Pharisee was actually teaching the Law aright, he was only doing his job; it is alright to admire that and to emulate that but not to idolize or canonize or apotheosize a person for the same. In all things, the middle road is often the one of true humility and prudence. A good teacher should be shown respect and have his authority respected, but only to a reasonable point and within proper bounds. The Pharisees had created a "Rabbi cult" which produced competition for being just such a "top gun" (as is also obvious from the Talmud and even conservative Jewish practice today) – and we see this sort of thing in evangelicaldom as well.

Matthew 23:14 (NASB)
¹⁴ [^[a]Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

Matthew 23:14 This v not found in early mss

Should this verse be a part of the scripture?

114) The verse is in the other two synoptic gospels, but not in Matthew (as the best mss. make clear). For more analysis, see Metzger (op. cit.).

Our Lord's reasoning and replies make perfect sense, but I'm not sure how the Pharisees arrived at their understanding of things - could you explain what was their reasoning?

115) I would only be able to speculate that gold and offerings were tangible things of earthly value which the Pharisees really prized more than the spiritual principles they represented.

What is the meaning of these words?

116) They willing affirm that those who killed the prophets were "our fathers", and by doing so make it clear that in fact, when push came to shove, they would have stood with their fathers rather than with the prophets who opposed them – just as in fact they were doing and would do when they lobbied to have Christ crucified. Contrast the sons of Levi who killed their own brethren and chose the Lord over blood ties (and thus won the priesthood: Ex.32:26-29).

On the one hand our Lord says that some "prophets and wise men and teachers" they will persecute, using future tense, on the other He says "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah", referring to those repressed in the past.

117) Those killed in the past are the pattern (followed by the fathers); the future actions predicted in verse 34 will be the work of the sons (following the pattern of their unbelieving fathers).

Matthew 24:2 (NASB)
² And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."

NIV SB: 24:2 not one stone … left. Fulfilled literally in AD 70, when the Romans under Titus completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple buildings. Stones were even pried apart to collect the gold leaf that melted from the roof when the temple was set on fire. stone. See note on Mk 13:1. thrown down. Excavations in 1968 uncovered large numbers of these stones, toppled from the walls by the invaders.

The chapter is about Jesus' second coming, so should we understand this verse about having a double applicability and referring both to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and to the second advent?

117) Yes. See the link:

https://ichthys.com/Tribulation-Part1.htm#Day of the Lord" Paradigm

Matthew 24:15 (NASB)
¹⁵ "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Why does Matthew add "let the reader understand"?

118) I think because it requires some degree of interpretation of the Old Testament passages to "get this right"; the Greek actually says "a holy place" and one would have to spend some time in the book of Daniel to recognize that the temple court is meant. Ironically, English renderings such as the one above make it seem as if the statue will be inside of the temple (which is absolutely incorrect).

Would you say it's possible that these words were spoken by our Lord, or is that an addition from Matthew?

118b) This was spoken by our Lord and refers to prophecy in Daniel – that is what should be read and understood to fully grasp the specifics of the eschatology.

Matthew 24:20 (NASB)
20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

Would you say it is possible that our Lord is here referring not only to Tribulational Sabbath observance, but maybe also to Jewish own self-imposed superstitious limitation based on observance of Old Testament commandment?

Matthew 24:22 (NASB)
²² Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

NIV SB: 24:22 days … cut short. Some hold that this statement means that the distress will be of such intensity that, if allowed to continue, it would destroy everyone. Others believe that Christ is referring to the cutting short of a previously determined time period (such as the 70th "seven" of Da 9:27 or the 42 months of Rev 11:2; 13:5). the elect. The chosen people of God (see also vv. 24, 31).

I cannot understand the point made in the footnote - it seems it is based on the assumption that the time of the distress and the determined time period of the Tribulation are two separate concepts? As far as I understand it from your writings, both refer to the same period.

Matthew 24:24 (NASB)
²⁴ For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

Does our Lord's words "if possible, even the elect" imply that the elect can or cannot be misled?

121) There will be one third of the Church that is deceived and falls away; on the other hand, they will not then be in the number of the elect for all eternity. Those who are not deceived and persevere will either be martyred or see the Lord's second advent return (about half and half from my reading of scripture). The effect of our Lord's words is to bring home to us that the power of the deception of antichrist will such like as the world has never seen, and we should not take it for granted that it will be "easy as pie" for us to see through his devices, even though we may feel now that this is the case. It is a clarion call to become as prepared as possible in every conceivable way in anticipation of the heavy burden of those difficult days.

Matthew 24:33 Or he

Which rendering is correct?

122) Greek is ambiguous on this point, but while I certainly would not rule out "He" as included in the idea, I would not think that it is exclusively "He" inasmuch as our Lord is talking about Himself, after all ("I"), and the next referent is "all these things" in the following verse (the context has been the entire list of Tribulational events, after all).

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.

Could you relate to the point made in the footnote?

123) It probably should be included. One can see how this would be taken out by those who, understanding that Christ is God, cannot imagine how it would be possible for Him not to know. However, this is another example of the earthly kenosis of our Lord at time of writing – there is now no self-imposed barrier between the humanity and deity of Christ.

Matthew 25:1-13
a) Regarding the parable of the ten virgins you wrote in https://ichthys.com/Tribulation-Part3A.htm:

I take it then we should understand that the oil stands for the truth and the light for faith - but how should we understand the fact that all ten virgins fall asleep?

You wrote:

It seems that both these believers who kept their faith and those who lost it in the end went through a period of "spiritual sleep"?

124) Falling asleep in this instance does not seem to be of any spiritual significance; it is part of the "furniture" of the parable and serves to advance its beginning to the critical time. The fault lies not in sleeping (we all have to sleep literally) but in being unprepared for the time of crisis.

b) How would you explain the fact that the prepared virgins don't want to share their oil with those unprepared:

I understand that the truth which empowers the faith cannot be "transferred" onto another person in an instant, but rather requires a lengthy commitment, but here the issue is presented not as if the oil cannot be transferred, but rather as the virgins not willing to share it - what is your view?

125) To the extent that there is a valid spiritual lesson here I would have to say that it lies only in the fact that the wise virgins are unable to comply with the request – and unwilling. Would we really give up our claim on eternal life for the sake of someone else? That is what is implied here "lest there should not be enough for us and you". In the event, it is not possible to do so. Lesson for unbelievers: you cannot count on the intercession of your friends and family if you reject Christ.

Matthew 25:24-25 (NASB)
²⁴ "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. ²⁵ And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’

Why is God compared to a master who reaps where he didn't sow and gathers where he scattered no seed?

126) Unbelievers emphasize the unyielding nature of God's perfect character in order to justify their unwillingness to submit to Him; in fact of course He sacrificed His own dear Son on their behalf as well as ours so that His perfect justice would be satisfied and He could provide salvation. In other words, this self-serving "fear" which merely was an excuse for the unbeliever to do what he really wanted to do (ignore God in this life), should really have led him to exactly the opposite conclusion – as the Master here makes clear and as the Lord will make clear at the last judgment in each and every case.

I understand that the unproductive servant has a wrong perception of the character of his master here and based on this wrong perception he draws the wrong conclusion also, since, as you wrote, he should have been led to the exact opposite attitude - one of commitment to deliver. One aspect of this parable which I cannot understand is why the master agrees with the servant by saying "you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed", rather than rebuking the unfaithful servant for what he said about him. Some commentators state that rather than repeating servant's words, the master here asks a question - "You knew …?" What is your take?

126b) I don't see how making it a question changes the fundamental calculus of the situation. It sounds better in English, so one might be able to defend the translation (Greek questions where no question word or signal occurs are notoriously hard to locate without a very good sense of the language – they think somewhat differently than we do on this point). I would still stick with my interpretation here: the Master only agrees with the slave's assessment of His awesome nature. The correct response then is to seek mercy – which our Master always provides to those who ask it.

It also seems to me that this perception on part of the servant is obviously false since he was given the talent, so he shouldn't say of the master that he sows where he didn't reap, because clearly the servant was given a means to generate profit. Would you agree?

126c) In the analogy, the "seed" is the money. "Sowing" is putting it to work.

Matthew 25:31-46: the parable of the talents

a) NIV SB: 25:31–46 The two most widely accepted interpretations of this judgment are:(1) It will occur at the beginning of an earthly millennial kingdom (vv. 31, 34; see Rev 20:4 and note on 20:2). Its purpose will be to determine who will be allowed to enter the kingdom (v. 34). The basis for judgment will be the kind of treatment shown to the Jewish people ("these brothers and sisters of mine," v. 40) during the preceding great tribulation period (vv. 35–40, 42–45). Ultimately, how one treats them will reveal whether or not one is saved (vv. 41, 46). (2) The judgment referred to occurs at the great white throne at the end of the age (Rev 20:11–15). Its purpose will be to determine who will be allowed to enter the eternal kingdom of the saved and who will be consigned to eternal punishment in hell (vv. 34, 46). The basis for judgment will be whether love is shown to God's people (see 1Jn 3:14–15). See note on v. 40.

I understand from your writings that you consider the second interpretation to be correct. Could you explain why these verses cannot be taken to refer to the beginning of the millennial reign? Would you say that verse 46 makes this interpretation incorrect, as it talks about "eternal punishment", and this will not come until the White Throne judgment?

127) Yes, that is the clearest proof of what is going on here. We know clearly that the Last Judgment occurs at the end of human history, so this must be taking place at that time, not at the beginning of the Millennium. Also, this then becomes the clearest treatment of what we would postulate must also take place at that time, namely, the judgment of the millennial believers who, like the Church which has already received its resurrection and reward, must likewise be resurrected and rewarded.

Matthew 25:46 (NASB)
⁴⁶ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

b) NIV SB: 25:34–40 Rewards in the kingdom of heaven are given to those who serve without thought of reward. There is no hint of merit here, for God gives out of grace, not debt.

What is meant here by "there is no hint of merit here"?

128) I think the person who wrote the note is trying to distinguish between rewards based on grace and the Roman Catholic idea of works of supererogation.

c) NIV SB: 25:40 least of these brothers and sisters of mine. To whom does Jesus refer? The principal views are:(1) all who are hungry, thirsty, poor, needy or otherwise distressed—but this seems too comprehensive; (2) apostles and other Christian missionaries—but this seems too restrictive; (3) the Jews mentioned in the first interpretation in the note on vv. 31–46; (4) Jesus' disciples (12:46–50; 28:8–10); (5) "God's people" mentioned in the second interpretation in the note on vv. 31–46.

How do you interpret the "least of these brothers and sisters of mine"?

129) Compare Romans 12:16: "Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion" (NKJV; cf. Jas.2:1-6). The idea here though is that legitimate production done for the Lord on behalf of even the most marginal Christians is still worthy of reward, even though in terms of actual effect it might be minimal – it is still a service the Lord appreciates and rewards.

Matthew 26:5 (NASB)
⁵ But they were saying, "Not during the festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people."

Why did the chief priests and elders think that a riot could occur if Jesus was to be seized during the festival?

130) Our Lord was attracting great crowds who saw Him as a prophet – even if they did not actually put their faith in Him. Also, these rulers obviously did not understand the nature of our Lord's ministry but were viewing it through the lens with which they looked at all such "movements" where supporters would fight on behalf of their leaders if acted against in a violent fashion.

Matthew 26:8 (NASB)
⁸ But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste?

John 12:4-5 (NASB)
⁴ But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, *said, ⁵ "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?"

In Matthew 26:8 plural is used - "disciples" - but in John 12:4-5 it is only Judas reported to make the remark to Jesus?

131) Judas' reaction is the important one because it is one of complete hypocrisy. We can also imagine Judas, who seems to have been well thought of and perhaps influential among his peers, being the "leader" in this indignation.

Since Jesus says "to a certain man", how did the disciples know whom He meant?

132) It was more common for women (and slaves) to be carrying pitchers of water (Mk.4:13; Lk.22:10), so it would be easy for them to recognize the first man they saw so doing as the "one" our Lord had in mind. Also, we see here that Matthew does not include the detail but the other two synoptic writers do. This shows us that, clearly, there are many details that were left out (cf. Jn.21:25), so that we should always have faith that these things "make sense", even if we cannot figure them out just yet.

How should we understand the words "Take, eat; this is My body" and "Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins"? Like you wrote, Jesus didn't bleed to death, so the blood is not to be taken literally, so the way our Lord puts things here ("this is My body" and "this is My blood") seems quite direct?

Matthew 26:28 Some manuscripts the new

Is "the new" a part of the scripture?

134) Not here. Later (e.g., 1Cor.11:25; 2Cor.3:6), Paul does call it the "new" covenant/testament to distinguish it from the Law, but, after all, there really is only one covenant/testament, namely, the peace and life eternal we have with the Father based upon our acceptance of the sacrifice of the Son. The "old" is merely a shadow of the "real" or "new".

1 Corinthians 11:25 (NASB)
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

How should we understand the fact that Paul also uses quotation marks and yet says "new covenant"?

134b) Quotation marks as such do not exist in ancient Greek. This is an editorial interpretation (so no need to make anything of it).

Matthew 26:29 (NASB)
²⁹ But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom."

NIV SB: 26:29 drink it new … in my Father's kingdom. At the Messianic banquet (see Lk 22:16 and note).

How should we understand "the Messianic banquet"?

135) See the link:

"The Wedding Super of the Lamb" https://ichthys.com/Tribulation-Part6.htm#II._The_Wedding_Supper_of_the_Lamb

How do we know that these Psalms were sung during the Passover celebration?

135b) If I'm not mistaken, this reference comes from the Tosefta (essentially a supplement to the Mishnah). It is usually assumed to have a fairly early date, but that date is after the destruction of Jerusalem (no earlier than the second century and I have my doubts about it being so early). I do not know of any contemporary writer who gives these details and there is nothing about this in the Bible. Our Lord and His disciples did sing a hymn on this occasion, however.

26:34 before the rooster crows. The reference may be to the third of the Roman watches into which the night was divided (see note on 14:25; see also Mk 13:35 and note). Or it may simply refer to early morning when the rooster crows.

I always took it as a reference to a crowing rooster, so could you explain the interpretation according to which Roman watches are meant?

136) In our context it is an actual rooster crow – which Peter hears; this was also apparently a name sometimes given to the last night watch since roosters characteristically crow well before dawn.

Matthew 26:39 (NASB)
³⁹ And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

NIV SB: 26:39 cup. A symbol of deep sorrow and suffering. Here it refers to his Father's face being turned away from him when he who had no sin was made sin (perhaps a sin offering) for us (see 27:46; 2Co 5:21 and note).

Why does the note say "perhaps", as if something else could be meant here?

137) No doubt to avoid being censured for being on the wrong side of the "penal substitution" controversy (whichever side the Study Bible reader may be on), not wanting to adopt it nor fail to address it. Jesus died for our sins and the Father accepted that perfect sacrifice; getting overly and unnecessarily specific in regard to technical vocabulary of human legal systems can be misleading. We could never "pay off" our sins, no matter what terminology is used.

Matthew 26:50 (NIV)
⁵⁰ Jesus replied, "Do what you came for, friend."^[a] Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

Matthew 26:50 Or "Why have you come, friend?"

What is the correct rendering?

138) It is not a question. The rendering in the main text is the best way to take this, literally "for which you came" (statement) = "[Get on with doing the thing] for which you came".

NIV SB: 26:54 Scriptures be fulfilled. In view of v. 56 probably a reference to Zec 13:7 (see notes on Mk 14:49; Lk 24:44).

The NIV SB note suggests that Zechariah 13:7 is meant by our Lord, but could these words be taken as a more general reference to all of the crucifixion?

Matthew 26:63 (NASB)
⁶³ But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."

a) Did the high priest say "whether You are the Christ, the son of God" because he knew that Christ was to be the son of God, or did he just use this title because Jesus used it to describe himself?

140) I think his motive was to have Jesus incriminate Himself; in God's plan it provides the perfect unveiling of the truth – and demonstrates the total hardness of the Jewish rulers against the truth.

b) NIV SB: 26:63 I charge you under oath. Jesus refused to answer the question of v. 62 (see v. 63a). But when the high priest used this form, Jesus was legally obliged to reply.

Do you agree with the footnote?

141) The former was a false accusation; the latter was a direct request for the truth of a statement. Our Lord had no interest as well as no obligation to reply to false charges; but His entire public ministry was dedicated to the truth. There is no longer any need for parables in imparting the truth, moreover, since the day of the great sacrifice by which we are saved is now at hand.

Some commentators propose that our Lord here was obliged to answer based on Leviticus 5:1 - what is your take?

Matthew 26:65-66 (NASB)
⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; ⁶⁶ what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!"

a) NIV SB: 26:65 tore his clothes. Ordinarily the high priest was forbidden by law to do this (Lev 10:6; 21:10), but this was considered a highly unusual circumstance. The high priest interpreted Jesus' answer in v. 64 as blasphemy (see note on Mk 14:64).

I take it that breaking the Law by the high priest went unnoticed?

142) More importantly, wrongly condemning an innocent man to death for political purposes is "breaking the Law" – even though it is never spelled out that way.

b) Why does the high priest ask "what do you think" having already torn his clothes?

143) No doubt to compel everyone else to join in the false accusation and thus share the blame for the judicial murder.

Matthew 27:6 (NASB)
⁶ The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."

Was it a commandment of the Law not to put "the price of blood" into the treasury?

144) I'm not aware of this "treasury" per se being in the Law, but we do have this in Deuteronomy:

Matthew 27:16 Many manuscripts do not have Jesus; also in verse 17.

Could you relate to the point in the footnote?

145) It's not part of the true text.

Matthew 27:19 (NASB)
¹⁹ While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him."

Could we take this occurrence as an indication that God gives chances to repent and it is by our wilful choices that we condemn ourselves? I suppose the whole crucifixion can be interpreted in this way - there is no way to pierce through a hardened heart.

146) I would strongly agree.

NIV SB: 27:24 washed his hands. See Dt 21:6; Ps 26:6 and notes; 73:13.

NIV SB gives scriptural references for Pilate's gesture, but he wasn't a believer, so I don't know how they relate to the point. Was washing of hands a gesture known in cultures beyond Jewish?

147) Pilate was a shrewd and professional Roman official. As any good governor of a foreign province or occupied territory or any ambassador would do, Pilate took pains to learn something about the culture and practices of his charges. He went along with the demand for crucifixion to avoid being charged with indifference to defiance of Caesar, but with this coopted and adapted ritual, he makes it clear that he was well aware of Jesus' innocence.

Matthew 27:46 Some manuscripts Eloi, Eloi

Could you relate to the footnote?

148) They mean the same thing but the version in the note is the more normal Aramaic rendering of "my God", and that is what Jesus actually said.

Matthew 27:50-51 (NASB)
⁵⁰ And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. ⁵¹ And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

Why was the veil of the temple torn after Jesus' physical death rather than right after His payment for sins?

149) A good question. The actual way into heaven was cleared by His spiritual death; this splitting of the veil, however, was to symbolize that victory, and those watching – even the believers – could scarcely have been expected to understand yet the difference between His spiritual death and the physical death that now occurred as our Lord lay down His life by giving up His spirit.

Matthew 27:52-53 (NASB)
⁵² The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; ⁵³ and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

What was the reason the bodies of saints being raised?

150) This temporary resuscitation was a vivid demonstration of the life-giving power of our Lord's sacrifice (cf. 2Ki.13:21).

Matthew 27:54 (NASB)
⁵⁴ Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

Is there any chance this was the centurion mentioned in chapter 8?

151) Possible, but there were a good number of centurions in Judea at the time, and the duties undertaken by the one on Good Friday seem to be those of a lower order of rank than the man who had resources to bless the local Jewish community (roughly speaking, centurions were both the "senior NCO" and the "officer class", though not generals, of the Roman army, so that the difference between a relatively junior one versus a relatively senior one could be as great as that of an SFC and a full Colonel today).