MSB Book Notes on Matthew:
Matthew was the other name of Levi (Mt 9:9).  In Matthew's own list of the 12 apostles of Christ, he calls himself a "tax collector".  This is the only place it says this.  The other gospels, when referring to Matthew's past sins, use the name Levi.  Matthew was unchallenged as the author of the book in the early church back as far as Origen (AD 185-254).  It may have been written as early as 50 AD, less than 20 years after the crucifixion.

It is also widely accepted that the book is written to the converts from Judaism.  The first clue to this is that the genealogy of Jesus in Chapter 1 is only traced back to Abraham, not all the way to Adam.  Matthew quotes the OT more than 60 times to "prove" that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.  Matthew refers to the "kingdom of heaven" instead of the other gospels' "kingdom of God" so as not to offend Jewish sensibilities about using the actual name of God.  Matthew is very focused and repetitive as to Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, including what might otherwise be viewed as "incidental details" in the life of Christ that tie to OT prophecy as proof that Jesus is Messiah.  This is the theme to remember in Matthew.  Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies, showing convincingly to any receptive mind, that Jesus is the Messiah.
As part of this theme, Matthew uses the term "kingdom of heaven" some 32 times, indicating that Jesus is the promised King of the Jews.
Matthew records five major discourses of Jesus.  I think they are worth listing, as found in the MSB notes:
1, The Sermon on the Mount (5-7), 2, the commissioning of the apostles (10), 3, the parables about the kingdom (chap 13), 4, the discourses about the child-likeness of the believer (chapter 18), and 5, the discourse on His second coming (chapter 24, 25).  Each of these ends with a variation of the clause "when Jesus had finished these words", which act in the book to signal that one section is closing, and another opening.  The opening section of the book is long (Chapters 1-4), and the closing section short (28:16-20), and the five are bracketed in between.  Some see the five sections as reminiscent of the 5 books of Moses.
Israel's rejection of Christ as Messiah is another recurring theme of the book, with the attacks on Jesus by the religious establishment portrayed more strongly in Matthew than in the other gospels.
It is important to note that the organization of this book is about the five discourses, and the thematic material that relates to that discourse.  As such, there is no attempt at a strict chronology in Matthew, and he freely puts events out of order in relation to the other gospels.  (I'm guessing it is going to be pretty broken up then in this chronological reading of the Bible.)

Yikes...John MacArthur just told me I was wrong about 70 AD.  Here it is, pretty much quoted from the MSB:
The prophetic passages present a particular interpretive challenge.  Jesus' Olivet discourse, for example, contains some details that evoke images of the violent destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  Jesus' words in 24:34 have led some to conclude that all these things were fulfilled - albeit not literally - in the Roman conquest of that era.  This is the view known as "preterism".  (So there's a name for it!  And I'm not the only one at all!)  But this is a serious interpretive blunder, forcing the interpreter to read into these passages spiritualized, allegorical meanings unwarranted by normal exegetical methods. (That is John's conclusion.  Thinking it is about 70 AD is a "blunder", not just a mistake.  Man...I don't like to be on the wrong side of that...)  The grammatical-historical hermeneutical approach to these passages is the approach to follow, and it yields a consistently futuristic interpretation of crucial prophecies.
So that's what John says it's about.

Chapter 1
The first 17 verses are the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph.  Jesus' earthly father's genealogy.  This is the one that has the 14's in it, that many dispute and I believe are demonstrably compressed.  There are many explanations for this.  I am satisfied that the Bible is not disproved by this.

Beginning in 18 we have the story of Jesus' birth.  Says right up front that Mary was pregnant before she was married.  Joseph decides NOT to shame her, NOT to react with pride.  An angel comes to Joseph in a dream.  The angel's name is not mentioned.  (In Luke Gabriel went to both Mary and Zachariah.  Joseph is not mentioned.)  The angel tells Joseph to go ahead and marry Mary, because the child she carries is not conceived in sin, but is from the Holy Spirit.  Then we get Matthew's first "appeal" to the OT:
23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). [Mat 1:23 ESV]  (MSB gives three OT references here, all from Isaiah: 7:14, 9:6,7, 8:10.)

Joseph marries Mary, and remains celibate until after she gives birth, and names the son Jesus.

The wise men arrive in Jerusalem.  They ask where the new king is.  At this point, it doesn't say they asked this of Herod himself.  Just that they asked, and they asked because they'd seen his star.  The time of their arrival is "after Jesus was born in Bethlehem".  So literally, it could be any time, from five minutes to five decades.  This doesn't really  narrow it down.  The narrowing is only that Herod was King.  Herod is "troubled" as is all Jerusalem.  Herod inquires of his wise men, and learns that this child, this king, was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem.  MSB says in a footnote that this was Herod the Great, first of the Herodian dynasty.  He ruled from 37-4 BC.  This pins Jesus birth down to 4 BC or earlier, obviously.  Another footnote indicates that they were "continuously asking" where the king was, so I got that right.  To this point, they have not spoken to Herod.

2021 - The magi - who were undoubtedly recognized for the almost mystical knowledge of everything that they possessed - show up in the capitol city asking about a new king.  That's like aliens showing up in Washington DC and asking to see the new King of the US.  It would have sowed anxiety and perplexity through that whole city, and likely spread through the rest of the country from there.

2021 - An interesting thing in vs. 2.  There is a TCR that seems to indicate that the verse can read either "in the east" or "when it rose".    In fact, in the KJV, the phrase is almost exclusively translated "in the east".  Begs the question of why ESV translates it "when it rose".  Here is the same word in a different verse:  27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [Mat 24:27 ESV]  You probably wouldn't say when the lightning rises...Just interesting I think.

2021 - Note that Herod first summons the chief priests and scribes.  He turns first to the Jewish religious authorities, not to his own secular advisors.  And he asks where Christ will be born.  He apparently sees this possibility as the only explanation for the questions of the Magi.

2024 - This verse:
4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. [Mat 2:4 ESV]
4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. [Mat 2:4 NASB95]
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. [Mat 2:4 KJV]
To show that NASB95 for some reason translates "Christos" as Messiah here, but elsewhere translates the word as "Christ".  You wouldn't say the "Lord Jesus Messiah" would you?  So why did they do this?  Also interesting is that the KJV leaves out the definite article before Christ, while ESV and NASB put it in.  Why, I wonder?

Matthew quotes OT scripture, from Mic 5:2, as to the place He would be born.  

In vs 7, Herod summons the wise men, and speaks to them personally.  He was most interested in when the star had appeared.  They go on to Bethlehem - perhaps Herod even informed them that was the place to look - or not, since the star reappeared and guided them.  In any case, they do find Jesus in Bethlehem.  2021 - Herod exchanges information with them.  He gives them a location, they give him a time frame.  Both gain information they did not previously have.

They follow the star to "the house" - not the stable - and find Jesus there.  Either a room opened up in the inn, or this was some time later.  (MSB note says they had moved to a house by this time.)  The wise men worship Jesus, then go home by another route - NOT back through Jerusalem, because they are warned in a dream.  2021 - There is also an implication that the guiding star was very precise as to the location where Jesus would be found.  To the very street address it seems.

2024 - This verse:
12 And having been warned [by God] in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way. [Mat 2:12 NASB95].  Note that "by God" is entirely inserted in NASB95.  ESV doesn't put that in there.  That whole phrase "having been warned by God" is a single word in Greek - chrēmatisthentes.  It has a very extensive set of meanings:
1. to transact business, esp. to manage public affairs
   1. to advise or consult with one about public affairs
   2. to make answer to those who ask for advice, present enquiries or requests, etc.
       1. of judges, magistrates, rulers, kings
2. to give a response to those consulting an oracle, to give a divine command or admonition, to teach from heaven
   1. to be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed
   2. to be the mouthpiece of divine revelations, to promulgate the commands of God
3. to assume or take to one's self a name from one's public business
   1. to receive a name or title, be called
So I am going with the bolded definition.  But I think there ought to be an acknowledgement here that the Magi likely inquired of God before they decided what to do next.  It is also quite clear what NASB was trying to do by inserting "God" into the translation.  
Note that we see this same word, and the same interpretation in NASB, in vs 22.  KJV does it like NASB.  ESV is the only one different.  I think ESV is refusing to presume that the divine instruction comes specifically from Theos.  It is interesting thought that angels speak to Joseph on at least three occasions, but in these two warning, no angel is mentioned.  You can make a really good argument that this warning was from God.  But translating based on the best argument is called interpretation, not translation and we see here that ESV is going to great lengths - and breaking with some pretty credible predecessors - in not doing so.

Joseph gets a second angelic message in a dream, telling him to "Rise..." and go to Egypt. The way it is worded makes it seem like he got up and headed out in the middle of the night.  (2021 - Might just be that he packed the next day and then waited to leave until dark so no one would be able to direct pursuers to where they might have gone.)  Perhaps so none of the residents of Bethlehem could point out the way they had gone.  He was to stay in Egypt until recalled.  This fulfilled another prophecy - Hosea 11:1.  2021 - Yes...but when Israel came out of Egypt in Pharoah's time, Jesus was already prophesied and seems to me to be as likely a candidate for...nooooo....Hosea was long after Egypt.  Hosea wasn't talking history, he was talking future.  Or not...here is the actual verse:  1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. [Hos 11:1 ESV]  This seems to be saying that when the nation of Israel was just barely a nation, God called them - or His Son.  The next verse also seems to be Hosea looking backward, not forward.  Or we get into that whole "double meaning" assigned to so much of OT prophecy.)

This verse, indicating the ruthlessness, cruelty, and perhaps even demonic possession of Herod:
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. [Mat 2:16 ESV]

No indication of how many young males were killed.  But not just in the town, but in ALL that region.  Herod puts some brackets around the time the star showed up, and kills any male children born within those brackets.  He could have gone back some to before it showed up, as if it signaled that He had been born, and for some time after, in case it signaled that he would be born.  If he was possessed by Satan, then somehow, the actual place, time, and current location of Jesus was kept secret from Satan so that even he could not be sure of killing the right child.  This makes me lean toward Herod the Great just being a living horror than toward a supernatural attack on Jesus.

Matthew quotes Jer 31:15, written of the wailing in Jerusalem when Babylon captured the city.  Typology.  I believe Matthew, and the other disciples, knew exactly which scriptures were near/far by this time, because Jesus taught them these things between his resurrection and ascension, plus they received the Holy Spirit in Acts.  This book was written well after the actual events.

Joseph's dreams are visited for the third time by an angel.  This one also says "arise", and sends him back to Israel.  There is no mention of nighttime.  So maybe the nighttime departure from Bethlehem was his own idea.  Or maybe the angel at that time - and this - conveyed more information than is recorded.  Who gave Matthew this information, after all...?

As Joseph nears Israel, he hears that Herod's son Archelaus is now reigning in Judea.  Again, Joseph is warned in a dream (the fourth instance) and he "withdraws" to Nazareth, the old hometown.  This fulfills another OT prophecy referenced by Matthew.  
MSB note says there is no OT scripture that says this directly.  MSB thinks it most likely that the term "Nazarene" was used as a metaphor for one despised and detestable.  As in, it was a current idiom, or figure of speech in Matthews time.  We have similar terms.  If this is the case, when Matthew says this was prophecy fulfilled, he could have been talking about these, also from MSB:
Ps 22:6-8, Isa 49:7, and 53:3.
6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; 8 "He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" [Psa 22:6-8 ESV]
7 Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you." [Isa 49:7 ESV]
3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [Isa 53:3 ESV]
These verses all "fit" in the context of Nazarene being a figure of speech.

11/30, found  this MSB note this morning, and wanted to include it here.  Good for filling in the history.
2:22 Archelaus.  Herod's kingdom was divided 3 ways and given to his sons: Archelaus ruled Judea, Samaria, and Idumea; Herod Philip II ruled the regions N of Galilee (Luke 3:1);  Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1).  History records that Archelaus was so brutal and ineffective that he was deposed by Rome after a short reign and replaced with a governor appointed by Rome.  Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of Judea.  Herod Antipas is the main Herod in the gospel accounts.  He was the one who had John the Baptist put to death (14:1-12), and examined Christ on the eve of the crucifixion.

This chapter begins with the ministry of John the Baptist.  So John is an adult already, and preaching.  Likely he is 30 or so years old.  In vs 3 Matthew says that John and his preaching is a fulfillment of scripture, which Matthew quotes as Is 40:3.
3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. [Isa 40:3 ESV]
Note the difference in the way ESV punctuates this verse and the way we usually say it!  ESV punctuates it so that the way is in the wilderness.  As I always "heard" it, the voice was in the wilderness.  Wonder which is correct?  The old way seems better to me.  John was in the wilderness.
Many were moved by John's message, likely without realizing that he was the one prophesied in Isaiah.  God must have prepared many for the initiation of the church age which was now coming to pass.  This verse:
6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. [Mat 3:6 ESV]
"Confessing" is very likely a verb showing continuous action.  They probably didn't confess, get baptized and then confess no more.  Would like to look this up.
vs 7-10 are John's message to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who both came to hear him.  He warned them of the wrath, and he warned them that it was futile to depend on their heritage - their birth as traceable descendants of Abraham - for salvation.  John told them they should be doing "works in keeping with repentance".  If correctly translated, this verse also says that the works are a result of repentance, NOT a path to repentance!  Another good phrase for study.  Another part of the message in these verses is here:
10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [Mat 3:10 ESV]
This acknowledges/predicts/prophesies that Israel will reject Christ in the main.  It timestamps what is about to happen as the coming completion of the double punishment and of the cutting off of Israel until the end times.  Israel was looking for the coming of Christ as the beginning of their restoration - which it will someday be - when in reality his coming was the end of their part in the history of the world for a very long time.  God's work with the nation of Israel was coming to an abrupt end, and the beginning of His work with the church was about to start.
This message:
11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. [Mat 3:11 ESV]
"For" repentance...or because repentance?  KJV and NKJV say "unto".  NLT says - paraphrased a little - "I baptize those who repent" which is what I would have guessed.  But this is the only one that translates it this way...making me think that like me, their translation is based on prior thinking rather than on what it actually says.  Don't do this.  Might still be worth a deeper look.
MSB has extensive notes on this verse also.  It says there are three baptisms here.  Baptism with water for repentance, which symbolized cleansing.  I wonder if repentance is "continuous"?  This is what John's was about.  Baptism with the Holy Spirit, which all believers in Christ receive, and with fire.  MSB says that since fire is used throughout this context as judgement, this baptism is what unbelievers will receive.  It is a baptism of judgement.  I never heard it put this way before.  Makes sense though since non-bearing trees are thrown into the fire.  End of vs 12 also refers to the chaff being thrown into the fire.  Pretty obvious when someone tells you about it...

Then in vs 13-17 we have the baptism of Jesus.  And these very important verses, which set Christianity apart from all others:
16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [Mat 3:16-17 ESV]
Jesus, the Son, present physically, dripping wet, the Spirit of God, "like" a dove, but not a physical entity, and a voice from an invisible source but originating in heaven, all in the same scene at the same time.  These are the three distinguishable persons of the One True God, all present together, and obviously separate.  Three functions, one God, three roles, one God.  None greater, none lesser.  Three manifestations to accomplish one end.

​

2024 - These verses:
14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. [Mat 3:14-15 ESV].
Why did John need to be baptized by Jesus?  Jesus acknowledges the truth of this by his answer.  "Well, yes, I know, but for bigger reasons, you must baptize me instead".  We have no record that John was EVER baptized, so it was certainly not necessary to save John.  So what then was the efficacy of baptism and what was the "authority structure" of who ought to baptize whom?

This chapter is titled "The Temptation of Jesus".  This happens after Jesus is baptized.  The wording indicates it was the "next" thing, but it does not specifically say that.  (2021 - Interesting that Rummage preached on Luke's version of the temptation yesterday.  A very good message. The order of the temptations is different in Matthew and Luke.)
Jesus fasts for 40/40.  Then he was hungry, and "the tempter", all lower case, shows up and says:
3 And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." [Mat 4:3 ESV]
Why would this have been a sin?   Because Jesus was flesh, and to use power that other men don't have would have been somehow "cheating"?  
MSB says that Jesus was tempted as to "the lust of the flesh", (vss 2,3), "the lust of the eyes", (vss 8. 9), and "the pride of life", (vss 5, 6).  These phrases are from later in the NT.  MSB explains the temptation by saying that Satan was trying to get Jesus to use the very power he had laid aside at the incarnation.  To "violate the terms" of the required redemption.
Next, "throw yourself down" and angels will be sent to help you.  Satan quotes scripture from two different places.  He has read the word, and knows it better than we do.  This would have been wrong because it "dares" God by doing something you shouldn't do anyway - because it belittles the life God gave us to do as He wills, not as we do, as Esau did with his birthright.  
Satan then offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world.  Jesus was going to get those anyway.  So after resisting these three temptations, Jesus tells the devil to be gone, and he leaves.  Angels come, on their own, not summoned, and minister to him.  Do we ever get to a point where temptation goes away and doesn't come back?
2022 - Isn't it interesting that the tempter waits until day 40 to test Jesus with food?  I think Satan does this same thing to us today.  We might be trying very hard to avoid some particular sin, and while focused on that, we are suddenly overcome and "lose" on another front  I have noticed this over and over and over.  For me, there are about four things that I constantly struggle with.  I seem to be able to "hold the line" on whichever one I'm focused on at the  time, but then I slip up somewhere else.  I suspect that everyone is like this.  While you're focused on behaving yourself in traffic, you get lazy and don't get the yard mowed.  In other words, while focusing on not getting angry, you succumb to sloth.  Satan does this on purpose.  I think we all ought to know which sins need the most work.  Anger, and sloth are two big ones, but I think pride instead of humility is also a big one.  And then there are specific sins, like alcohol that we decide to stop.  If we decide that, then Satan will keep tempting us with alcohol high on his list.  He knows that failure is often cascading, and he knows that domino is an "easy" one to tip.  So while you're focused on not drinking, he has every car on the  highway cut  us off in traffic, so that we get totally angry.  And as soon as we shift our focus to that, someone offers us a drink...while we're down.  

2020-Who told Matthew and the other writers about these temptations?  I don't think anyone was with Jesus for these 40 days, and Matthew had not been called to be an apostle yet in any case.  Luke, who never met Jesus, also writes about it.  Only Jesus knew about it to start with.  You have to wonder why neither of them put it in "discourse" format, as Jesus related to them the details of this time in his life, just before he started his public ministry.  2021 - All scripture is inspired.  God may have revealed the details of the temptation to the gospel writers directly.  We usually don't think of these things in the NT that way, but scripture as a whole certainly cannot be explained without direct revelation.  How would Moses record the six days of creation?   How would Daniel record the next 1000 years of history?  I think it is ok to ask the question about where the information came from, but writing scripture is not detective work.  It is inspired, and we should therefore not require a "man made" explanation for what it says.

Next title is "Jesus Begins His Ministry".  Again, there is no time frame given but the sense is immediate.  This verse:
12 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. [Mat 4:12 ESV]  Jesus chooses to stay away from Jerusalem at this time.  The political climate was "hot" and Jesus knew when the time would be right.  So Jesus begins his ministry in Galilee, far away from the hotbed of politics.  

Jesus moves from Nazareth to Capernaum, fulfilling another prophecy that Matthew quotes from the OT.  It's the one about the people living in shadow seeing a great light.  A messianic scripture from Is 9:1, 2.  This verse:
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Mat 4:17 ESV]
John's message was "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins".  The theme of both was repentance.  It was about a change of heart.  It was about "choosing" to follow God, not about "following the rules".
2022 - Note that Jesus moves from Nazareth to Capernaum.  Mary, his mother, was still alive, because we see her all the way up to the cross.  He would have been living with her in Nazareth to this time, but now he leaves home, with all the heartbreak that would have entailed.  He would have need to support himself in Capernaum, either as a carpenter, or from donations.  Even back then, you couldn't just move into an empty house.  Real life details had to be attended to.

Simon and Andrew, James and John called to be disciples while they were fishing.  Zebedee was there also, but not called, only his sons.  Matthew says Jesus preached throughout Galilee in the synagogues and that he was "proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom".  Matthews theme - the kingdom.  It also says he was healing every disease and every affliction.  There were miracles, countless miracles, countless witnesses to his power, undeniable evidence of who he was.  The miracles bore witness to his deity.  People brought the infirm of all kinds to him and he healed them.  There were no exceptions.  His fame spread all over.

2024 - So he was baptized, and then went into the desert and was tempted.  Then he returned to Nazareth.  He left there and "settled" in Capernaum.  I would say he lived in a house there, perhaps supporting himself as a carpenter.  He began to call his apostles, to preach repentance and the kingdom, and to heal every kind of sickness and every kind of disease.  Syrians began to bring their sick to him, including demoni.

2025 - At least so far as Matthew is concerned, this account in 4:23 is the first we see of Jesus healing the sick - his first miracles even.  In this first verse it is every kind of disease and every kind of sickness (or affliction in the ESV, which always translates this word as affliction, perhaps to distinguish it from the acute like colds and flu.  Longer term non-specific physical maladies).  "Every kind of" is included twice.  Disease is "noson" and sickness is "malakian".  Noson is sometimes translated disease, sometimes sickness.  It is not hugely specific.  Malakian in non-Biblical use is primarily translated as "softness".  It is used only three times in the Bible and is translated disease each time, in this sense: infirmity, debility, bodily weakness, sickness.  While I am just giving my opinion here, we might think of noson as something like known, recognized acute illness and malakian as maladies of unknown cause - those who were just never feeling well, who were always at less than what we would think of as "normal" for a healthy person.  These were the things that people kept trying this or that remedy for - the chronic maladies - the physicians and healers of that time couldn't really fix.  But Jesus could.  I don't thing Matthew is using a rhetorical device here in giving two different words for "sick people".  I think he is try to show that Jesus didn't heal just one kind of problem, but all problems physically.  
2025 - And then in the very next verse, in 24, NASB says the Syrians brought him the ill, those suffering with diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics (they could tell the difference between demonic activity and seizures), paralytics; and he healed them.  This is a broader list. The more they saw that Jesus COULD do, the more they asked him to do for them.  
24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them. [Mat 4:24 ESV]
Just a couple of things:  People were ill (kakos) with disease (noson as we saw above, giving still more corroboration to the idea of acute illness).  So we get "all the sick" and then we get a list:
Diseases - noson, as we saw above
Pains - basanos, which is used to describe physical torture, as being broken on the rack and such.  These were not rheumatiz or every day aches and pains.  These were debility, serious hurt.
Demoniacs - Used 13 times in KJV, ALWAYS of possession, one possessed by a demon, vexed with a devil, having a devil.  This is about an external agent exercising an extreme measure of control of a person to that person's hurt.  The objective of the demon seems to be to bring harm and affliction to the person possessed.
Seizures (or epileptics) - The literal meaning is to be "moonstruck".  Lunatic is another word that would work here.  BLB says epileptic is a huge stretch of translation and is likely incorrect.  And it seems someone, seeing the word translated epilepsy, translated the translation and got seizures.  That's not what this was.  This, to me, looks more like mentally deficient.  Imagine if it means that Jesus cured those "touched", "slow", "retarded", and so on.
paralytics - 10 times in KJV this is translated as some variation of "palsy".  I don't think of palsy as paralytic, but as uncontrollable shaking.  This is apparently not what the word here means.  More accurately this means "disabled, weak of limb". The important part is "he healed them".

In that time, Syro-Phonecia reached all the way down to and included Tyre and Sidon.  There was no country of Lebanon, though we know from the OT that the area was called Lebanon even back then.  Today, Syria runs up the border of Lebanon.  Found this in the CIA Factbook:
"Following World War I, France acquired a mandate over the northern portion of the former Ottoman Empire province of Syria. From it the French demarcated the region of Lebanon in 1920, and it gained independence in 1943."
As his notoriety for all these healings he did spread far and wide, people began to seek him out from all over the region - as far south as Jerusalem and Judea, Galilee, Syria, and the Decapolis AND beyond the Jordan.

2021 - This verse:
24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them. [Mat 4:24 ESV]
Does any modern day "faith healer" come close to making this claim?  The "pains" maybe.  Sometimes people say their pain is gone.  But the rest?  Diseases cured?  Paralytics healed?  That never happens.  Organic diseases and problems are never healed.  It is the unquantifiable, unprovable that the faith healers deal with and this is why their fame is limited.  Jesus healed everyone brought to him, no exceptions.  That is the difference.

(These notes are from 12/1, I accidentally continued from Matt 4 to Matt 5.  But the notes are very good, so I moved them to here, and will decide how to handle it when I get here.)
(2024 - I note that in the chronological Bible Matt 8 and 12 come before Matt 5.)

Chapter 5
2022 - I note from the Chronological Bible that the order of Matthew is like this:  4, 8, 12, and then 5-7.  This is quite a "reordering".  In my Harmony, we do the first 11 verses of Matt 4, and then there are a number of chapters from John and a couple verses from Luke before we get on to Matt 4:12.  It is interesting that much of what we find in the first four chapters of John's gospel is recorded  only by John.  Then there is a note in the Harmony saying that as the Galilean Ministry begins, Mark is full of detail while Luke's description is fairly condensed.  Matthew, during this time, is more topical than chronological.  This quote from my Harmony: "The mass of material makes clear grouping difficult, but there is progress in the development of events.

(2021 - Spent a long time reading the OT reading for today.  It was quite interesting...but I am worn down now.  Will read through Matt 5 pretty quickly.)
The crowds were so large that Jesus went up on a mountain (it says "the mountain") and he gives the Sermon on the Mount.  How many books have been written about this sermon?  And who it was addressed to?  
The message opens with the so called Beatitudes.  The first blessing is this verse:
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Mat 5:3 ESV]  I'm going to repeat the explanation for "kingdom of heaven".  Matthew is the only one that uses this phrase.  The other gospels all call it the kingdom of God.  Matthew uses heaven as a euphemism for God (this is all per the MSB note at Mt 3:2.  The Jews were very sensitive about saying the name aloud.  Quoting from the 3:2 note:  "...Both expressions refer to the sphere of God's dominion over those who belong to Him.  The kingdom is now manifest in heaven's spiritual rule over the hearts of believers (Lk 17.21); and one day it will be established in the literal earthly kingdom (Rev 20:4-6).
(I should re-listen to John MacArthur's sermons on these Beatitudes.  I remember those being really good.)

2020-So this year, I didn't mess up and read this too soon.  I read Luke 6 yesterday, which was his recording of this same sermon.  I had some problems with Luke 6:24-26, which are the "woes" that say woe if you are rich now, because you're done with being rich.  Woe if you are full, because you are going to be hungry.  I note now that these woes are not recorded in Matthew.  I am reminded that Matthew was there, and Luke was not.  I believe the Bible is what it should be.  I don't think you can cut out the parts you don't like and just keep the stuff you do.  But I do not understand Luke's woes.
Further information from MSB.  There, it calls this the "Sermon on the Plateau", because a different word is used.  MSB allows that this could have been preached at a different time than the one in Matthew.  Hence, not everything is the same.  Same subject matter, same outline, same beginning and ending, but Luke's is shorter and has these woes.  MSB goes on though that they are most likely different writer's recounting of the same event.  MSB says that both Matthew and Luke have translated this sermon from Aramaic to Greek.  MSB seems really sure that Jesus delivered the speech in Aramaic.  Not sure how we could possibly know that.  MSB notes that Luke leaves out parts that would only have been meaningful to the Jews - like the Mosaic law part.  BUT, there is not one thing in MSB about vss 24-26 - those three woes.  It occurs to me that the whole point of these three woes is simply that those who focus on the comforts of this world, like wealth and food and the good graces of all men, will at some point realize that these things are transient and fickle, and they will at some point seek something more lasting, more permanent, more "filling" and more "comforting".  They will ultimately see the importance and significance of spiritual things.  And very likely, if they listened to this sermon and still didn't catch on, they are unlikely to catch on later, under less abundant circumstances, and so end up hungry, poor, weeping, and shunned.  That is all this means.  It is like I had a mental block about it yesterday...and last year.  Copying this back to the Luke 6 notes from yesterday.

2023 - This year, I would say that those who focus on wealth, food, and the good graces of men - IN PREFERENCE TO focusing on the things of God - will end up in hell, and we might want to add hunger, lack of any kind of economy, and everybody selfish in their own suffering to the characteristics of hell.  It seems to me, this year, that Luke wasn't talking about the "future" on this earth, but about eternal things.  This too removes any "implied condemnation" of those with plenty based solely on the fact that they HAVE plenty while others do not.  This is not advocating socialism on Luke's part.  Also copying this over to Luke 6.

2024 - The beatitudes, vss 3-12, are a statement of the characteristics most "rewarded"  by God.  It is here, for the first time in the NT, that Jesus lays out the heavenly standard of success, of riches, of good character, as opposed to the standard the world applies.  Start with vs 3 - It is better to be poor in spirit than to be rich in spirit.  To be poor in something is not have much of it.  BLB gives 5 definitions for spirit (pneuma).  I think this is the most applicable to the usage  here:  "the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one".  Using this definition, Jesus says heaven regards those who are not governed in and of themselves, but who look instead to God. Self-made men need no rewards, but those who struggle just to get out of bed show the best character.  They need God's help, they depend on God's help, for all that the do.  "one day older and deeper in depth" guys are the ones heaven will reward.  Clinical depression is not what is in view here, but those who "do" though they recognize the pointlessness of what they must do to survive, to feed their families, to raise their children, to support themselves as single mothers.  Jesus is talking about those who need God to keep going, not those who "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps".  God doesn't prize these who will end up proud and arrogant about what "they" have accomplished. People like me.
Then mourners, rather than cheerers.  This is not about prizing those who are grieving someone's death.  Mourners grieve, but in this case I think they grieve the condition of the world, they grieve the inattention to God in the culture, in neighbors, in rulers.  They grieve unfairness, injustice, corruption in high places.  There is much to mourn in the US right now, but do we mourn for how far we are from the standard, or just rail against it?  
That's as far as I'll go this year...but I think I finally see the subtext of the beatitudes.  There will be rewards for those who display these characteristics NOT because they are deprived in this life, but because they have the character traits that God prizes.  This is reward, not reimbursement.

Vs 13 and 14 are about salt and light.  Perhaps the salt refers to the nation of Israel, which has "lost its savor", and is good for nothing but trampling.  But these that Jesus addresses, and these repentant people, are the light now.  John 1 says "the light shines in darkness", but says nothing about salt.  So that would mean 13 and 14 are contrasts, separating the nation of Israel from the church.  MSB does not mention this as a contrast.
Found these several references to salt in the OT.  Particularly interesting is that God's covenant with the people of Israel is a covenant of salt.  Need to know what all that implies!  It surely might relate to these two verses.

13 You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt. [Lev 2:13 ESV]
19 All the holy contributions that the people of Israel present to the LORD I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due. It is a covenant of salt forever before the LORD for you and for your offspring with you." [Num 18:19 ESV]
5 Ought you not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt? [2Ch 13:5 ESV]
These are the only three uses of "covenant of salt" in the Bible.  Then, here are vvs 13 and 14:
13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. [Mat 5:13-14 ESV]
Both covenants - the old covenant of salt, and the new of the gospel - apply to those Jesus was addressing.  That was mostly Jews, but surely not all Jews.  Jesus is saying that the Mosaic Law has lost its savor.  It is no longer bringing God's people closer to him, no longer making them more holy to Him.  So that is "thrown out".  And in its place, the light.  They are also the light - his followers whether Jew or Gentile, are the light.

2023 - The Jews ARE the salt of God's covenant with the world.  It is through them that all the world comes to be saved.  Where the world is concerned - as contrasted with the Jewish people - the Jews are the 'savor" of the covenant.  But they have lost their purpose.  They are no longer the "seasoning" that makes life more bearable for the whole world.  They have lost that.  The new covenant - to replace the covenant of salt - is about light and darkness.  The metaphor of seasoned sacrifices is to be replaced with the metaphor of light and darkness in the world.  
2023 - Both vss 13 and 14 start with "you", the exact same word in Greek.  I think the idea is that BOTH groups are comprised of the same people.  Those who were previously the "advancement" of God's plan for man - the Jews when they were obedient - are also the ones who will "take over" that advancement - Christians - while the salt that has become useless is trampled down.  Those listening to this sermon we "both" Jews and Christians.  They were the same people, participants in the transition from Old Covenant to New.  

These verses from John 1:
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [John 1:4 ESV]  The new covenant in Jesus' life.
There are also some verses that say Israel was a baby, thrown out, alone, left for dead.  No one rubbed it with salt.  Where are those?
Per MSB, this is the longest chapter in Ezekiel and it indicts Israel for her immoral behavior and rebellion against God with no punches pulled.  As seems to be typical for Ezekiel.  MSB says some ancient rabbis wouldn't allow it to be read in public because it is such a sad story.
As it begins, God reminds Jerusalem of her origins.  Son of an Amorite father and a Hittite mother.  That is, a people from a land not theirs.  Says when born, the cord wasn't cut, no salt, no swaddling.  They were thrown into the field to die.  Israel, before God's blessing, was just an abandoned child, not considered useful enough to survive.  God found them like this, and said "Live!", and they grew up...but were still "naked and bare".  As the nation matured, God covered their nakedness.  These verses:
8 "When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. 9 Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. 10 I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. [Eze 16:8-10 ESV]
This speaks first of God's continued care and preservation of this nation, of giving it "clothes" that might appear in public sort of.  God decides, first, to keep them, THEN He makes a covenant with them.  They did nothing to deserve it.  They didn't earn it.  He just chose them, because it is what He wanted to do.  The section on washing goes on to talk about clothing them.  I do not think then, in context, that this is an OT picture of baptism.  That's just not what is in view here.  In my opinion.  Then this verse, a picture of a mature, God-blessed nation:
14 And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord GOD. [Eze 16:14 ESV]

2020-But Jesus has told his listeners that they ARE salt, and also that they ARE light.  True, both covenants were present at this time, sort of.  Sacrifices were still being offered.  But the light was also sitting right in front of them.  This was a unique time, and this is a unique statement.  They are admonished to begin shining with the light even while the salt is trampled underfoot.  In 70 AD, the Gentiles of Rome will trample the temple, and indeed all of Jerusalem underfoot.  This is Jesus saying that the Mosaic Law is going completely away.  No more High Priests, Levites, Aaronic Priests, or sacrifices.  It has been 2000 years now since the Mosaic Sacrificial requirements have been observed.

2024 - Vss 13-16, Let the characteristics of the beatitudes show before others.  Don't be ashamed of them, don't hide them because the world does not prize them, but trot them out for all to see.  Others will know, deep down, that these are GODLY characteristics, and be encouraged to do the same.

Then Jesus says the Law is not going away, that every scribble of it will be fulfilled.  He says He is the fulfiller.  And this is so.  He will reign as King over an Israel at the pinnacle of the world.  This will fulfill the promises to Abraham, to the nation of Israel at Sinai, and to David.  All these will culminate in the Millennial Kingdom, but that kingdom could not exist without Christ's coming and dying as the lamb to which all those promises pointed.  

2023 - This verse:  19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [Mat 5:19 ESV].  Hmm...The paragraph next is the MSB explanation of why this does not mean that all the laws are still in effect.  Read closely, he says it is the sacrificial law that is no longer required because Jesus fulfilled that part.  But what of all the dietary laws?  Well...there's Peter and Cornelius that says those go away.  Priests and Levites would go away with the sacrificial law.  But that still leaves all the eye for eye and tooth for tooth stuff.  Did that also go away with the 70 x 7?  I need a better - more encompassing - articulation of what really happened here.  Hmm...that specific thing is addressed in vss 38-42.

2024 - Vss 17-20, You cannot outgrow, out last, no longer need the commandments of God.  The culture, the preachers, the Pharisees and Scribes, no matter how brilliant they are, nor how irresistible their logic, may not "overrule" the commandments of God.  One thing...Those who do this will be least in the kingdom of heaven...but they'll be IN the kingdom.  These verses are directed at Jewish believers.  LGBTQ is a completely different thing.

But then it goes on to say the law is still to be taught, not to be relaxed.  To relax the laws is to diminish oneself.  MSB says of vs 17 that Christ was fulfillment of the moral law by keeping it perfectly.  He fulfilled the ceremonial law by being the embodiment of all the type and symbology that law predicted.  And he fulfills the judicial law by personifying God's perfect justice.  MSB goes on, in the note on vs 18, to say that the NT does not supplant and abrogate the law, but fulfills and explicates it.  (Some words to look up).  All the ceremonial requirements of the law were fulfilled in Christ, and therefore the observance of those laws is not required of Christians.   But those laws are still valid because of the underlying truth and meaning they convey.  Now, we understand, in the light of Christ's work, that the "mystery" of those laws has been made clear by "the light".  Jesus shines like a light on the mystery and purpose of the law.  And since the reason for the law was to explain the necessity of the sacrifice Jesus embodied - the perfect sacrifice - the law's purpose has been served - completed - but still verifies, confirms, and corroborates the coming of Christ.

The sacrificial system comes back in the Millennial.  The salt regains it's savor at that time.  I do not really understand this - except that the part about the jots and tittles stays in.  There are promises - conditional promises - that are still to be fulfilled, and those promises on the part of Israel include the sacrifices, the ceremony,, the repentance and thankfulness and fear of God embodied in that system.

2022 - I think really the best way to understand all this is that the Law was the covenant between God and Israel.  There is nowhere in that covenant that allows for the covenant to fail ultimately.  However, the rejection of Christ by those he was sent specifically to save has resulted in a great pause within the covenant.  God had told Israel all about the consequences of not keeping their end of the covenant, and I think what we have seen since Jesus' death are those dire consequences.  He has withdrawn from them, but not forgotten them.  He has left them on their own, but still with the blessings that accrue to Abraham's seed.  And while this is going on with Israel, the Gentiles receive a great light.  This is our chance - which would never have come without the rebellion of Israel - to be included as the sons of God, to be adopted into his people, to be grafted in as a wild olive branch into the pure and chosen strain that is Israel.  We are grafted in, but the ceremonial law was not part of our covenant.  We are saved by Jesus' blood, and by that alone.  Both Jew and Gentile are saved by faith, but the demonstration of that faith is quite different for each group.  For the Jews, there was the Law, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and so on.  For us, it is the much more general "Love the Lord they God, and they neighbor as thyself".  The foundation is the same, the evidence of faith is different.
2022 - I think we see this difference in the examples that Jesus gives of what he means.  Look at anger.  It isn't just "Thou shalt not kill...", it is about not being angry enough to kill.  It is about the desire to be at peace - total peace - with all people.  It is not just about not "killing" your neighbor when you are angry with him, it is about forgiving and not being angry with him.  And more than that, do whatever you can to also insure that your neighbor is not mad at you.  This is not about the "letter" of the law, but about the intent of the law.  It is not just about sacrificing a dove when you want to kill your neighbor, it is about FIXING that problem, whatever it takes.  It looks different to those observing it!  This really makes good sense to me this year.
2022 - The examples continue to highlight the distinction between the Law as "letter" and the Law as intent.  Lust, divorce...Doesn't matter if the Law has been "bent" to allow for divorce, it is still wrong, its intent is wrong.  It is not about what is allowed, it is about what is right.  This was Jesus' message!  It is about what is RIGHT, not what is LEGAL!
2023 - It is about replacement of external ritual with internal direction.

2025 - An aside about this word for hell at the end of 22:  22 ...whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. [Mat 5:22 ESV].  I checked BLB to see "which" hell this is.  This Greek word is pronounced "gehenna".  It is interesting that this was a real physical place.  Jesus gives them a visible physical analogy for for the final hell.  Here is how BLB puts it:  Hell is the place of the future punishment called "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.

2020 - Jesus talks about how anger and lust are not just "open" sins, and only wrong when actually perpetrated.  To have these things inside, to think on them, dwell on them, be obsessed by them...this is just as wrong.  Jesus is saying that what we do spiritually - in our minds, not just in our bodies - is visible and noted by God, and that we are answerable to Him for what goes on inside our heads.  This was in stark contrast to the Pharisees, who were all about the ritual, the external, the outward compliance with the law, yet they took no concern at all over the mind.  This was a sharp break from "existing interpretation".

Then Jesus tells them that anger is like murder.  Being angry with a brother makes you subject to judgement.  We cannot love God and hate a brother.  This is where the judgement comes from.  Our sacrifices, our devotion, our prayers offered to God are moot while we harbor and continue to maintain anger with those we know.  We are to go to extreme lengths to make peace with our brothers.  I would hope that our brothers are those who reciprocate in the desire to maintain the relationship.  That is, while you might accept a one-sided settlement to keep a brother close, we are not required to sign over our bank accounts to anyone who says they'll be mad if we don't.  (Exaggeration, of course, but there is a difference...at least I think there is.)  The fact that it goes on to talk about going to prison implies that this is about "out in the open" injustice.  An example might be a dispute about a piece of property - even with a stranger.  Best to give in than to go to court and have civil authorities find us at fault (when we were just sure we were not) and require a big settlement with punitive damages.  Best to make peace, best to be proactive in settling disputes than litigious about it.  Don't let the Pharisees decide, settle it yourself.
One other observation here:  Note that vs 21 starts with "You have heard...", and 22 starts with "But I say..."  This is the first of six times this contrast will be stated.  Jesus is letting them know how they are to live with the law fulfilled.  Things are changing from what the Pharisees tell them is right to doing what is right in their hearts.  The Holy Spirit is going to be their teacher, their rabbi, and not the religious Pharisee bureaucracy.  Further, the contrast is between the letter of the law and the intent of the law!  The letter says don't murder.  The intent is don't be angry, don't let worldly things come between brothers.

Second contrast is about lust.  Letter says don't commit adultery, intent is to guard your thoughts!  

Third, the letter says a papered up divorce severs a spiritual union, but the intent - in this case the reality - is that a sacred, God-ordained relationship that makes two people into one cannot be undone, especially not by a piece of paper.  Only death or adultery can really sever it.  With God, the marriage is still in force.  Remember that God divorced Israel for her adultery with false gods, idols, and so on.  

The fourth contrast is between swearing - to assure your honesty - and just being honest in the first place.  We shouldn't need to put up "collateral" in the form of things that aren't ours anyway, in order to be trusted, or to feel obligated to keep our word even to our own harm.  Honesty should characterize us, not have to be exacted from us.  I wonder if the Pharisees found all kinds of inventive ways to "swear", and then get out of it later because of the precise wording of the swear.  As in a lengthy contract they were sworn to fulfill, but yet...still negotiable as to performance.  

The fifth contrast is about justice.  The letter says tit for tat.  But the intent is to leave it to show God's love by not requiring earthly justice.  We are to receive our justice in heaven, from God, not from earthly judges.  My 2020 note on yesterday's reading of Luke 6:27-31 talks about this.  We are to be patient beyond the world's standard, indeed far beyond it, but not infinitely patient.  God eventually reaches the point where justice must be done, even on earth.  There is "sin unto death" with God, for individuals on earth.  I do not believe we are to be doormats for any bully who wants to take advantage of us in perpetuity.  I hope I am right about this!

The sixth contrast is that the law says to take care of your neighbors, but hate your enemies.  Us vs them.  The intent now is to be like God, and to love all equally, as he does.  To treat friends and enemies alike, as He does, and leave judging to God.  We are to be like our Father.  And the proof that we are to treat both friend and enemy alike is in this verse:
45 ...For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [Mat 5:45b ESV]
God does not make a "difference" in this world.  All get the same chance, all live with the same circumstances.  It is the heart that will decide, and none can say they didn't receive a fair shake from God.  This is in contrast to the favoritism Israel had under the old covenant.
Six things here.  These are all about our interaction with others.

Pasting this in from the 11/11/21 reading of Proverbs 21, where it says "heap burning coals on their heads".  I have had difficulty resolving the proverb with Jesus saying turn the other cheek and pray for those that despitefully use you.  This is how I resolved the OT and NT teachings:
2021 - Per MSB, burning coals were heaped on top of metals to soften them so they could be worked.  Think of heating a horseshoe red hot so that it can be shaped and sized.  The idea then is that kindness to enemies "softens" their disposition toward us, makes them less antagonistic toward us, cracks to door open for us to bring them around to our side of the battle.  Is this saying the same thing as Jesus says in Mat 5:44 above?  MSB points out that Paul quotes this Proverb in Rom. 12:20.  It is pretty clear that Paul is using the verse the same way the Proverb means it.  Jesus does not add the last part of the verse, the burning coals part.  Perhaps we should imply it because so much of what he says is parallel to the Proverb.  Here is the whole passage from Matthew, part of the Sermon on the Mount:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Mat 5:43-48 ESV]
Jesus is contrasting his teaching with the teaching of the Pharisees (or some other false adage, as quoted).  Love your neighbor, hate your enemy is incorrect.  We should love all men, treat all men the same, pray for all - even those who would hurt us, because God sends rain to all men, not just the good.  We are to love our enemies because they too are God's creation.  There is no further objective involving coals.  This doesn't imply that we are to open the gates to our enemies.  But are to pray for them.
The Sermon on the Mount seems to be about the attitude we ought to have towards others.  An eye for an eye is contrasted with turn the other cheek.  Hate your enemy is contrasted with pray for all men.  Jesus is not precluding either self- or national defense.  He is not saying to unlock your doors at night and welcome thieves, robbers, and rapist inside, and offer them a cup a tea when they're done.  Not even a little bit is he saying that.  But if you are robbed, pray for the robber, don't seek him out to kill him for what he has done.  If someone slaps us in anger, we are not to reply with anger, with tit for tat.  But if someone seeks to kill us for our wallet, this does NOT say let them kill us.  It might well say give them the wallet, but it doesn't say let them beat you half to death.  A slap is not "great bodily harm".  Wow.  I think I finally understand these things.

2022 - Later...It occurred to me that their are a number of similarities between chapter 5's "examples" and the parable of the good Samaritan.  Many parables in fact can be traced back to the ideas Jesus presents here.  In the Good Samaritan, the Jews would not have attributed any sin - under the law and the extant interpretation of its requirements - to the first two men who went by.  The Law did not specifically require one to help a fellow human being, but allowed a lot of filtering before deciding.  The fallen man was a Samaritan, beaten until bloody (ceremonially unclean), and so on.  Therefore, by the strict letter of the law, it was in fact "better" to just leave him there to die.  So the purpose of this parable was to highlight the contrast between "the Law" and the injunction that came before there ever was a law, to "love thy neighbor".  The two should not, CANNOT be juxtaposed this way in any situation.  The injunctions are from the same infallible source and based on the same timeless principles.  The parable doesn't just say "take care of those who need help", it screams "something has gone very wrong with your "religion""!
How many other parables are also given to sharpen the distinction between the Law as practiced and the Law as intended?

2024 - Really, the whole chapter is aimed at raising the bar of conduct and character for those who would have God as their God.  It is not just what you do, it is what you think - it is the hidden characteristics in our minds - that God judges as sin or righteousness.  You cannot "do it right" while despising the requirement and be judged worthy by God.  Imagine how this sounded when interjected into the Jewish culture of the first century.  Nothing like it had ever before been heard.

Chapter 6
From the contrasts between letter and intent in Chapter 5, Jesus begins to lay out concrete examples of ungodly behavior that is being passed off as honorable.  The contrast is that anything done seeking the praise of men is wrong, and we should instead seek the approval of our God.  He starts by condemning those who make an outward show of their generosity to the poor.  
Then those who make a show of their awesome praying.  These pray to impress men.  But God knows what you need before you ask, and God hears where ever we are when we pray.  God knows our hearts, and He treats us as we treat others.  If we are forgiving, God forgives us.  
Third, God says that when we fast, it shouldn't show in order to impress others with our piety.  It should be for God to know, and since He knows without it showing outwardly, He will reward in the same way.  
The point of all these (three of them, interestingly) is about our devotion to God being something that is only between ourselves and our God.  Our devotion, the generosity in our hearts, the depth of our faith, the eloquence of our petitions, is for God to see and to hear, and not for men.  Hypocrisy is universally bad.  

2021 - Vs 1 says "in order to be seen".  So praying in church, with the right attitude, is ok.  It is all about the heart, about who we are doing it for.  

2024 - Vss 1-18 are all about avoiding hypocrisy.  The "villains" in each of the three sections - giving, praying, and fasting - are the hypocrites who do these things in order to be seen.  They seek the glory and praise of men.  And what they get - a little or a lot - is all they'll ever get if this is their aim.  But if we keep it quiet, if we do it for God only, God will reward us and not men.  God's reward will be better.

2020-As he did in Chapter 5, Jesus is internalizing sin, he is saying that our minds are what matter.  Is is our motivation for doing good that matters, as in who we are doing it for.  If for our "own benefit", it is wrong.
Three things here.  These are about our interaction with God.

vss 19-24 are about daily living.  We should have our eyes on heaven, work for things valued in heaven, not on earth.  Jesus says that just as our eyes perceive the light - if our eyes are working properly, then if we have light on the inside, we will function in accordance with His will.  But if we are dark inside...
2021 - These verses:
22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [Mat 6:22-23 ESV]
It is not about what we see, but how we see it.  If we see as God sees, and we consider as He considers, then the world is a good place, with more than enough to do, and doing for those that we love because He loves will give us purpose and fulfillment.  But if we see only the bad, if we let the horror that is in the world color our perception of life and purpose, then the world is a truly dark place.
Possible FB post.

vss 25-34 are about worry...or about faith.  About assurance.  Jesus gives several examples of God looking after birds, flowers, and grass, all of which He values less than those made in His own image.  Why would we worry about the basic essentials of life - food, water, clothing - when God so readily provides these to creatures less than us.  God values us. We are valuable to God.  We are worth looking after in His estimation.  So find the way to focus first on what He would require.  Focus on glorifying God in what we do.  Worry about pleasing God, not about what's for supper.  Let God show you His To Do list for you today, rather than your own.
2021 - This verse, the theme for 2020.  I wish I had noticed it a year ago!
27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? [Mat 6:27 ESV]  How many of us - myself included - worried too much about Covid?  I think you have to balance this verse with the one from Rummage's sermon on Sunday:  12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" [Luk 4:12 ESV].  Such a difficult balance.  Don't live in fear of death, but don't court death and expect God to coat you with Teflon.  It was such a difficult year.  And the real question is, what would I go back and change?  Where was the line between "cautious enough" and "reckless".  I just really do not know.  All I know for sure is that 2020 fell somewhere in between these.
Possible FB post.

Chapter 7
The Sermon on the Mount continues here.  Matthew's version is by far the most extensive and detailed on this teaching.  It may be that only Matthew records it and the one in Luke is at a different time and place...we are not sure.  Starts with "Judge not, that you be not judged."  The way we view the failures of others will determine how God views our failures.  This doesn't say we should never notice the sin in other's lives.  Not that at all.  But if we abandon others because of their sin, then God will do likewise with us.  If we want Him to forgive us, we must first forgive others.  This fits with the next verses about cleaning up our own sins before we get harsh with others.  If we behave like "hanging judges" to others, when we have even worse sins in our own lives, then we cannot expect God to give us a light sentence.  This goes right along with all those lists of sins in the epistles that are followed with "And so were some of you..." or something similar.  I think the point is that we are to be far more "judgemental" of ourselves than others, we should spend far more time finding our own faults and pointing them out than we do finding faults in others.  Because...the quicker and more harshly we judge others reflects how we will be judged.  So ... who is this part of the message for, the saved or the unsaved?  I'm sure both were in the audience.  If addressed to the unsaved, then it means a harsher/hotter place in hell.  If to the saved, then a much diminished reward in heaven if harsh judgement and little forgiveness characterize our lives.  I can't help but think of all the "Her dress is too short", or "I hate the bells" or the "they only come for Sunday morning preaching" comments I've heard - and made - over the years.  We could make an argument that he's talking to either one or both...We know he spoke in parables later in order to lessen the punishment of those who rejected his message, so it could be to them.  And we know that the saved will also be judged for what they did with the resources and opportunities they had.  So probably both.  One of those sections that has a wide range of possible expositions.

Then this verse:
6 "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. [Mat 7:6 ESV]
What in the world is this about?  Why is it here, after the judging stuff?  How does this fit with the first five verses?  MSB note is unsatisfactory.  Says this verse is about how we handle the gospel in the face of those who hate the truth.  MSB says this is why Jesus didn't do miracles for unbelievers.  But he did!  He healed EVERYONE that came to him.  Especially he healed the lame man at Bethesda, who later turned him over to the Pharisees!  So MSB note doesn't really help at all.  Maybe I'll understand it next time.  (Maybe the dogs and the swine are those who continually reject our goodwill toward them?  Dogs are not very discriminating.  They will eat tainted meat, "unholy" food, if they are hungry.  They don't even have to be starving.  Pigs eat as long as you feed them.  Pure gluttons, pure takers.  All about their own bellies.  Hmm...this seems to be on the right track.....?)

2020 - No, not a lot better this year either.  It starts with not judging, but then focuses on not judging others more harshly than we judge ourselves.  It doesn't really emphasize not judging at all, but directs us to judge ourselves first, and more harshly, than we judge others.  Because the way we judge others in comparison to ourselves is the standard God will use to judge us.  Definitely NOT saying we shouldn't judge AT ALL.  (vs 16 of this chapter in fact REQUIRES that we judge others).  Then...dogs and pigs????  Hmmm...after this section, there is a change of direction, from accountability for our thought life to our prayer life, and eternity, and the basis for living our lives.  So the dogs and pigs are in fact part of what came before, not the introduction to what comes after.  Could this be about ALL that came before?   Could it mean don't turn the other cheek to those who can never appreciate it?  Don't give your cloak to those who will never be satisfied, never stop asking?  Is it saying that we must use judgement - but the same judgement we apply to ourselves - in applying the principles just laid out for us?  Is this the "You are not a doormat" section?  The warning that some are so callous and dark and sinful that even our witness of not reciprocating their evil won't get through to them?  Hmm...maybe.  The verses do imply that being generous/kind/forgiving to dogs or pigs is a waste of time, and is likely to just incite the worst in them instead of inspiring change.  Maybe that's what it means.  Or maybe, it will finally clear up next year.
2021 - Nope.  Still don't understand this verse.  How can it go from "don't be too judgmental" to "judge some so harshly that you abandon/avoid them, because they will be forever takers".  Yet...that seems the most "accurate" interpretation.  This way of looking at it would tie in with the fundamental truth that some will never accept.  It implies that these are those we know well, and that even when given all the "slack" in the world, still turn against us.  I can't help but think of how Kiley treated Wil, how Bekah treated Wil, how Kristy treated Wil.  He cut them all a ton of slack, and overlooked some very serious problems.  And like dogs, they all chose to eat their own turds instead of try for something better.  Ultimately, I think we do have to judge, and the patience we exercise before "turning away" is the patience we also will receive.  AND, that means this part of the sermon is directed to BOTH the saved and the unsaved.  So it took three years...but I think maybe I'm finally getting it.

2022 - This is the relevant part of the definition - actually of the usage - of this word in the NT:  metaphorically (in various (but always reproachful) senses; often so even in Homer) a man of impure mind, an impudent man (cf. Lightfoot on Phil. l. s.): Matthew 7:6; Philippians 3:2; Revelation 22:15.  Always reproachful.  Don't be like a dog.  Dogs are always bad.  Impure of mind, impudent in attitude.  Impudent means marked by contemptuous or cocky boldness or disregard of others.  Dogs look after themselves.  The biggest dog gets the most food.  One dog will gladly happily let another dog starve before it will go without food for itself.  Dogs don't care.  This is so confusing  Right after saying do not judge, we are told to judge - to recognize - dogs and pigs and not lavish good things on them.  Dogs don't get what is holy - because dogs clearly will not benefit from anything but discipline, and will only accept that if it means more to eat.  Don't throw pearls to pigs, who won't use the pearls to make themselves more attractive, to clothe themselves in better behavior, but will instead squash the pearls into the mud in their zeal to reach the slop.  The valuable pearls are valueless to pigs, who prefer more food instead.  This does not say to abandon dogs and pigs, nor does it say they ought to be eliminated from the earth.  But don't go beyond basic kindness.  Don't let the dogs starve, but don't give them royal robes on which to sleep.
But still...Judge not, but don't give pearls to the rabble?  How is that not a complete contradiction?
Ahhh....Maybe we are right back to what was said in 5:17-48!  Stop looking at the nutritional information on the box and look instead at what you're eating!  These verses are contradictory ON PURPOSE!  They are supposed to confuse us into deeper study to unravel how they can possibly go together with each other!  YES!  Why would we treat these verses as "separate" from the overriding theme of this whole sermon!  Don't judge, but be prudent in how you allocate the resources available to distribute.  Spend your time where it will do the most good!
Now back up a bit..Judge not that you be not judged...Stop applying the "instructions" and think about the implications of the instructions.  We are all going to be judged by God.  This verse is not God reserving all judgment to Himself.  Does God not want us to correct our own children?  Are the epistles not full of judging and correction of false teaching and false teachers?  Of course they are.  This is not about judging, but about having some discretion in doing so - some sense of the intent of the Law.  This is about not looking down your nose at those who make mistakes, about not condemning forever those who get off the track.  This is about understanding that the purpose of the Law was to contrast the best that we could possibly ever do with God's standard, which is so much higher than that!  The Law was to show us how far we are from holiness, but never ever was it it meant to be a baseball bat with which to beat those who were less holy than ourselves!  Use the bat on others, and you can expect God to judge you the same way.  This verse is about HOW we judge, not about whether we should judge.
Wow.  Four years it took to finally arrive at this understanding - not only of this confusing little passage, but to develop a "lens" through which to view the entire sermon on the mount.  More than that, a lens through which we can finally discern a great portion of the message that Jesus brought to the world.  A message NEVER BEFORE HEARD.  Do what is RIGHT, even it it clashes with what is written, with tradition, with expectation, with culture.  How to know what is right?  From the Word and the Holy Spirit within that guides us in understanding.

2023 - The verse before pigs and dogs is about how, once we have "improved our own vision" to a great extent, we can "take the speck out" of our brother's eye.  Once we have gained so much understanding, we ought to recognize those who will benefit from what we've learned.  We would see that some people have a long way to go before they appreciate the pearls - just as we had to come a long way.  Meet people where they are, advance them a bit, but you cannot teach wisdom to a person wallowing in the mud.  First you need to show him he's in the mud and needs to go take a shower.  Then get some nice clothes on him.  And eventually, maybe, he can wear pearls.  If we go all the way back to vs 1 with this, then we are to be discerning in our judgment, and realize that we too started from wallowing in the mud and eating our own poop, if we have come to a better place, we ought to be understanding of others, so that God, in like manner, will be understanding of us.  7:1 doesn't mean we are not to judge at all, but that we are to apply judgment "judiciously", according to circumstances.  God sees OUR best as filthy rags, and yet chooses to save some.

As an aside, 2021, look at how these other translations deal with such a difficult verse:
6 "Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you. [Mat 7:6 NLT]  Dogs are cut out, but pigs stay in?  And actually...the rest of them are pretty synced up with ESV and KJV.  

2021 - Next, we get this:
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. [Mat 7:7-8 ESV]  The fact that verse 8 sort of reiterates each of the three verbs - ask, seek, knock - makes me wonder if Jesus had a different "circumstance" in mind for each of them, and the point is to seek God's help in all circumstances. or if it is in fact more specific about how to pray, depending on whether it is "I wish I had a...", to "I really need a..." to "I am outside, let me in..."?  Or is it merely a rhetorical device, easy to memorize, to remind us to pray?  Oh my....I went and looked at the Greek for these two verses.  The Greek rhymes.  I wish I spoke Greek!  It is obviously an easy to memorize passage in Greek.  That is the point of the way it's organized, and then the way it is repeated.  I really want to "hear" this in Greek!  I want to memorize it in Greek!  So what this really is is a little poem about praying, followed by a sort of "hammering home" of why you should do it, and how God, being superior to earthly fathers, truly really sincerely WANTS to answer, and wants to have prayers that He CAN answer.  Tell Him all that you desire, need, want.  He wants to oblige in a perfect way!
2022 - I looked again at the Greek construction of vs 7.  Truly "memorizable".  I looked how I might write it out here, but it doesn't really work well.  Just get a BLB and look at the real words.  It isn't that hard to do.  And one other thing I notice here.  Some action on our part always precedes action on God's part.  I don't think that means we have to "earn" everything from him.  We know from the previous chapter that he provides for our basic needs anyway - as he does the needs of sparrow and lily.  But if we want more than that, we are to request it, we are to get out and seek it - work for it, pursue it - and if we reach an impassable obstacle, knock on the door.  Surely for those things we desire, we are expected and required to do our part.  To be part of the process, to put our own effort into it.  We are likely to have to find our way though the maze of possibilities - to constantly work at finding the RIGHT way to the goal, and we can also expect to run up against closed doors.  God can open them, when we come to them, but we are unlikely to find them standing open.  We should expect all good things to require effort.  If everything in life is easy, then we are coasting.  We should seek out a higher goal, a more difficult end...life without struggle, life without effort to overcome, is meaningless.
Possible FB post...To ask is easy.  Very little effort.  To seek is more difficult - a quest, a journey with an end in mind.  Knock is what you do when the door is closed, the way is blocked, you need outside help to get in.  Surely there is a lot to this sequence.  A hard post to do, but maybe very worthwhile.

2024 - Finally figured out how to show it in Greek.  This is the TR, with the line breaks my own.
7:7  
αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν
ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετεκ
ρούετε καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν
So...Kinda rhymes...kinda doesn't.

2021 - Sooo much learned already this morning.  But over an hour on 11 verses.  I have to move on, and the two chapters in Genesis are going to get a very "quick" reading.

vss 7-11 show that God is as willing and ready to "spoil" His children as an earthly father does his.  Doesn't mean to the point of ingratitude, but surely all earthly fathers want the best, not just the adequate, for their children.  God is the same.

The Golden rule...

2020 - I have previously left out the narrow gate.  I think this is an extremely important part of this.  Jesus says that it will not be easy at all to live according to what he has just laid out.  He knows that living a life that contrasts so openly with what the world expects will be a hard thing to do - a constant struggle.  Are these verses about salvation, as we've always heard?  Or are they about finding the right choices in life, about working through the trash the world piles up atop that one right way?  And is it saying that for the most part, we will miss, we will come up short, we will get it wrong, but just occasionally, we'll find the way that Jesus would have done it?  It could be this way, but it could also be about both.  About salvation and about how we live the rest of our lives.
2022 - Or...do these verses reiterate the conclusion above from vss 7-11 that purpose, that the meaning of life, is found only by effort and struggle, and does not just fall in one's lap?  Look for the gate.  Pilgrim's Progress makes much of this concept, and of vs 14.  

vss 15-20 are about good trees bearing only good fruit.  I had a problem here when I read it in NKJV.  ESV translates it differently.  ESV says that healthy trees bear good fruit, whereas "sick" trees bear bad fruit.  This surely is a better translation.  If we are habitually ignoring God's will for us, then we aren't going to do many good things, if any.  (2023 - We're not going to find the narrow gate!).  But if we are in His will, we will get it right a lot more often.  I don't think these verses are about total corruption or total perfection - those terms apply to almost no one.  But throughout the Bible, we are encouraged to be discerning.  There is that Proverb that says even a child's character is shown by his behavior.  Remember too that in context, these verses are about false prophets.  These verses are about religious leaders - or those who presume to lead by pretense of religion.  I think they apply universally...but always remember the context.  2020 - They are about judging our teachers, judging those who would tell us how to live.  These verses are not about how we judge ourselves at all, but about how to progress, how to know who we should learn from, ask advice from, and so on.  We are STILL talking about judging.

2024 - Or looking back to Ez 18-20, where the lost, no matter the good deeds they do, are not credited for any good.  And if saved, the bad does not count against us.  Maybe Jesus was looking back at this?

vss 21-23 are some of the scariest in the Bible.  How can someone successfully cast out a demon in Jesus' name, and not be a saved person?  A house divided against itself!  How can we know????  MSB is a big help here...It says that those who "say" Lord Lord, and then present as their credentials the works that they did and not the faith that they have, are resting on their works as their ticket to heaven.  In their minds, they say "I did so much good, He has to let me in."  Their faith is therefore in themselves, not in God.  Lot less scary now...
2022 - This is a reference to the sheep and goat judgment, I believe, though it could apply generically to the GWT.  I sort of hear the "When did we not offer you food and water..." complaint against judgment.  That phrase, if taken literally, means they NEVER denied a cup of water to Jesus.  That is, they NEVER disobeyed the LETTER of the Law.  But they did not apply the intent, they did not extend its meaning to all they encountered, they did not ignore Jesus himself, but they ignored the hungry, the lame, the prisoners, the weak, the widows and the orphans.  They got the letter right, but completely missed the meaning.  Surely this is what Sheep and Goats is about, and surely what these verses in the Sermon on the Mount are about.

2025 - Think about Balaam.  We know he is not in heaven, yet he believed in God.  Balaam, though thoroughly consumed by greed, was used by God to bless all Israel.  There are many Bible stories where God uses less than perfect people to do good for his own.  Remember Jesus saying that those who are not against him are for him.  Why would God hesitate at doing good for his own if that meant letting someone NOT his own be the conduit, the vessel, the "miracle-worker".  Balaam blessed Israel but Balaam's heart was not aligned with God's will.  We shouldn't wonder that sometimes a faith healer actually heals someone.  Not as proof that the healer is genuine but so God can heal one of his own.  These verses ought not be scary to us.  Instead, they should explain much to us.
2025 - The proof that the 2025 comment above on 21-23 is right there, following along, in vss 24-27.  It is not the size or beauty of the house we build - the works we do - that determines how we live in eternity.  What matters is the foundation on which we choose to build.  God does not NEED our hearts to be right before using us to do His will.  But if they are not right, we will not have the good works we do credited to our account.  Ezekiel 18-20 makes this abundantly clear!

Jesus concludes by saying that His words, if taken to heart, practiced, and performed, will build a house that weathers any storm.  Confidence in ANY other foundation but His words, THE WORD, will lead to collapse.

Matthew 8
Matthew 7 was the third of three chapters about the Sermon on the Mount.  That came to a close at the close of 7.

Jesus had been up on a mountain.  He comes down and there are great crowds following him.  A leper asks to be healed, and Jesus heals him and tells him to show himself to the priests - that is, to follow the Law as to the healing - and to tell no one.  How can he be expected to tell no one if a great crowd was present when it happened?  This miracle was mentioned elsewhere, without the crowds.  Perhaps a quiet moment along the way?  Early in the morning maybe, before the crowds had gathered?  MSB note is about why Jesus would want to keep publicity down.  Says Mark records that this leper's exuberance after being healed ultimately pushed Jesus' ministry into the desolate places.  This is in Mark 1:45.  The story is there, and in Luke 5:15-16.  So it is just that Matthew doesn't give us every detail of this incident.  Matthew is focused on a leper being healed.  Mark records the tactical consequences of the healing.  Jesus couldn't just enter towns anymore without being thronged.  Healers today don't have to worry about such things.
2022 - This little story has only four verses dedicated to it.  But in them, we see an incurable disease get cured.  There were witnesses - at least the apostles would have been there, and likely quite a few others.  We see that this leper believed that Jesus was able to heal leprosy.  He says "if you will..." as in you can, you have the ability and the authority, and the decision is yours and yours alone.  Perhaps that is an important aspect to healing that we rarely notice.  In this day of science and medicine, it is never really about the doctor's benevolence.  Today, if the doctor CAN heal us, he does.  But Jesus always COULD, but only DID when it was what he decided.  Think of how faith healers manipulate these ideas.  They want us to believe that they can.  But they make success dependent on our faith, not on their ability.  Even so, even though our own faith is crucial to healing, it also depends on their willingness to heal.  It also possibly depends on the size of our love offering to their ministry.  And when success is apparent, a faith healer wants it proclaimed, with TV coverage and testimonial.  Faith healers heal what does not show.  Leprosy was obvious to all.  I've never seen a faith healer fix a broken leg.  Perhaps a bad back...but I've never seen them saw a cast off a broken leg on live TV.  Jesus could and did heal observable disease, lameness, deafness, the mute...Faith healers don't do any of that.  So very many contrasts with how Jesus did things.  Jesus received no pay.  

A centurion comes to Jesus asking that his servant be healed.  Jesus offers to come take care of it, but the Centurion says that he understands authority, and knows that Jesus can heal from where he is, and that he does not feel worthy to have Jesus under his roof.  Jesus says he hasn't seen such faith anywhere in Israel.  

Then Jesus goes on to say that many from east and west (the world outside of Israel) will join Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while the descendants of these men wind up in hell.  These two verses:
11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Mat 8:11-12 ESV]
Jesus is being very clear that what he offers will be accepted and taken up by the Gentiles, while the Jews themselves will reject it.  He is "shaming" the Jews standing around who are there for the miracles and the sensationalism, but do not really believe.  And here is this Gentile soldier who has such faith, even without being taught by the Pharisees and scribes for his whole life.  Jesus says plainly that the Jews are going to reject him and the Gentiles are going to embrace him.  The bigger picture, as we know, is that the Age of the Gentiles began essentially when God divorced Israel as a chosen nation.  He has already closed their ears to the truth.  Now, as this progresses, the Law is about to be set aside completely, and the New Covenant of belief in the Savior - based on the kind of faith this centurion demonstrates - put into place as the ONLY way!   Matthew and Luke both relate this story about the centurion with the sick servant.  This is separate from the official who's child was sick and Jesus heals the child from far away.  In the official's case, he wasn't sure he believed.  This centurion believes so completely that he doesn't want Jesus to leave his work just to help the servant, when he could do it from here.  Very different kind of story.

This chapter is miracle after miracle and looking back at 7, it was much the same - though it hasn't come up chronologically yet.  Interesting that 8 comes before 5-7 in the chronological Bible.  Matthew recorded some events by topic rather than chronologically.  Perhaps these miracles are also grouped by type..............No....Looking more closely, chapter 7 groups some of Jesus' teaching together, and 8 groups miracles.  

Then Matthew relates the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, which he places after the leper and the centurion, and tells how Jesus healed many that night in that town.  Matthew ties this to prophecy also, with this verse:
17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases." [Mat 8:17 ESV]  This is Isaiah 53:4, which actually says this:
4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. [Isa 53:4 ESV]  This does not seem to be about illness and disease in Isaiah.  More about the cares of this world.  Matthew translates it into sickness.  The Hebrew word translated "grief" is "choliy", and is used 24 times in the KJV.  20 of those it is translated as some form of sickness, rather than as grief.  The word translated "sorrows" is the Hebrew word "mak'ob", and is used 16 times in the KJV.  It is translated sorrow 12 of those times, pain twice and grief twice.  In the NT, which is in Greek, the word for illnesses is "asthenia", and is most often translated "infirmity", which is the word used in the KJV...but ESV uses illnesses.  "Nosos" is the Greek word translated "diseases" in both KJV and ESV.  So is Matthew right in quoting the verse from Isaiah?  I think so.  Matthew was not trying to be literal, he was being general.  Surely disease brings sorrow, death, and grief, so that fits.  This just shows the difficulty of an OT in Hebrew, and a NT in Greek, where both languages are translated into English.  You have to ask if the "sense" of it is the same if you want to question the wording.  Most of what I find says Isaiah was written in Ancient, or Biblical Hebrew.

Here is something interesting to watch for:
14 And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. 15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. 16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. [Mat 8:14-16 ESV]
Fever goes away with a touch from Jesus.  Demons are spoken away.  A touch for bacterial infection, but the word of God for demons.  If medicine does not work, maybe it is not a "fallen world" problem, but a "doctrine of demons" problem.  Not ready to jump right off here, but it will be an interesting study to see how specific healings are carried out, and see if this little hypothesis is borne out.  Note also that it says Jesus healed ALL who were sick, not the ones able to come forward, not just the ones with bad backs, poor hearing and such.  Jesus healed all.  So did Paul.  What about today's so-called healers?  Surely this is a test of their authenticity.  Do they heal all who come?  Do they heal covid?
2025 - In light of Grudem's chapter on Satan and demons, it is interesting that the implication here is that even Jesus spoke aloud to banish demons. Disease was cured - sometimes, not always - with a touch, and demons were cast out with A word.  
2025 - Here is something interesting I found as I looked at the Greek word translated "cast out".  In this verse:  12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Mat 8:12 ESV].  "thrown into" is the same word translated "cast out" above.  Expelled is, I think, a good equivalent word for this.  Sons of the kingdom does not mean saved people.  It cannot, because the saved are not expelled - not in the sense of the Greek word "ekballo".  Outer darkness?  Weeping and gnashing?  That is not what happens ever to believers.  I think this is about the sons of Abraham - about Israel - and about those who still today reject the Messiah sent to them.  I don't think even these, even Israel, can return from outer darkness.  That exile is permanent.  

ESV titles the next section "The Cost of Following Jesus".  It tells of a scribe who said he'd follow Jesus where ever he went.  But Jesus tells the scribe that the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.  Here is the verse:
20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." [Mat 8:20 ESV]
I saw an interesting video from Ligonier Ministries about the phrase "Son of Man".  Ezekiel is addressed many many times as "son of man".  Always in lower case.  But this verse:
13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [Dan 7:13 ESV]
In this vision of Daniel, a son of man - a vision of the coming incarnate Christ - is seen in heaven.  He came from there.  So when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man", he is referencing that vision.  He is claiming to be that person, who looked not like an angel or spiritual being in heaven, but like a human being already in heaven, in the presence of the Ancient of Days.  Ligonier says that Jesus is talking about where he's from when he uses this term.  Surely there is a huge contrast in what he says in this verse, in that he came from the splendor of heaven, and now hasn't even got bed to sleep in.

Perhaps this scribe was very attached to going home at night and was in fact unwilling to give up all.  Then another wants to leave Jesus and go bury his dead father.  Jesus tells him to follow right now...again likely driving home the point that this man also has things he won't give up for Christ.  MSB says "let me wait until I bury my father" really meant "until I get my inheritance", and not that the man's father was dead but not yet buried.  

Jesus and his disciples get into a boat and set off, to put some distance between them and the crowd.  A storm blows up, and the disciples are afraid they'll drown.  Jesus calms the sea.  They obviously did not yet quite comprehend that Jesus was both God and man, or they would have understood that they were safe as long as they stayed with him.  Or maybe they didn't understand that His purpose would be fulfilled, and that he at least would be preserved alive even if the boat did sink.  So in that case, they didn't understand the role they had been chosen for.

The ship arrives on the other side where Jesus and his disciples are confronted by two men, made fierce by demons and kind of the scourge of that area.  MSB note says that Mark and Luke mention only one man, possibly because he was far more dominant than the other.  This would make some sense.  Matthew was likely there, and saw both men, and put them both in.   Mark and Luke only heard the story told, and perhaps had a lot more details about the incident than they choose to relate.  Maybe they were both fascinated by what they knew of one of these men, and the other man was just sort of "meh".  The demons recognize Jesus.  This verse:
29 And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?" [Mat 8:29 ESV]
Note the difference in how they refer to Jesus, and how he had referred to himself just a few verses before.  Jesus wanted them to know where he was from, the demons recognized him for who he was - for the authority that he had as the Son of God.  Jesus says he is homeless.  These demons know he is the Son of God, and that his homelessness - his circumstances in this world - have nothing at all to do with who he is or the power that he has or his position in the eternal scheme of things.  This might be a good FB post. 

2025 - Interesting that it is the demons that begin this conversation.  Jesus doesn't show up and start shouting at them, nor does he go looking for them.  They know he is there, and come out to confront him.  Note also that they are ignorant of his intentions.  They don't "read his mind" and know he's going to send them to the pit, not at all.  They are afraid and trying to determine his intentions.  And they start to bargain with Jesus before they know what he plans.  But I do note this:  
12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." ... 32 And he said to them, "Go." So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. [Mat 8:12, 32 ESV].  Even though they volunteered, they DO NOT GO until Jesus speaks to them, commands them.  Find out if that holds for all cases, even post-ascension.  Is sound, is voice, required to command them?  Why would that be?  Touch won't do it...well, so far as the cases we're looking at here it doesn't...they don't know what he wants them to do until he speaks aloud.
2025 - I don't see that the demons purposely possessed the swine and drover them into the sea to drown them.  Why would they, since they had requested the swine as an alternate host after being driven out of the two men.  Did Jesus make the swine - unclean animals - kill themselves?  That also seems unlikely.  Which only leaves us with the swine recognizing that that they had within themselves something intent on their harm.  Demons hurt people - either the people in whom they reside or those who come walking by the tombs.  But these demons were all about hurting.  The swine could not resist them - however they work, whatever it is they do to a person or a pig - these swine could not resist them, even to their own demise.  Hmm...but if I go here, and I equate how demons influence swine with how they influence men, AND I stick with the spirit communicates with spirit, THEN I have to say that swine have spirits, as men do.  And I don't  think that is so.  Hmm...perhaps it is the spirit within us that filters out the intentions of demons.  Our spirit, our image of God, is our protection against demons.  We resist with our spirit, not with our minds.

They make clear that they know where history is leading, and ask that instead of being thrown into the pit until the end, they go into pigs.  Jesus allows this, but then the pigs drown.  So the demons likely end up in the pit anyway.  Then the people of the region ask Jesus to leave.  They must surely have recognized what it meant that Jesus was able to expel these demons from men that no one else could even approach.  Likely, the presence of the pigs also indicates that there were mostly Gentiles in this area, and the kingdom was not yet being offered to them.  In any case, they thoroughly rejected Jesus in spite of this demonstration of his power.

2023 - I still wonder why we don't hear more about demons  today - about possession in the way that we read about in the Bible.  (2025 - See my notes at the end of Grudem 19.  Several paragraphs there address this, and I think rightly so.)  People do some awful things these days - but read the OT, read what the Romans did to people.  What Hitler did to the Jews.  Thing is, people have always done horrendous things to each other and the Bible never indicates that the fault lies with the demons that possessed them.  It just never does.  Demons in the Bible mostly seem to make people do things to their own harm.  They thrown their charges into the fire or into the water to try and drown them.  They make them run around naked and wild, abandoning all semblance of decent behavior.  Where are these people today?  What happened to the demons that caused such outward, observable behavior?  You just about have to say that with Jesus' triumph over death, many many demons were sent straight to the pit, removed from the world, prevented from doing further harm.  Do Peter or Paul ever throw out a demon?  Are demons thrown out in Acts?  Hmm...just checked.  That word demon, singular, is only used in the gospels.  Never after that.  BUT, if you put an "s" at the end, you find all these:
20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. [1Co 10:20-21 ESV].  This one could be interpreted as being offered to ancient demons who are no longer in the world.  It does not make them "active", though it does seem to make them "alive".
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, [1Ti 4:1 ESV].  Deceitful spirits are shown as separate from demons.  Here again, it does not say precisely that these spirits are alive and active in the world.  And it is not demons, but their teachings to which some are devoted.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! [Jas 2:19 ESV].  Certainly does not say these demons are walking around on earth.
Note that none of the verses above speak of anything like possession.  So where do we get this idea that demons - that followers of Satan - are loose in the world and stirring up trouble for us.  You know, I would really like to have an annotated presentation about this question.
"Possessed" is only used in the gospels.  What about that girl, with the silversmiths...
Ahh...there is this....
16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. ... 18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And he came out that very hour. [Act 16:16, 18 NKJV].  It does not say demon.  Why would that be?  Is their a hierarchy that we know nothing about?  Shouldn't we know???

These two in Revelation are likely after the bottomless pit is opened and millions of demons are freed from that imprisonment:
20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, [Rev 9:20 ESV]
2 And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast. [Rev 18:2 ESV]

Here's another angle, seemingly equating spirits and demons - pre-resurrection though:
16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, [Mat 8:16 NKJV]  Demon and spirit are very different words in Greek.  Not an "interpretation" kind of distinction, but different words entirely.

Matthew 9
Yesterday covered Mt 5-7, the whole of the Sermon on the Mount.  Now we skip to Matthew 9.  8 Was full of various healing miracles, the calming of the storm on Galilee, and so on.  The miracles are arranged all in a chapter as similar events, and not necessarily as they occurred chronologically.  Chapter 9 begins with the healing of the paralytic let down into the room through the roof, to whom Jesus says, "Your sins are forgiven you."  (In "The Chosen" this the scene of this healing is very moving, and brings such a sense of being there and of understanding what went on.  Highly recommend this series!)  Matthew also records this as occurring in Capernaum.  Jesus tells the scribes that see Jesus' words as blasphemy that if you are given the authority to do a difficult thing, then you also have the authority to do easier things.  To Jesus, to the scribes also, forgiving sins was something only God could do.  They didn't believe Jesus could forgive sins.  It was blasphemy to claim it, when you couldn't really do it, and yet no one could say you didn't do it.  To them, Jesus' words were a deception to the common folk assembled because they didn't understand the theology.  Yet his claim, if they believed it, drew those people away from the religious hierarchy, decreasing their influence and position.  These same scribes also knew that only God could heal paralytics, restore sight, and make lepers whole.  They knew this with just as much certainty as they knew that only God can forgive sin. 

Miracles show outwardly, forgiveness does not.  What does not show can be denied.  They could say Jesus was not from God as long as he just claimed to forgive sins.  But when Jesus did something with a whole town full of witnesses, that absolutely could not be denied, and that demonstrated that he had been given power to do miracles - and only God could give that - they had no counter to it.  They could no longer deny.  From here, if they oppose Jesus, they had to know that they were the liars, the deceivers, the ones using the common people to lift themselves up.  They were confronted with an unavoidable choice.  Believe what this man says, or commit wilful, self-serving sin.  This must have been a critical point in Jesus' ministry, when there were so many witnesses that the scribes and the Pharisees could no longer hope to contain the truth.

Jesus calls Matthew, and has a meal at his house.  And he tells them that he is with sinners because they are the ones in need.  This can only be seen as sarcasm toward those who questioned his presence in that particular house.  They were not well either, by any stretch, but were convinced that they were.  This is Matthew recording events at the meal at his own home.  This would seem to be the authoritative account of that.  

2021 - This verse:
13 Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." [Mat 9:13 ESV]  This is a quote from Hosea 6:6.  MSB note says the quote emphasizes the absolute priority of the law's moral standards over the ceremonial standards.  What a good way to phrase this, and it applies to so many things - healing on the Sabbath, picking corn on the Sabbath, carrying your bed home after you've been healed on the Sabbath.  All these things are about the priority of these two pillars of the law of Moses.  It's not just the deeds, in fact the deeds are a distant second.  But Jesus goes on...He is not even there for the "righteous".  So is Jesus saying he was there to bring sinners to repentance only, and not to make the righteous more righteous?  I suppose so...but remember that there is none righteous, no not one.  He is sending these doubters back to the drawing board by directing them to what they perceive is a very simple verse in Hosea, and emphasizing it as profoundly important, to the extent that it answers all those questions listed above.  The moral aspect of the law is what matters.

2025 - The word translated mercy above is "eleos".  It shows up in one of my Greek vocabulary list and means mercy.  NASB95, though, translates it "compassion.  It is a quote from Hosea, where we find the word in Hebrew, but I'm not sure it clarifies this very much.  Here is the quoted verse from Hosea:
6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. [Hos 6:6 ESV].  
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. [Hos 6:6 KJV]
Back there it is our old friend "hesed" that is used.  Bobby Kelly went to tremendous length in the Psalms study to try and explain this word.  It is most often translated "mercy", second most is kindness, third is lovingkindness,  When God says he wants mercy more than sacrifice, what can that mean?  God does not "need" mercy from us.  Mercy is forgiving what does not deserve forgiveness.  It is a "lighter sentence".  It is life when a sentence of death is deserved.  What if we go with "unconditional positive regard"?  That might work.  It allows for despising the deed without despising the doer.  Thinking of it this way, Jesus would be saying that mistakes do not disqualify a person from being loved by God, and "perfect" obedience to the sacrificial/ritual of the Mosaic Law does not guarantee the love of God.  Jesus is drawing a stark contrast here.  The passage in Hosea is speaking of several specific tribes as being fleeting in their worship, inconsistent in their loyalty.  Here is how that chapter starts:  
1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.  [Hos 6:1, 6 KJV].  It is about reconciliation, about a reset, about God's love continuing even after he has sent chastisement.  
So when it says that God desires mercy, God prefers mercy, it means he would rather have mercy towards those who fail and repent in their hearts than to "honor" those who follow precisely prescribed ritual...but have no real love for him.

John's disciples ask Jesus why his followers don't fast.  Jesus' attitude towards these would have been different than toward the scribes and Pharisees.  These are genuinely seeking answers.  They believe, and want to have understanding.  So he tells them that he is a bridegroom, and that wedding guests don't fast during the wedding feast.  So he's telling them that it is his own presence, a different kind of presence than John's, that is the key to why they don't fast.  Then, having pointed out that he is the difference, he talks about new cloth on an old garment.  And new wine in old wine skins.  He tells them that the Mosaic Law has reached it's end.  It is old, worn, and needs some repair.  But what Jesus is offering is NOT a patch on an old garment, not a reinterpretation of old thinking, but a radically materially different covenant.  The old is to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.  It will be done, it will have served its entire purpose and be of no further value.   (Well this cannot be exactly right, because the sacrifices and priests and all that will come again at the end.)  And trying to fit what is new into that old system will make the old even worse, or burst it wide open.  John's disciples are told that something new and completely different has arrived, and they need to stop trying to understand it through the lens of what was before.  They are not to interpret Jesus as a subset of the law, but as a fact that is external to it.  He is greater than the law, not a part of the law.  2020 - The above is not a very good explanation.  It seems to shoot all around the explanation without actually ever getting the right explanation.  The precise explanation.  It will expire under it's own terms...but not really.  What happens is that it is being set completely aside until the end times, and in the interim, we have the church and the Age of Gentiles.  Yesterday's note had this:   MSB goes on, in the note on vs 18, to say that the NT does not supplant and abrogate the law, but fulfills and explicates it.  Supplant is to take the place of or substitute for.  So that is not what the New Covenant does.  To abrogate is to abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority.  So the NT doesn't do that.  Fulfill - To bring into actuality; effect or make real.  Explicate - To make clear the meaning of; explain.  Maybe with a lot of thought, and turning things around in the light of the definitions of these words, things will get clearer.

2025 - This verse:
14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" [Mat 9:14 ESV].  Is this interesting.  The disciples of John sort of "team up" with the Pharisees here on the subject of fasting.  John had called the Pharisees a generation of vipers, and yet here his disciples team up with them to question Jesus' actions.  So even these would benefit from Hosea 6:6!  They are still putting far too much emphasis on the ritual and the letter of the law and not enough on repentance and the lovingkindness of God towards those who's hearts are right!  John's message was repentance, and his own disciples here are still missing what that really means.  Jesus adds the analogy of new cloth and new wine.  The Old Covenant rules are not going to apply after it has been fulfilled.  Things are going to be too different to work together.  This foretells the persecution of Christians even by the Jews.  

Matthew says that these next events follow immediately the explanation given to John's disciples.  A ruler comes in, a man of great importance.  Other gospels (both Mark and Luke) tell us this was Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue.  (2020-Is this correct?  Same guy?  Or a different event entirely?  Later 2020 - Same guy.  The stories in Matt, Mark, and Luke are pretty obviously all about the same event.  Jairus, a ruler, the ruler of the synagogue, comes to find Jesus and ask him to heal his daughter.)  Yet he kneels before Jesus.  Imagine the shock of those who saw this happen!  Then an unprecedented request, made with unprecedented faith.  Bring my daughter back to life!  Jesus goes with him, and the people follow. 
2021 - Here is the verse:
18 While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." [Mat 9:18 ESV]  This reads as if Jairus came right into the feast at Matthew's house, and in front of all those assembled sinners and this "charlatan" Messiah, scorning the public rebuke, rumor, and gossip that would follow, and bowed before Jesus.  What a lesson there is here for us!  This is a good lesson.

On the way, the woman is healed of a 12 year bloody issue.  Why is this story inserted here?  It must be that she was healed, not by asking Jesus, but just by believing in him, and touching him.  Her faith prompted action - reaching out to touch him - and that healed her.  She lived her faith, acted on it, did as it required.  2021 - I still think there is something deeper that I am missing here.  It is just inserted here, it doesn't seem to belong...Why is it here???
Possible Lesson.

Jesus goes on to the ruler's house and they are already mourning his dead daughter.  Jesus tells him she is sleeping, and they laugh at him.  These people around the rulers house were not believers, and likely didn't know Jesus by sight or reputation.  (2020-This would be true if the man was an imported ruler, but not so at all if he was ruler of the synagogue...So who is this story really about?  Later - It is confirmed that this is about Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue.  So these people around his house - paid mourners perhaps? - are doubters and have no interest or knowledge of Jesus.  They certainly have no faith or hope that he can awaken the daughter.  They laugh that he says she's only sleeping.  Perhaps that is the point of them being there.  They knew she was dead.  She was not sleeping.  They are here so that WE KNOW she was not sleeping, and this is a miracle, not a trick.)  They did know death when they saw it.  Hmm...the woman's faith prompted action, the crowd's lack of faith prompted scorn.  Aggressive disbelief.  The woman's faith, without action, would not have healed her.  As her faith lead to action, so did the unbelief of the crowd.  There was a very visible difference in the actions of the faithful and the unfaithful.

Jesus raises her from the dead, and word of this goes out far and wide.

2025 - Interesting that Jesus heals the sick and raises the dead with physical touch, and drives out demons with words - by speaking to them, commanding them.

Jesus heals two blind men.  Again, Jesus tells them to keep quiet about this miracle.  Again, they go and tell it anyway.  Why does this theme appear over and over?  Does it tie back to Jesus sermon about how what we do before men is rewarded only on earth?  Jesus blessed them on earth, so they get no blessing in heaven for having bragged about their blessings openly?  No, I don't think this explanation fits...
The MSB note refers back to the note on 8:4.  There, if the man healed shouts it to the world, Jesus' further ministry in that place might be hindered.  Which is what happened there.  The crowds pressed in so hard that Jesus had to relocate until things calmed down.  He wasn't there to perform miracles, but to proclaim the gospel.  The miracles were the proof of his authority, not an end in themselves.  Perhaps it is the same here.  Matthew's transitions indicated that this whole chapter is pretty much a single day.  

Next Jesus casts a demon out of man unable to speak, and the man can speak afterwards.  (Why do demons do things like this?  What is their purpose in keeping people from speaking, from behaving rationally, why do they make people throw themselves into fires?  Are they gone now, or have they just changed their ways?  These incidents with demons are almost commonplace in the gospels.  And even into Acts the apostles are casting them out.  But not today.  Are they disguised better, using new strategies that keep their existence secret, or are they just gone?  Maybe back then they were Satan trying to demonstrate his power in the world, but since Christ, he has gone underground, and does his dirty work anonymously?  After Jesus does this, the Pharisees say it is done with the power of Satan.  They blaspheme in that they know it is the power of God, but they are actively undermining Jesus at this point, and they are purposely deceiving anyone who will listen to them.  

The harvest is plentiful, the laborers few.

This chapter (and the previous chapter) of Matthew is about miracles.  It is not about being chronologically accurate.  Matthew is relating the things Jesus did as proof of his God-given power.  That is the point Matthew wants to make.  Look at the things Jesus did while he was here.  He did this and that and that and no one EVER did things like this.  Driving the point home with numerous examples is Matthew's goal.  Making it undeniable.  Chapter 10 moves on to other topics.

2023 - Matthew is giving them an almost unlimited number of witnesses that can verify the miracles.  He is saying that if you don't believe it happened, don't believe me, even though I was there, but go and talk to as many others as you want.  Go chat with Jairus' own daughter if you will.  She is not in hiding.

10
Note that we did Matthew 12, then 11, then 13, and now finally, chapter 10.  So the Chronological Bible says that this chapter is well out of order.  However, remember that Matthew is not hung up on chronology at all, so there could be verses in here that really belong later.  Just need to keep that possibility in mind.
My Harmony of the Gospels puts 9:35-11:1 as a single continuous section.  So it breaks things up differently than my Chronological reading.  I need to remember that the Harmony's purpose is to put like with like, and it uses Mark as the backbone.  It does not claim anywhere that Mark is a completely chronological book.  It puts Mt 10:1 beside Mk 6:7, 8 and Lk 9:1-3.  Just for reference.

The twelve named.  Jesus sends them out - away from him.  He gives them authority to cast out demons and heal every disease and affliction.  The authority was His to give.  Power over the random - over cancer and such.  Things that aren't out to get us, but rather just part of a corrupted world.  
2020-Without Jesus expressly giving them this power, they could not have cast out spirits - at least not completely.  Not permanently.  That's where the spirit coming back with 7 even worse comes from.  It would seem that at the time of Jesus, pretty much no man had the power to get rid of demons.  These demons were loose in the world, causing misery and pain, and no one - from everyday men to religious elite - could do much of anything about it except make it even worse.  But when Jesus appears, as wholly man, this all changes.  He can throw any demon he wants into the abyss where they wait for Trib/Great Trib.  Now he gives his twelve apostles the power to throw out most demons.  There will still be an occasional exception.  And after the resurrection...perhaps demons are prohibited from possessing people at all and confined to working in the spiritual realm only, with parlor tricks and whispers to mediums and like that.  But maybe they no longer are able to just "take over" a human being?  I really wonder.
2025 - Before Jesus, Satan was the most powerful on earth.  Men had no authority over him at all.  The demons could be bold, show themselves, control people, make them harm themselves, and do so with impunity.  They had no reason to be subtle.  But when Jesus appeared, his power was apparent in the spiritual world, and they recognized him as having the power to send them immediately and permanently into punishment, where they would await their final fate in the lake of fire (or is that place just for men?).  Jesus not only had this power, but could bestow it on others - first the twelve, then the seventy...and after the coming of the Holy Spirit, to all the saved.  EACH OF THESE today, now, has the power to send demons to the pit.  Most don't know they have it, or even that they need it.  But the demons are smart enough to stay hidden now.  They must hate that, hiding from puny humans.  When the 70th week starts, though, they will know that it is their last chance, and they will burst back into the open.  That's what I think is going on now.
2022 - Ever hear of a faith healer - one with "power" - who was able to delegate that power to others and send them out to do more of the same?  Why would they not, if they could?

When Jesus sent them out, he gave them these specific instructions:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [Mat 10:5-6 ESV] 

By this time, Jesus had already said the Centurion - not a Jew surely - had great faith.  He had talked to the woman at the well - also not a Jew.  Specifically a Samaritan.  BUT, Jesus is saying don't heal anyone but Jews.  He is NOT saying don't preach the gospel to them.  I think.  MSB says vs 5 is the beginning of the second of 5 major discourses of Jesus that are recorded in Matthew.  Runs through 11:1.  MSB also points out that the message was for all, the healing for the Jews.  It also notes that in vs 6, the healing is only for the lost sheep - those who know they are lost and are seeking.  So not even all the Jews.  Jesus goes on with his instructions telling them not to take extra clothes, not to take pay for the healing they do, and to find those who are worthy and stay with them.  It doesn't say they were only to heal the worthy...but only the lost sheep.  And at this time in history, I think we'd say that most of the Jews they were likely to encounter in Galilee would count as lost sheep.  Still, this was not just an indiscriminate show of healing power.  It was specific and directed.  MSB puts it this way:  "This was an unheard of display of power, never before seen in all redemptive history, to announce Messiah's arrival and authenticate Him plus His apostles, who preached His gospel."  In vs 8 he even tells them to raise the dead.  He is giving them power beyond power.  An unprecedented time up until then, and it has never come again.  Will the 144,000 be given this kind of power?  If not, I'm not sure we can really connect the next verses that far forward.

2020 - Vs 13 tells us more about the power Jesus gave them:  13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. [Mat 10:13 ESV]  Seems like the power they had could "flow" out of them.  Just as the bleeding woman was healed, and Jesus knew power had gone out.  So with peace it appears.  The apostles could choose whether or not their "peace" would fill the house.  Remember, Matthew would have received this power himself, directly, from Jesus.  He went out on this trip and did these things.  Not so Mark or Luke.  And John does not talk about it at all.  This, then, would seem to be the only first hand account of these events.
2025 - The peach that goes out is the Greek "eirene".  The common word for peace, used 92 times in the KJV.  If it was some mystical kind of peace, surely in 92 iterations we would pick that up.  So this verse does give us a bit of a mystery as to whether during this mission, there was some special kind of peace that was given.  But we are not given any explanation of it, so let's not dwell on it.
2025 - Notice this in vs 11:  11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. [Mat 10:11 ESV].  Inquire!  Ask who is "good people" in that village.  Seek out the devout.  Many translations use either inquire or seek out.  

2025 - The 12 are given very specific instructions.  First, greet the house you enter.  Then, if you find it worthy, give it your "blessing of peace" in the NASB.  Ahhh...but "blessing of" is supplied, there is nothing in the Greek about a blessing.  Very few translations insert this word.  NASB95 and 20 both do so.  NLT does, but NIV does not.  

Jesus warns the 12 of the reception they should expect.  
2020 - This verse:
16 "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. [Mat 10:16 ESV]  So.  This verse - this instruction - was about 12 specific men on a single specific trip.  The words may show up again later, but for now, this is the only place this serpent instruction has shown up.  I double checked and this is the ONLY place this instruction is given.  I no longer see this as something I can use to say I have to be devious as those I'm dealing with.  This is not an instruction for us today for how to deal with the world.  How to be a Christian in a non-Christian world.  It just isn't that at all.  Or....is it.  Look at 18, where he tells the 12 they will be dragged before kings.  Well that surely didn't happen on this mission.  Not even close.  We see the instruction for them not to prepare their remarks beforehand when this happens.  Mark 13:9 has this same instruction almost word for word and there it corresponds with the end times instruction of Matt 24.  In the Harmony, they link Mk 13:9 with Mt 24:9 and Lk 21:12.  These last two leave out the part about preparing your remarks beforehand, but the rest of the description is the same.  I did not realize that Jesus had referred to these events so much earlier, in Mt 10.  This is interesting.  It makes it pretty certain that Jesus is, in MSB's words, speaking eschatologically here.  All these are about the end times.  Very likely the connection has to do with the power of the Holy Spirit that will come to them at Pentecost.  After that time, they also did many miracles, and the persecution came at that time.  So....maybe not so eschatological after all...maybe all this happens before 70 AD?  

2025 - Look how this starts.  "Behold..."  This word is in the imperative, an extra emphasis is to be placed on what will follow.  We might well interpret the use of the imperative here as a shift of subject, or we can fit it right into the possibility that Matthew believed this applied here also, even though Jesus does not actually use these words until 24.  I short word search says behold is used 213 times in the KJV NT, so we can figure out exactly how often it appears to be a noteworthy change of subject or emphasis.  Here is the first one in that list of other places this word is used:
20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. [Mat 1:20 ESV].  An angel appeared.  A very big deal indeed.
2025 - Extending the above idea...Matthew pulls this warning back to here from Matthew 24 to specifically deliberately contrast the expectations the Apostles had at this point, when first sent out to preach the Kingdom, with the expectations they would have after Matt 24, when Jesus warned them that the "protection" wasn't going to be the same at all.  The imperative is there to emphasize the differences.  

This verse also:
23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. [Mat 10:23 ESV]  Second time he's told them to leave if they are not well received.  The first time seems undoubtedly about the mission at hand.  The second clearly seems to be after they have received the Holy Spirit, and says they won't be done before the Son of Man comes....what then could this possibly be about?  Two ideas.  "Son of Man comes" could refer to transfiguration.  Here are those verses:  27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:27-28 ESV]  MSB says it was the transfiguration that Jesus referred to when he said some standing there wouldn't be dead before the saw the Son of Man coming.  Surely if it means that in Matthew 16, it could mean the very same thing in Matthew 10.  In fact...second, Matthew might just have some of this out of order.  Maybe this wasn't said at this time, but Matthew has linked them for other reasons.  Matthew may have been so impressed by the story of the transfiguration - and what was said just before it, that he applied it here also.  Have to keep that in mind with Matthew.  MSB has no comment at all on vs 23, but of 21-23, it says clearly eschatological.  But in view of what MSB says about 16, maybe it is not at all about the end times.   Though there is much language in common, remember that this is Matthew, and that he is the only one who records these items in connection with the first sending out of the apostles.  All these things in Matt 10:16-42 are recorded only by Matthew as happening as they are sent out.  On the other hand...Matthew was there, Mark and Luke were not, and John is silent on the matter.  There is just so much similarity to Matt 24.  So did Jesus say these things twice, or did Matthew only record them twice?

2025 - Look at the contrast between vs 14 and vs 23.  In 14, they leave and brush the dust off their feet.  In 23, they RUN.  These are not talking about the same time.  Vs 14 is about the immediate trip, and then it shifts to a future time at "behold" in vs. 16.  After vs 16 we are talking about the rest of the apostle's lives - their ministry after the resurrection of Jesus.  During that time they will again be given this power in abundance, and they will go out again, but then it will be into serious opposition and persecution.  Before all that hardship comes, though, they will have seen the glory of the Son, they themselves will KNOW that he is the Messiah, and that he rose from the dead.  This is not about us.  This is Matthew telling us what it was like for the 12.  It started here, and they knew it would get worse before it got better.

This paragraph from 2019/  See the 2020 version above.  I think it is closer.  Short version is that it may not be eschatological at all, just an insert of a later discourse.   He tells them they will get flogged, dragged before governors and kings, hated by all for His name's sake.  Brother will deliver brother to death, fathers their children, and so on.  Through vs 20, Jesus seems to be talking about the persecution of the early church, about the things that will happen after his ascension.  But then vs 23 seems to bring it back to the present.  "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next...".  Then this vs:
23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. [Mat 10:23 ESV]
Before the Son of Man comes?  But he is already there?  What does this mean?  MSB punts.  Doesn't even reference the phrase specifically, but says that 21-23 are clearly eschatological, referring to the end times, and the second coming.  That seems to be quite a stretch to me.  After re-reading, it seems to me that 16-20, or possibly even as far as 23a, could refer to their current mission in the lesser matters, and to the early persecution of the church in the more severe matters.  But 23b...that almost has to refer to the second coming.  Perhaps to the evangelism of the 144,000 during tribulation and great tribulation.  That's a lot more evangelists covering Israel.  Seems like they might get it done...but the verse says they won't finish before He comes.  
Persecution, and the explanation of why it is so severe toward those who follow Jesus - then as now - is here:
"25 ...If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. [Mat 10:25 ESV]"
So true.  They saw the miracles, and in order to deny the truth, gave credit for good to the author of evil instead of to Jesus Christ, when He was right there in front of them.  They will be far more fearless about the actions they take against those who follow the teacher than they are before the teacher himself.  This is characteristic of weak and cowardly men.

2023 - There is another possibility I think....Maybe the connection from Matthew 10 to Matthew 24 means that in 24, Matthew is NOT speaking eschatologically.  Maybe in that part of 24, Jesus is talking about the early church, leading up to AD 70.  I believe that part of 24 is about that earlier time, and then it switches to talking specifically about the end times.  Maybe 10 here is doing the same thing.  That would be worth some extra study time.
2023 - Seems pretty "easy" to say that through vs 15 at least, all that Jesus is saying applies to this missionary journey of the 12 that is happening immediately.  There is nothing eschatological to this point.
2023 - Vss 16-23 seem to be about a different time.  We certainly don't have any indication that any of the 12 are dragged before magistrates on this journey.  We know that this DID happen post resurrection, post Pentecost.  Then we get to 23b "...for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. [Mat 10:23 ESV]"  So...let's say this coming of the Son of Man is about the transfiguration.  They would not have gone through all those towns before that happened.  So this could be Jesus conveying a sense of urgency about what they were heading out to do.  The gospel...no...the kingdom is being offered to Israel as evidenced by great signs and wonders and healings and casting outs, and soon, by the transfiguration of Jesus.  The kingdom for which they have waited is hard upon them.  So...all the warnings of 16-23a are about the future they have to face, the lives that they must live.  But they will soon see the Son of Man in his glory, as verification that Jesus - the one they follow as teacher and master - is truly the Messiah.  Think of these verses in summary as "Be encouraged.  You will  have no doubt that you follow the awaited Messiah.   You will be shown this before all this violence descends upon you.".  These verses in Mt 10 correspond to Matt 24:4-14.  All these things happen BEFORE the A of D is recognized.  Some of this persecution happened in the apostles' lifetimes, it happens today, it will continue to happen.  And the marker that the "persecution age" is ending and the "tribulation age", which is much more intense, is beginning, is the recognition of the A of D.  So yeah...I think that resolves Matt 10 and 24.  It is still entirely possible that Matthew has pulled these words that impressed him so much in 24 all the way back into 10, in order to emphasize the information being conveyed.  Perhaps he is making a distinction between this pretty much unopposed mission they are embarking on and the future full of opposition that is their future.  Maybe also that is why they weren't to take extras this time - because they would find sympathetic people where ever they went - but the next time they are sent out, they are told to carry extra everything, because opposition will have increased tremendously.  Yes.  Many things come together this way.
2023 - 26-33 seem to be a continuation of encouragement in the face of what will come.  Death at the hands of men is foretold for them.  And they are told not to have any fear of that.

Then we move to the verse about everything covered being revealed.  This is about OT prophecy.  He is telling them that those who persecute them will be ignorant of the truth, and won't accept it, even when it is explained to them.  Jesus tells them they'll be killed, and that they are not to fear physical death.  This is quite a statement.  These verses:
32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. [Mat 10:32-33 ESV]
This is talking about direct persecution.  This is about speaking up when it matters, when it will cost you - when those with authority over you give you an ultimatum.  This is about big deals, not about whether you pray in the restaurant.  MSB comments on this as shown in Lk 12:9 as follows:
"This describes a soul-damning denial of Christ - not the sort of temporary wavering Peter was guilty of - but the sin of those who through fear, shame, neglect, delay, or love of the world reject all evidence and revelation and decline to confess Christ as Savior and King, until it is too late."  So I was partly right - it is about big deals, but it is about lifetimes, not moments.  About those who go through a whole lifetime with evidence constantly on display before their eyes, with access to countless resources that reveal the truth, and yet despite all this, reject Christ to the very last breath in their bodies.  These Christ will deny before His Father.
2020-Or, he is talking directly to the twelve about the things they will personally face in their lifetimes after he is gone.  And once again, Matthew is consolidating points from different discourses according to how he relates them to events.  Don't get me wrong.  Matthew is certainly scripture, so these verses belong here.  But they may be here so that we understand better what goes where and what really relates to what.  And that very telling point...only Matthew puts this here, at the sending out of the apostles.  Three of them put most of it at Matthew 24.

Jesus says his way won't be a peaceful way for those who accept him.  Salvation will divide families, make enemies within households.  But He also says that He is the way, and that we are to choose Him over detractors, skeptics, and compromisers even among those we dearly love.

Then Jesus talks about rewards, summing up with this verse:
42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward." [Mat 10:42 ESV]
Isn't this almost a direct command to support other Christians?  Especially disciples?  But aren't all who follow disciples?  MSB puts it as those who come in Christ's name are his ambassadors, and how we receive them is how we are receiving Christ.  As just plain old believers, rather than say apostles or prophets, we are little ones, but we are rewarded even for treating the little ones well.
I need to take Roy out to lunch.  And Wade too!  (I never got to take Roy to lunch.  He passed away about a year after this was written.)

And I need to take meals to those in need, and I need to financially help those that I can help.  This is fruit, and this fruit is rewarded.

We skipped chapter 10, not the first time we've skipped over a chapter or three in Matthew.  His gospel is not as chronologically organized as some of the others.  Luke's chapters have been in numerical order, as have John and Mark.  So it seems that only Matthew has organized thematically.

2022 - Here is an interesting phrase, shedding light on who the message of at least the previous chapter was for.  It might reach back even further than that:
"1 When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples..." [Mat 11:1a ESV].  The messages, explanations and instructions that came before 11:1 were addressed directly to the 12.  Not to all his disciples, but to the 12.  Chapter 10 started with the calling of the 12, and Matthew being thematic, it seems that chapter 10 was all about those 12.  Jesus gave the 12 power to heal everything.  The persecution he warns of...was that just during their time alone and healing?  Something they could expect in some of the places they went?  It looks like t/gt stuff, but may have been more currently applicable.  And the rewards...looks like sheep and goats...but was it really just about the 12 going out on their trip to proclaim the gospel?  I can also see it relating to the ministries of the apostles after Jesus' ascension.  All these things did occur between the ascension and the death of the apostles.  The mission trip here is a training exercise for what they will be doing after Jesus is gone.  He tells them of the perspective they need to have about mission work.  

This chapter starts with the messengers from John the Baptist.  Matthew doesn't talk about Jesus showing them the miracles to report, but they leave with the same message for John that we saw before (in Luke 7).  Jesus tells the crowd of John's greatness.  A new element is here in Matthew, saying that from John's appearance (I don't know if this means since he started his ministry or since his birth) the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence.  A footnote in TCR says it could be translated "has been coming violently".  It also says "the violent take it by force".  Is Jesus referring to things happening in the spiritual realm?  Does he mean his angels and Satan's angels fight to stop the coming of the Messiah?  Or is he talking about the push back from the Pharisees and Scribes?  The MSB note is a little long, and seems to me to miss the mark.  So I still don't know.  MSB says Luke recounts this same thought this way:
16 "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. [Luk 16:16 ESV]  The sense in the MSB notes is that the violence started with John.  He was neither subtle nor accommodating, but was a "here is how it is, take it or leave it" kind of guy.  And those who followed John, those who accepted his teaching, had to break - to wrench themselves away - from the hold the law had on them.  So perhaps this statement ties in with the garment patching and the wine storing?  There is no accommodation possible.  The old is out, the gospel is in.

2025 - So we are going from the Law to the Kingdom.  They are not compatible. The Kingdom must win but can only do so by force, by demolition of what was before.  The "old guard" does not want change, they don't want new rules, they are comfortable with the old rules - the old rules keep them in charge, in power, the old rules let them coast while the rules are hard work.  They fight to keep the old way.

Then Jesus gives the same little poem he did in Luke 7:
16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, 17 "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.' [Mat 11:16-17 ESV]
Those who reject the gospel do so no matter how it is characterized - by the directness, violence, and high contrast of John, or by the gentleness, example, and subtlety of Christ.  They are a hard headed and stiff necked generation, just as they have always been.
And the comparison ends the same way as in Luke:  Wisdom is justified by her children.  The future will show the truth of both approaches.

Jesus declares several cities destined for judgement.  Chorazin, Bethsaida, and even Capernaum, where he lived much of his life.  For the most part, and despite the miracles and the healing that took place in these cities, they remained unchanged.  This too comes right after the part about violence.  These cities hung on to the old, they did not wrench themselves into the good news.  Jesus says that Tyre and Sidon - bad towns - will end up better when judgement comes than these cities will.  If the miracles had been done in Sodom, Sodom would still be there.  Jesus compares the character of the cities in his time with the character of Sodom before it's destruction, and finds Sodom more willing to repent.  Maybe this means that during the Millennial, these cities will be laid waste, while Tyre and Sidon will be restored.  We know that Edom is going to come out OK as is Egypt.  But these cities, where Jesus did his miracles, not so much.  This may also be about the people in these towns being more interested in the "show", in the signs, in the miracles as spectacle, and not looking any deeper for meaning in what they are seeing.  Just as people today will flock to faith healers - or magicians, or fortune tellers - for the thrill of the inexplicable.  Why are people so fascinated with mysteries that defy natural law while at the same time rejecting supernatural explanations.  The Big Bang is a theory that fails to explain how we got here.  The math can only take us back so far, and has a hard time explaining why things ended up just like this.  But if you say "God created from nothing..." well that gets a laugh usually.  So odd that the supernatural is only acceptable for explaining things that don't much matter anyway.  We won't elevated to explaining anything really important.

Only Matthew records this pronouncement on these cities up in the north.  

Hmm...that question seems to be answered in the very next section, and maybe even the reason for it:
25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. [Mat 11:25-26 ESV]  Not sure I understand the why, but that seems to be it, stated flatly as God's will to do it this way.  Lucifer was arrogant, and Adam wanted to be "as God".  Perhaps God favors those on the other end of the "ambition" scale.  Perhaps He prefers those who depend on Him more, because they cannot depend on themselves due to limited understanding?  It would sort of fit...Only Matthew has this verse about things hidden from the wise.  (Not so.  Luke also has the verse in 10:21.)

Jesus prays - aloud it would seem, since Matthew records the words - saying that God the Father has given everything over to the Son.  And the truth of what is in progress is revealed not to the wise and understanding, but to the children.  Jesus says that only the Father knows the Son.  What could this mean?  Then he also says the opposite, that only the Son knows the Father - unless the Son chooses to reveal Him.  The MSB phrases it that the Son is executing the divine will committed to him.  This is the authority and the function of the Son - to do the will of the Father.  The Father wills it, the Son performs it, and the Spirit...does what?  Affirms it, confirms it...connects the physical and the spiritual?  Or seals it?  Need a way to complete the phrase.  It would be good to be able to express the three roles of the One God succinctly.

vss 28-30 are well known.  Come to me, all ye who labor...
I have a note that these verses are Jesus describing himself to the world.  Here are the verses:
28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." [Mat 11:28-30 ESV]
It was the law, and its constant requirements, and the Pharisees use of the law to make themselves better for "doing the works" instead of for making themselves more holy, that the people are loaded with.  They have made worship a burden and a hardship.  Jesus tells them they don't have to do that anymore.  That rituals and rules are no longer the door.  And they have been the door - to teach the holiness of God to those who would worship Him.  But now the burden will be light.  Few rules.  All things are lawful for me...No dietary restrictions, no sacrifices required during the Gentile age...not even the 10.  Make your own heart right with God, and live the infinite intent of God, not the finite condensation of His intent, interpreted and as modified by the religious authorities to elevate themselves rather than to humble themselves.

Matthew 12

In the chronological reading, these chapters come after Jesus' himself responds to the Pharisee's accusations about Him working on the Sabbath.  His Father works, and He works also. Then he talks about the witnesses.  Four of them, and two of whom they have repudiated in their own minds.  But there are still two left.  They are still left today.

Opens with "At that time..."  I've noticed that a lot of gospel chapters begin this way.  Looking back to 11 though, it is hard to grab the continuity.  Perhaps the continuity ties to John 5 from yesterday, in the Chronological Bible, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath.  Matthew 12 is about picking corn and eating it on the Sabbath, and again the Pharisees accuse Jesus about it.  (Harmony has this same story from Matt 12 in Mark 2, which I read two days ago, and in Luke 6, which I read later today.  I have been trying to keep the Harmony open as a reference as I read the gospels so that I won't get lost.)  Jesus reminds them that David and his men ate the Bread of Presence, which was not lawful for them to eat, only priests could eat it.  Then Jesus says that in the present time, the priests eat in the temple on the Sabbath, but they are not condemned.  They also have to light fires, perform the daily sacrifices, and so on.  MSB says the point was that some things in the law are precepts, not absolutes, and as such, have exceptions.  Matthew adds this OT reference that Mark did not...remember that we believe Matthew was writing primarily to the Jews, who would have wanted scriptural verification of things Jesus was saying.  Here is the verse:
7 And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. [Mat 12:7 ESV].  This could refer to at least two verses I can think of, and frankly, I think this thought is contained in many OT verses.  Another variation is that obedience is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams (I Sam 15:22).  MSB connects this to Hosea 6:6:  6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. [Hos 6:6 ESV].  MSB refers us back to his note at Matt 9:13.  Jesus also quotes Hos 6:6 there, and the note adds 1 Sam 15:22 and Mic 6:6-8 to it.  6 "With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? [Mic 6:6-8 ESV]  This is a longer quote, and doesn't say specifically what the others do, but this passage also makes it clear that it is the heartfelt worship of His people that God requires, NOT the sacrifices.  The Sacrificial Law was to separate Israel from the surrounding nations, and their adherence to that law was a show of reverence and fear of God, NOT a way to heaven, NOT an end in itself.  This theme runs from Adam, through Noah to Abraham.  God required only fear and reverence from them for salvation.  The Sinai covenant, when it came, was about something else.  It was a training tool for a people who for 400 years had been worshiping Egyptian gods.  At least most of them had.  And remember, when they came out of Egypt, they had NO scriptures, because Moses hadn't written them yet!  

2022 - "7 And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless." [Mat 12:7 ESV]
In the Mt 12 reading, Micah and Habakkuk are also quoted in this way.  You have to understand what is absolute and what is precept.  That's an MSB idea.  I am not sure anything is absolute other than love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself.  Could it be that Jesus gave us room to do what is "right" even when it is an exception to what is written?  The Pharisees were so focused on what was written that they were abusing widows, disrespecting parents, and ultimately murdering the innocent.  Jesus is saying that kind of absoluteness is not what the Bible teaches.  The Bible teaches that sometimes, we have to bend the rules.
Boy.  That sure will need some work, because I have it written as a Get out of Jail Free card, and it is most certainly not that!

The theme continues in vs. 9, which opens with "He went on from there...".  The theme is that Jesus is an exceptional man, that He is in fact the prophesied Son of Man, and beyond that, He is God.  But these things Jesus is doing - healing the man lame for 38 years, eating corn harvested on the Sabbath, and now this story - are not Jesus saying He is beyond the law, but Jesus is trying to teach them that they have turned the law into a taskmaster instead of a teacher.  They  have made the jots and tittles the end of the law, when in fact it was about fulfilling the heartfelt desire to worship God acceptably.   Jesus is "correcting" this massive misconception about the law that the Pharisees have built and that they use to make themselves better than every day worshipers.
In the temple, the Pharisees have prepared a trap.  They have brought one who has a need, they point the man out to Jesus, and they ask if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath.  They are not asking for instruction.  They already "know" the answer.  Jesus' answer makes them hypocrites.  They will pull an ox out of a ditch on a Sunday (an exception they've put in there themselves), but it is not ok to "do good" to a man on the Sabbath.  Jesus argument  - his response - to their question is here:
12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." [Mat 12:12 ESV]  The MSB note says there is no law in the Mosaic about it being unlawful to heal on the Sabbath - or to give medicine, or to do acts of mercy.  There simply was no such prohibition, other than the man-made one.  He says that at the time this event occurred, the Pharisees had made practicing medicine illegal on the Sabbath - EXCEPT in life-threatening situations.  Jesus points out the ridiculous contradiction in values that their man-made laws have introduced.  Then, Jesus heals the man's withered hand right in front of them.  They see a miracle, and their reaction is not worship of this man obviously from God but formation of a conspiracy to destroy Jesus.  

2024 - It is always right to do the right thing even if it breaks God's Law?  That can't be right.  It is OK to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Law?  No, that's not it either.  On the Sabbath, rest from work...but deal with unusual circumstances if it is the right thing to do.  The higher thing to do.  We are talking both the Law and the Ten here.   But I can't think where any of the others would ever be OK to break.  To do what is right is always OK.  Perhaps that is the rule.  And the sheep in the ditch and the value comparison was to show them they were already practicing this... where it suited them.  Not that helping a sheep is bad, but that helping a man is better.

2025 - Why has this confused me?  Jesus answers the question in so many words:  12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." [Mat 12:12 ESV].  It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.  That's the criteria.  Same on any other day, same with any apparent breaking of the rules.  Is it right to help an animal in distress or better to let it die?  Is it better to hide two spies from Israel on your roof, or to turn them over to the king?  So it was right for Hagar to break the civil law because aiding the spies was the right thing.  So the rule is simple.  Always and every time, do what is right.

Jesus knows their plot, and withdraws from there.  Many follow as he leaves, and he heals all of them.  It says "all".  And he tells them to keep it quiet - though he had just healed in the temple.  Then Matthew quotes an OT scripture that Jesus is fulfilling:  Isaiah 42:1-4.  These show Jesus not as a conquering king but as suffering servant.  Matthew is telling his audience that despite what the Pharisees and rabbis had led them to expect, in fact it was Jesus who was fulfilling prophecy about the Messiah.  Again, as Jesus was overturning the misapplication of the law, Matthew is pointing out that these same teachers also misapplied the prophecies about the Messiah.  They were just wrong.  They had to go.  And Jesus was about to send them.

Jesus casts a demon out of a man.  The demon was making the man blind and mute.  (Well...it doesn't really say that.  It says specifically that the man was demon-possessed, AND he was blind and mute.  Jesus cures the blindness and the muteness.  It is self-evident that the demon is evicted.  But I don't think it is certain that the demon was causing these other problems.  Even so, I may just be stubborn, because we have seen in other places that demons can cause physical problems.  Not all physical problems - the withered hand we just read about for instance - are caused by demons, but SOME are.  Like the woman stooped over double for all those years.  So it seems obvious here...but isn't necessarily.  How would a demon be able to make someone blind and lame?  That's physical manipulation.  If they could do it then, they can do it now...)  This was something demons did then.  We should assume that demons can, even if they choose otherwise, do so even in our day.  Jesus heals him, and the people begin to recognize/suspect/realize that this is the "Son of David", that is, the Messiah.  This is both a man and God.  The Pharisees cannot have this.  They can't allow anyone to exceed their authority, because their way of life depends on maintaining the status quo.  Little is said about how Jesus actually deals with the demon.  That is not the point of the story.  The point is what the Pharisees say about it, how they try to explain it away.  This story is to show how far from God's truth the religious leaders of the time have strayed.  So they say Jesus is not doing God's work, but Satan's, as a way to deny that Jesus is from God.  Jesus answers this charge directly.
He gives two irrefutable arguments to prove what is doing has nothing to do with Satan.  First, Jesus says no kingdom divided against itself can stand.  Therefore, Beelzebul would not be against himself.  And then Jesus asks them who's name their own sons use to cast out demons?  Where do their own sons get their authority to cast out demons?  Then the conclusion:  If it is by God's authority that Jesus is casting them out - which it obviously is - then the Kingdom of Heaven is there, Messiah is there, Jesus is the Messiah.  It is right there, and they won't accept it.  The second argument is that you can't oppose a strong man and take his stuff unless you first neutralize the strong man.  The strong man here would be Satan.  And if Jesus has cast out Satan - as his first argument shows - then Jesus is able to bind Satan.  Who can do this?  What man ever did this?  None.  Jesus is proving before their eyes that he is the Son of God.  And still they won't believe.

Then the section on blasphemy against the Spirit being unforgivable.  Say what you want about Jesus, but not about the Spirit.  Never have understood this.  I think MacArthur has a sermon on it.  His note in MSB says that the difference is that if we are not firsthand witnesses, we might not believe the miracles are real, out of ignorance.  But these Pharisees had seen the miracle, they knew from their study and tradition that this could only be done by God's authority through the Spirit, and yet as knowing eyewitnesses and in order to protect their status and their order, they knowingly deny that this is God's work.    I see the difference...but we have not really established that it is the Spirit doing the work, and not Jesus.  The Spirit and not God.  There must be some doctrinal statement somewhere that says this is how it works.  Further, being forgiven for not believing what you have not seen is only possible if you later repent and believe - as Paul on the road to Damascus.  Paul disbelieved out of ignorance - he was a Pharisee of Pharisees.  But when confronted, he believed what he saw.

2025 - Possible FB post:
In Matthew 12 Jesus heals a man with a withered hand, and right after that he heals a demon possessed man who was blind and lame.  The Pharisees who see all this recognize that healing withered hands is something only God's power can do.  Then they turn right around and credit Beelzebul with the healing of a man blind and lame because of a demon.  Jesus says it cannot be that way, in this this verse:   33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. [Mat 12:33 ESV].  Jesus point is that what a person does is either good, and right, and in the service of God, or else that person is a deceiver, a charlatan, and an enemy of God in the service of Satan.  This is binary.  There is no middle ground here.  Why is that important?  Because we must realize that it is not ok to see people's actions as "sometimes good and sometimes bad".  No one is going to heal the sick blind and lame on the one hand through the power of God and turn right around and cast out demons by the power of Satan.  A man has only one master!  If he did the first by God's power, the second was also by God's power.  And if the demons were cast out by Satan's power, then so was the healing by Satan's power.  But Satan does NOT do good.  Benny Hinn comes to mind.  His healing is just deception.  By who's power does he deceive?  So it is not ok to say "Well, he does some good so we ought not speak out against him."  But this is making the bad tree yield good fruit.  This is not ok.  Jesus commands that we not do this.  And it is not a suggestion, the word "make" is in the imperative.  
And then Jesus drives home real point so that the crowd has no doubt about which is which!  34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. [Mat 12:34 ESV].  By condemning the God-ordained miracles that Jesus is doing, the Pharisees have made the kind of fruit they bear plain for all to see.
Another test.  Don't know if that preacher is good or bad?  What does he say about preachers you are already sure about?  He will not praise the good if he is bad.
And another...right after this Jesus says we will be judged for every careless word.  He means carelessness of the kind that blurts out credit to Satan for God's own work because we want to resist the reality right in front of us.  Can't see God in the good things that happen?  Open your eyes!

Jesus talks then about good fruit coming from good trees.  It does not happen otherwise.  And it is our words that determine what is in our hearts.  We will be judged by our words.  Our slips of the tongue, our thoughtless speech.  Because in these moments, what comes out reveals what we really are.  For these words we will be judged.  2020-A test perhaps, something to pay very close attention to.  We need to listen to ourselves, first.  What little slips of my tongue ought to give me clues about what my heart really holds.  Is there some proof of salvation here so that we may know the Spirit is in us?  What if a person says there is no God?  Certainly if a person says that he could be judged by those words - and the judgement would be fair if that is coming from the heart.  What if someone denies the virgin birth?  Those words are certainly useful as evidence.  What comes out of the mouth, what fruit we bear, is not the basis of our salvation, but the evidence of our faith.  God is not blind.  A good FB post using these verses:
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." [Mat 12:36-37 ESV]  It does not say we will be justified by the number of demons we've cast out or the number of good deeds we've done.  The evidence is not the "count", but the words behind it that prove what is in the heart.  The heart is what is judged, words are the evidence, works are the evidence.

2022 - What judgment is this about?   The Pharisees are long dead, yet unjudged.  As I read the judgments, it is only at the GWT that the dead will be judged.  Therefore, that is what Jesus must be referencing.  The way this is worded, it does not say that both saved and lost will be judged by their words.    It says "people will give account", and based on their motivations, on what was in their hearts when they spoke, they will be either justified or condemned.  We could read this as some going one way and some the other.  Does it mean that, or does it mean that at this judgment - the GWT - those who are lost will give an account, and it will be obvious what was in their hearts - even though sometimes they did get one right.  Look back at 34..."How can you speak good, when you are evil?"  At the judgment, even the good will not count for the lost - as we know from Ezekiel 18.  That's it!  The idea here is that since these lost reject God, no otherwise good thing that they do or say will be credited to them.  The Pharisees would be familiar with Eze 18, and understand that he was saying they are evil through and through, and their little "token" goodness will not accrue to their credit.

2023 - If the men of Nineveh, who repented, are to rise up with Jesus generation and accuse them, that cannot mean the rapture, because only saved will be raptured.  So we must conclude that OT saints are not resurrected until the GWT, when the lost of Jesus generation are raised.  Only the church will be raptured.  Really need to work on this in depth.  What does this passage really say about the judgment.  It is important, because Jesus is telling them what will happen at the judgment.  This IS the right context to look for deeper meaning.

The plotting Pharisees ask for a sign - knowing they have just seen one and disbelieved it.  Jesus tells them about the sign of Jonah, and that like Jonah was in the fish, Jesus will be in the earth.  He is foretelling his own death and resurrection, and he knows that they aren't going to believe that either.  Since the people of Nineveh -  heathens, pagans, Gentiles - believed the sign of Jonah, and Jesus will present a far greater sign that the Pharisees will still not believe, these elite (elitist) religious leaders will be judged by Gentiles.  A very direct and demeaning prophecy about them.  2020-Oh my...I wonder how many people "saw" Jonah spit up by the whale?  I bet there were witnesses, and that "miracle" of walking out of the fishes mouth up onto the beach and starting to preach would have carried enough weight to convert even Nineveh.  They saw Jonah come "back from the dead", and even though they were Gentiles, they repented in sackcloth and ashes!  Jesus is saying that these Pharisees will see an actual resurrection and still not believe.  This is the sense in which Jesus will present a great sign.  Another Gentile, the Queen of Sheba, was able to ascertain that Solomon's wisdom was from God, not from man - that he was unique and that his God was worthy of her worship.  But these learned Pharisees cannot see that the man before them is wiser even than Solomon.  I never saw this deeply into these verses before.  What a FB post this is!!!!

vss 43-45 are about the unclean spirit that goes off wandering and finds nothing good.  So it goes back home, and finds a clean house, all in order.  So the unclean spirit moves back in, with seven other spirits even worse than it is.  So this last state is worse than the first.  The MSB note doesn't help.  I have notes in my old NKJV about this being conviction, grace offered, and grace refused - the last state of knowing refusal of the offer of grace - being worse than not having been offered grace to start with.  I have a hard time seeing that in these verses.  

2025 - I wonder though...Jesus displaced Satan as ruler of the spiritual world on earth.  I wonder if what this is really saying is that with Jesus came the power for men to evict evil spirits, to resist them.  And yet, if one evicts them, and leaves the house empty, then more and stronger ones come back and re-occupy the house.  Does this mean that spiritual emptiness in man will never stay empty, but will ultimately occupied either by the Spirit of God or by demons.  This goes right along with the good tree good fruit statement above.  It's binary.  You cannot be empty.  

Perhaps we should focus on the man, and not the unclean spirit.  The unclean spirit is a real demon, in search of a place to rest.  It finds none.  So it goes back.  Jesus threw the demon out of the man in vs 22.  But it never says that man believed....no, that's going to go nowhere.

Maybe it is about the Pharisees.  They have seen the truth.  The demons that have blinded them, corrupted the Mosaic Law, turned it into an oppressor, have been revealed to them by Jesus.  The dirty house has been cleaned up.  Yet they don't lock the doors.  They don't accept the one who has made this plain to them.  They don't "move Jesus in" to the house.  They cling to the old way, to the taskmaster, to the life they are used to.  And having managed to get the house cleaned once, but reverted to their old comfortable ways, it will be far harder for them to clean that house out again and let Jesus in.  
This kind of makes sense.  The unclean spirit referred to is not a singular demon that has to be expelled, but is in fact the normal state of a man, lost in sin, unable to "clean house".  So the "change" is not a demon cast out so much as a clarity about the real way of things.  The state of that dirty house is suddenly obvious.  But if we don't have help keeping it clean....or if our housecleaning resolve weakens, then we may never try to clean up again.

Hmm...thought I was onto it, now not so sure anymore.  They were comfy living in their dirty houses, but Jesus showed them the broom, and showed them what a clean house looked like.  But they didn't hire him to keep it clean, and in the end, having rejected the house cleaner, they live in more filth than before.  I still don't think I have the real meaning here, but it's as close as I can get for now.  Moving on.

2020-I think I'm all around it.  Lost people are the house where the unclean spirit dwells.  This is original sin, polluting all men.  We are the devils house from the time we are born.  When we hear the gospel, when we are convicted, and we are almost persuaded, and we struggle for days or months or years with believing, with generating enough faith to be saved, with ridding ourselves of reservations about believing, and in the end are not persuaded...then Satan - and worse - resumes his hold on us, and as hard as it was to clean the house out the first time, it becomes oh so much more nearly impossible now.  Jesus is telling them this is their best chance, by far, to clean their houses.  This comes right on the heels of the Jonah/Queen of Sheba stories.  They have seen what was far more than enough for Gentile cities and Southern Queens, they better decide now, because the persuasion, the proof, the naked truth will never again be presented with the power it has when Jesus himself stands right in your presence.  THIS is what this means!!!!  Don't know how I'd ever get this into a FB post.  But it sure might go on the website as a standalone!

AGAIN in 2020 - See the MSB note on a similar incident in Luke 11.  It all becomes clear there.  The short version is that the "fake" exorcists of the time, authorized by the Pharisees (their sons), were powerful enough to sometimes force a demon out (because to make a strong man leave his house you have to be stronger than him), but they were not strong enough to lock the door behind him.  So after some time, the demon comes back, with friends, and is worse off than before for the fake exorcism.  You cannot get all this from the reading.  This has to come from extra-biblical sources.  MSB is the source I used, but he got it from someplace else I am sure.  This though, is how all these things tie together and make sense.  The lesson is that you cannot pick out one little section and stop.  You have to READ IT ALL!!!

2024 - Jonah went and preached, and Nineveh changed, because they recognized the truth.  They cleaned house.  But it did not last, as per Nahum.  Their last state was more corrupt than at first.  So also the generation of Jesus' time.  They kill the messenger,  and then turn completely away.  Ultimately they lose their Temple AND their country.  I believe they are still paying for that.  Their last state is worse than their first!  This is what Jesus meant.  NOT about a person, about a nation!  This is how demons behaved up to that time because the sons had no real power over them.  As demons do, so did Nineveh, and so does Israel!  Oh my!!!!

Mt. 13 (In Harmony, these verses are in Mark 4, and Luke 8)
Looking ahead, this chapter contains 7 parables.  All are likely to be either over my head, or I will over-simplify them.  This is Jesus' own teaching, and worth whatever effort it takes to try and understand.  MSB note says the purpose of the parables was to obscure the truth from unbelievers while making the truth clearer to his disciples.  From this point on in his ministry, in public, he spoke only in parables - unlike the Sermon on the Mount, which was fairly clear.  2020 - Another thing to keep in mind is that Matthew  organizes according to five discourses of Jesus.  He is not chronological, so these parables may have been compiled from any or all of those discourses and arranged as Matthew wants to arrange them.  As it turned out with several items a few days ago, it may be very helpful to cross-check these parables in Mark and Luke - if they are there - to put them in the context of where they were first spoken, what the circumstances were there, and what else was going on that day.  If they are confusing, then check for context.  This worked very well before.  This is a good "rule" to study by.

Matthew starts with "That same day..."  The previous chapter started with "At that time..."  And the one before that started "When Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples..." The Intro to Matthew said this last line - which began Chapter 11, signals us that a discourse has finished up and we are moving on to the next.  I see nothing in Matthew that tells us where the things in 11 through at least 13 take place.  In Harmony, Mark says they were at the seaside, Luke says people from all over came to him.  And Matthew says in a boat.  So they were likely near a city - or else there wouldn't have been boats "parked" nearby, but we don't really know where.  The scene is down by the water, and in fact, Jesus gets into a boat to teach.  If "That same day..." ties us to the previous discourse, that went on before chapter 11, that would be Jesus sending out the twelve...so that doesn't really seem right.  So.  After reading back in Mark 3, I would say that Jesus is down at the water near Capernaum.  This town was right on the Sea of Galilee.  From the Luke account, you really cannot say.  The most recent previous place name given was Nain, where he raised the widow's son.  Then he goes home with a Pharisee to eat, and the woman washes his feet with her tears.  This is all in Luke 7.  The Bible map I found of Nain puts it way far away from Capernaum.  I really like context, but I am unable to be certain of the location here.  We can't even be sure that Jesus was even in a boat delivering all these parables, since Matthew is not a stickler for chronology.

2023 - Don't overcomplicate the location. Matthew tells us that Jesus sat in a boat and did this teaching.  The phrasing implies that ALL these parables were spoken on that occasion.  There is no claim that he spoke them in this sequence, but I would expect, I would search for, a single theme, building from the first to the last, so that a profound overall sense of the real topic comes through it all.  These are not random.

The chapter opens with the parable of the sower, a parable that I have wrestled with many times.  Most interpretations are that only the seed that falls on the good ground is representative of those who are saved, since only this seed bears fruit. This parable is followed by an explanation of why Jesus begins to speak only in parables, and to me, a lot of questions come up.  I will try to discuss both the parable and the reasons for parables all together...easier said than done I suspect...

As to the parable of the sower, this:
- Dake's had something to say on these verses.  He says this is about continuing to work without distraction in your sanctification.  Least I think that's what he's talking about.  He says that the more you focus on the things of God, the more God will reveal to you about the things of God.  This is consistent with many verses in Proverbs.  The verse also says that if you get complacent and or lazy or decide that you'll be OK as you are without further work, that what you have learned to that point, what progress towards sanctification you've made, will be undone and taken from you.  This is pretty much the same as we might say about physical exercise.  The more you lift, the stronger you get.  Then if you lay off for a while, get lazy, get interested in something unrelated, your muscles will deteriorate.

2023 - So Dake says that the seed itself represents saved people.  The sower becomes sort of a mystery then...unless the sower is God, who saves them.  Dake is saying that the seed that falls on the path and never takes root never are sanctified much at all.  They got saved, and they walked away, and they grew apart from God.  And so on.  Only the last study and grow continually from the time they are saved until they die.  Those who let the cares of the world get between them and study, also lose what little they'd learned to that point, because they just push their sanctification to the background and don't continue to work on it, don't give it more priority than the life the world offers.  They're making a living and raising their families and they CHOOSE not to include God in this.  So by extension, Dake is saying that only those who continue in the work of sanctification ever reach the point of bearing fruit for God.  So...I can see this.  I have always "resisted" interpreting this parable as ONLY the seed on the good ground being saved, and the rest being about those who never "submit" to God and take up the cross.  There is just a lot of room for interpretation here.

I can see how some might use this same analysis and say the verse is about salvation, and not sanctification.  They might say that works - study, devotion, and so on - are required to maintain and advance your salvation.  Have to remember that in both cases this verse comes right after the parable of the sower.   Is that parable about salvation or sanctification?  It seems to be about salvation, where only those who receive the word with a noble and good heart (NKJV, Luke) keep the word to the bearing of fruit.  The unsaved bear no fruit, all their works are corrupt.  Only the saved can bear fruit.
In both versions of the parable, the seed that falls by the way is said not to be saving.  They don't understand the word, and the devil is therefore able to snatch it away.  The last three groups all sprout.  Among rocks and briars they sprout and the seed never accomplishes the end to which it was sown.  Only the last group was able to reproduce.  But all sprout.  Does this mean that some, when confronted with confession of faith and persecution vs silence and status quo, choose not to speak up, though they are saved?  They are like Peter when he denied three times, but unlike Peter they never produce?
And the rocky seed...Those who are saved, but don't make God's work priority and instead get caught up in jobs and riches and fleshly cares.  Are they saved, but of little use to God?  The last group reproduces, certainly the preferred result of the sowing.

This seems to hold up.  No reason to think all four groups are either saved or unsaved.  If only the last three are saved then each of them is saved - each sprouts - with the potential to bear fruit, and this only the saved can do.  But for those who get scared off by hardship or who devote their attention to this world and not so much the next, never reach that potential, and as time passes while they amble along, what they could have accomplished lessens.  The crown they might have gotten shrinks.  But to the one who starts strong and continues, more potential for fruit is added.  Not all the apostles yielded the fruit that Peter did.  Not all apostles did what Paul was able to do.  Judas was never really saved.

This profound note in the MSB as to the why of the parables:  He says it was judgement, and it was mercy.  Judgement in that teaching this way kept unbelievers in the darkness they preferred.  What they didn't understand didn't move them, but without understanding, they stayed lost, which was the way they liked it.  Mercy, in that "to whom more is given, more is expected".  Had they understood plainly and clearly, and still rejected, they would be under more condemnation than if they remained ignorant.

MSB says this is the third discourse of Jesus recorded in Matthew.  It starts with the parable of the sower.  Jesus teaches this from a boat, out in the water.  The water likely stopped the crowd pushing towards him, pressing him backward.  From the boat, he could be heard, and he could continue uninterrupted.
Some 30, some 60, some an hundredfold.  Three of the four seeds sown don't mature, don't go anywhere.  But still the seed was sown there.  The sower still sowed, though there was no return on that seed.  I prayed this morning that I would know whom to talk to, but this says I should talk to everyone.  I can't know what seed will produce, what seed in an unlikely place will find rich soil, nor can I anticipate that seed sown in a great spot won't be scorched by the sun because of the rocks just under the surface are invisible to me.  NEITHER does this parable condemn the sower for doing a poor job, or "rate" the sower for the abundance of his crop.  The sower is to sow.  This parable is addressed, I think, to the sower.

This verse:
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. [Mat 13:10-11 ESV]
Jesus answers the question himself.  He tells them that understanding these parables is a gift, an ability, that is only given to those God calls, to the elect, to those who are or will be saved.  Those not elect receive a just reward for their sins.
(((Could put that passage from Ezekiel I think it is, where there is a dialogue between God and Israel, and they accuse Him of injustice, and He explains Himself to them.  DO THIS!!!!  Someday you will need it!!!  What I'm looking for is in the notes on Eze 18-20!)))

This section is also where Jesus says that the ones who have will receive even more, and the ones who have little will lose even that.  This verse:
12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [Mat 13:12 ESV]
He is talking about the revelation of the OT mysteries to those who are elect, and especially to those who are with him.  These disciples of Jesus were seeing the Messiah with their own eyes, and that Messiah was explaining to them what it all meant - from the beginning to the end.  So those who had "belief" received far more knowledge of what they believed in.  And those who were "educated" in religion were going to have their understanding of even that crumble before their eyes in the face of the reality of Jesus as Messiah.  The rules and the sacrifices that they worked at so hard, and that they believed to be saving, were being set aside now, and would be of no effect at all for them.  In 70 AD, everything the Pharisees knew crumbled, and has never been rebuilt!  That's what this is about!!!

That some are given ability to understand, and some not, seems unfair to us.  But Jesus tells us that those who remain blind and deaf are left out because of their own actions.  This verse:
13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. [Mat 13:13 ESV]
Think of the Pharisees, who were listening to Jesus not to understand, but to catch him in a fault so that they condemn him, disbelieve him, justify their pre-decided opinion that he was most certainly not the Messiah.  They heard Jesus, BEFORE he began preaching in parables, and they didn't believe then.  Is it unfair to stop repeating what they've rejected anyway?  No!!!  So the mercy part above - Jesus didn't make it even worse for them!!!

Then, Jesus explains the parable of the sower to them.  And the explanation is not at all about the sower, but about the fate of the seeds!  Four ways people respond to the gospel.  They have it snatched away by Satan before they can think on it, they think it's great and accept it superficially and then drop it when there is a cost to hanging on to it, they know it's true, but are captivated by the things of this world and devote themselves to them instead, and then there are those who hear and understand and bear fruit.  Because this verse...:
23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." [Mat 13:23 ESV]
There will be fruit, and there are many kinds of fruit beyond "soul winning"...but that comes from other places.  It is not explicitly stated here.  Further, this might be about what those who preach should expect.  Not a lot of people who hear their words are going to become long term Christians.  Most, in fact, will not.  We are to preach to all so that those few who do truly hear and accept can carry on.  So reaching even a few for Christ can have exponential results.  More will be given?

The parable of the weeds is next.  In the kingdom, because of the work of Satan, there will be bad people mixed in with good, and it will not be possible to remove the weeds at this point without also damaging the wheat.  It will even be near impossible in some cases to tell one from the other.  But at harvest time, the weeds get eliminated first, thrown into the fire, and then the wheat is gathered in.  This could be an allusion to trib and great trib before Israel is finally restored.  It does not seem to be about the church directly.  However, MSB note says this IS about the church, and that Jesus explains it later in this chapter.  We'll wait for that.  2020-Surely if "justice" was served up immediately to the wicked, there would be a lot more sorrow in the world.  We love and pray for the lost, especially those in our own families.  What if they were snatched away as soon as they reject Christ?  What if they were just gone.  It would be a different world.  Maybe this also explains why it seems that the wicked prosper - well, in fact they sometimes DO prosper - and they get away with things.  Because to remove them would upset the "flow" of the world toward the end God has set for it.  We have to deal with evil, because it cannot be removed without taking away things like prayer, love of enemies, and so on.  The evil have a purpose here also.

2023 - So...where is the explanation???  It starts in vs 36....See below...

The parable of the mustard seed.  Again, in this one I see the future of Israel.  It wasn't even a nation.  Now it is.  In the Millennial, it will be the greatest nation, the one that all other nations look to for their help.  If it is the church, then from meager beginnings the church grows into the kingdom, to be gathered to heaven before the end really begins.  The church is the calm in the storm that is planet earth.  Peace is there, and help, and love.  That is the design.  So this would apply also.  For the church, it applies to this present age, for David, for the nation of Israel, and for Abraham's descendants, it applies to the Millennial.  BUT, I think the part about it being larger than all other plants can only apply to Israel in the Millennium.  BUT, the church cannot be "seen" physically.  So it could be quite large.

Then there is this one verse parable of the leaven.  We know it is meant as a parable because it is so labeled.  Leaven hidden in the flour in three measures.  I'm sure there is speculation as to the three.  The Trinity comes to mind first, the completed work of the entire Godhead at the end of the age.  Abrahamic, Sinai, and Davidic covenants in the end times.  Or it is about the church, in the world, multiplying quietly and permeating all - per MSB note.

2022 - This verse:
"35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."" [Mat 13:35 ESV]
So, in trying to determine what is meant by the parable of the sower, think about what this verse says...If you make that parable strictly about sanctification, is that something hidden since the foundation of the world?  What interpretation of the sower reveals truth that the prophets did not understand?  These are good questions.  I suspect they are key to understanding...but I still don't think I fully understand the sower.

Now Jesus explains the parable of the weeds.  He does so in private, to his disciples, rather than to the crowd.  Says he went "into the house", but still we don't know where.  Capernaum makes sense, since Jesus lived there.  Same as he did with the parable of the sower.  Jesus is the sower in the parable of the weeds.  The elect are the good seed.  The weeds are Satan's sons, and it is Satan who sows these seeds.  2020-The clear implication here is that Satan actively recruits.  He wants his "sons" to cause problems in the world, to compete with and undermine the sons of the kingdom.  Beginning  in vs 40, the results of this mixing are tied to the end of the age.  The harvest is the end of the age (Trib and Great Trib).  As explained here, my understanding is that this reaping is the one that takes place at the end of the Millennial, and is about the final judgement after which sin exists no more.  It is only then that ALL the tares are removed.  Is there a verse anywhere in Revelation or elsewhere saying it is angels who will round up these tares?  MSB has no note about when this is talking about.  It surely seems like the second death.  The second death is the Great White Throne judgement of Revelation 20:  13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. [Rev 20:13 ESV]  Nothing here about angels gathering these dead, and those in the final battle on Satan's side were consumed by fire that came down from heaven.  So it could be that these angels go around rounding up the dead, and possibly also rounding up any still living lost who survive the battle.  Perhaps the families and such of those who came out to fight for Satan are still alive back home, and it is these - also lost and against God - who get rounded up by angels.

2020-It would be so nice - and yet so difficult - to make one big book of end times events that gathers all the verses in the Bible that tell us about it put them in order as events unfold.  So right here, we would insert Matt. 13:41-43 between Rev 20:11 and 20:12.  That seems to be when these angels gather people up.  But we aren't told that in Revelation, so if you only read Revelation you miss that part.  I think also there was much in Isaiah about Trib and Great Trib that is supplementary to what we're told in Revelation.  I would love to put all that together.  But that's a decade of study!  But...why couldn't I start it today, with these verses from Matthew?

2022 - The wheat and the tares is about the rapture.  In my notes on revelation from 2022 I make what I believe is a very strong case that this parable is about the rapture.  Based on those notes, I find it difficult to believe it could possibly be about anything else.  It is in "Key Scriptures on Judgment".  Here are the notes:
((30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn."'" [Mat 13:27-30 ESV]
The reapers are surely angels.  
I found these two verses, that surely seem as though they ought to tie to this parable:
14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, "Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe." [Rev 14:14-15 ESV]
I do not see how we can equate what is happening here with the Sheep and Goat judgment.  This is shortly after the 144,000 have been sealed and just before the seven plagues.  
Oh my....is this the rapture???  Not a judgment at all, but the rapture itself?  Separating the wheat that is the church from the tares that are those who must endure wrath?  Wow...just wow.  That seems to really work here.
One thing...this parable starts with "The kingdom of heaven may be compared..."  So this parable is analogy to the Kingdom.  This verse:
15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." [Rev 11:15 ESV]
So this "change of ownership" occurs prior to the reaping.  So that introductory phrase does indeed apply.)))
2022 - Continuing...look at how this is worded:
"39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels." [Mat 13:39 ESV]
The harvest is at the end of the age.  How could a harvest - gathering in the good grain at the end of the age - be about anything but the rapture.  And then note that this does not occur until Rev 14, and THEN explain to me how the church will already be gone when the reaping takes place?  You do not reap weeds if there is no good grain there with it.  Reaping is about what you KEEP, not about what you burn!  Rev 14 is the rapture.  Look also at vss 47-50!  Same exact thing.  Angels separate evil and righteous.  Look how directly, how obviously these correspond with the actions of the angels in Rev. 14!

2023 - For now, I think these are the important points in the explanation.  The harvest is the end of the age - this would be the end of the church age, not of the Millennial.  It does not make sense for it to be anything else.  The church age ends at the rapture.  The rapture is in the sixth seal - and possibly amplified in Rev 14...I need to look more deeply into that.  The parable says the wicked come out first.  That is a difficulty.  Many die during the tribulation from the revelation of the A of D  to the rapture.  But surely not all are lost.  Both saved and unsaved will die during this time.  And as Jesus says here, trying to remove the tares and leave the wheat results in harm to the good during that time.  That is perhaps why it waits until the end of the age - because it will be a terrible time for all.  Perhaps it means that during that time, sides will be chosen, the mark will be taken or rejected, the beast will be worshiped or not worshiped, people will be out in the open or they will hide from the persecution of the beast.  Perhaps the 144,000 are the ones - the only ones - spared this wrenching, destructive harvest.  And when it has gone on long enough - when there is enough separation between wheat and tares - then and only then will the wheat be removed...by angels.  This verse, also from Matthew:  31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. [Mat 24:31 ESV].  Yes.  I am very happy with this interpretation.  Well...I was for five minutes, until I read vss 41-43.  The angels are gathering up the tares and burning them.  They are going into hell...I mean, they will be going there in the interp above, but that would not seem to be carried out by angels sent by the Son of Man...Getting closer I think, but it still needs work.  Vss 47-50 are along the same lines.  They repeat that angels will do the sorting, and they will throw the bad into hell.  Do we ever see this gathering by angels associated with a judgment?  The sheep and goat, the bema - of course it is not the bema!!!, or the GWT?  Anywhere?  Have to look for that.
2023 - Later that day...I thought of this while at Systematic Theology group.  The first four horsemen are angels.  They are sent out as the Son of Man - well...technically the Lamb...opens each seal.  They will be active before the rapture.  They are sent out to do much harm up to and including killing a quarter of those on earth.  Many - we might even say most - of those will be lost, because when the 7 years starts, it will be like the days of Noah.  Hmm...So the earth will be very much populated by those who care nothing for God, and who spend all their time trying to cheat everyone else on earth.  The tares will surely be at the point of choking out the wheat, such that gathering and burning the tares will damage only a relatively small amount of wheat.  The rapture is just right around the corner anyway.  But...gather the weeds first, in Matt 13:30.  There doesn't seem to be anything in the first four seals to isolate who dies.  So that's a pretty big weakness in this idea.  Wait...look at exactly what this verse says:  30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, "Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn."'" [Mat 13:30 ESV].  Gather and bind to be burned (implying later), but gather the wheat to the barn.  I cannot help thinking that taking the mark is forever "binding".  It says that no one who takes that mark is getting to heaven.  And then the wheat is gathered into the barn - that seems like a reference to the rapture.  The raptured go home while the "marked" tares stay to await their fate.  Then the only problem is figuring out how Rev 13 is somehow superimposed on Rev 6 so that both are taking place simultaneously.  If we "move" the end of the age to the end of tgt, then the sinners take the mark, and so are bound, the wheat is gathered to the barn in the rapture, and the tares are thrown into the fire at the pre-millennial judgment, after which the saints will rule and reign for a thousand years.  Remember that both the wheat and tares and the net are parables.  They only go so far.  They teach truth, but they are not detailed analyses of events.  Still though...the angels do the separating.  How are we to read this???

2024 - I am still confused about this...today I am thinking the "binding and gathering" are about the Pre-Millennial judgment.  The sheep and goat.  But once again, the sheep are honored first, and then the goats are condemned.  Actually...it says it this way:  
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. [Mat 25:32 ESV].  But this will be after Armageddon...and captives would seem likely, all gathered together and bound in the one place.  Sides would already have been taken.  So...maybe this is it.  I have a hard time nailing this one down.  Wheat and tares, sheep and goats.  Are they about the same day?
The explanation of the parable is only given in Matthew.  No parallel passage in one or more of the other gospels.
And look at vss 47-49!  In that parable also the wicked are pulled out first and go into hell.  Here is another verse:  46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [Mat 25:46 ESV].  Here, though the righteous are judged first and then the wicked, it is the wicked whose judgment is first executed.

The parable of the hidden treasure is next.  A man finds a treasure on another's property.  He doesn't steal the treasure, but buys the land, and then the treasure is his.  There are no back doors to heaven.  There is no getting in by subterfuge or conniving.  There is only one way into heaven, and once we see that way, we are to give up everything we have here for what we will have in the kingdom.

The parable of the pearl of great value.  Much the same as the hidden treasure.  The difference might be that in the first case, the man stumbled upon the treasure, and in the second, the man was searching, and recognized perfection when he found it, and then did exactly the same thing as the first man did.  He gave all to have what he valued most.

2020-The previous two parables are very short.  One and two verses, respectively.  The point of both is that the value of what is found supersedes all that was treasured before them.  Once recognized, the treasure and the pearl are are in fact priceless, and they are cheat at any price, even when that price is absolutely all that we can put together.

The parable of the net.  This one is like the weeds.  The good and bad will be gathered, and THEN sorted.  We are not to do any sorting.  That is left for God at the end of the age.  These verses too would belong somewhere in Rev. 20.  Except...The elect are spared the Great White Throne.  Maybe what the net tells us is that all will be gathered to the Great White throne, then elect and lost will be separated, and the lost will be judged before that throne, as the elect look on.  Could be that.  Surely these verses belong in Rev. 20.

In vss 51, 52 Jesus tells them that if they understand the kingdom, they will understand how the old relates to the new, and not diminish either in light of the other.  Both old and new are treasures, and can reside in the same house.  But they are not the same.

Jesus visits his hometown.  This would have been well into his ministry, yet they ask who he is?  They recognize him as Mary's son, and refuse to believe that he has come by his knowledge and wisdom legitimately.  They reject him.  Interesting that they know Jesus AND his family.  They know his mother, his brothers - three of them at the time - and all his sisters.  Mary had other children after Jesus.  The result of their rejection is that Jesus didn't do many miracles there.  They lacked belief.  They throttled God's blessings because they didn't accept his Son.  2020-These events correspond to Mark 6 and Luke 4, even though Luke doesn't put these parables until Chapter 8.  Not sure why Matthew would put it here, after the parables.  Ahh...A note in Harmony says this is a different visit to Nazareth.  The other was at the beginning of his ministry, this well along...as noted.  The details of what happens are also different enough to make it pretty certain they are different visits.  It says they were astonished at his "mighty works", where the first time, he did no works at all because none believed in him.  It says he didn't do many, but he did some, and certainly by this time they knew his reputation.  But they were still hung up completely on his family history.  They couldn't let that go.  They were still locked in on the scandal of his conception before marriage, and so could not see that something unique, unprecedented, and outside the tradition of men had occurred.  

2020 - I am worn out, though not out of time.  This is a lot of reading and a lot of information.  I noticed today that as I have read these three chapters each time, I was focused entirely on history and geography.  I have not read these chapters, or indeed the previous few chapters, for lessons or wisdom or application.  So much goes on here that advances the narrative of Jesus ministry and travels,  much of it confusing and requiring a lot of untangling, that I never get past that part and down to what is really being said.  That needs to change.  Next year, God willing, I will not get bogged down in the narrative, but instead read for meaning and application.

Yesterday was Matthew 10, and today is 14.  11-13 were previously covered.  Gives some idea of the non-chronological arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew.  Chapter starts with "At that time...:  Not really very specific, but at least we know where we are.  Herod the tetrarch hears of Jesus miracles, and attributes them to John the Baptist, whom Herod had beheaded.   (2022 - A tetrarch is the governor of 1/4 of a province.  So there were three other governors at the time.)  Herod is superstitious, likely believing this was some kind of revenge visited on him.  We get the story of how John's beheading came about - through the sordid manipulating of this Herod by his "wife", who encouraged her own daughter to perform, if not naked then nearly so, for Herod and his guests.  The drunken Tetrarch made a stupid oath and promise, and then regretted doing it, but did it anyway.  Herodias did what women do to get their way.  She manipulated.  Women don't threaten violence, they manipulate.  This is still true today.  John is beheaded in the prison, not in public, because Herod was such a coward.  Brave enough to keep a promise he didn't want to keep, cowardly enough to keep it as much a secret as possible because he knew how wrong he was.  

2022 - What an ignominious end of the greatest prophet.  He was beheaded because of the lust of a man sleeping with his own brother's wife and lusting still more after his niece.  Both mother and daughter were willing to use sex and position to bring about injustice.  My sense of justice just screams that it is wrong for a good man to die because of the corruption of others.  It is like a good man being murdered for his watch by a man who's spent 90% of his life in prison.  So very wrong.  But could it be that in John's case, the more demeaning the death, the greater the reward?  The same principle seems to apply to Jesus himself, who died naked on a cross  with the worst criminals of his time.  He was counted as one of them.  Perhaps, though it seems 180 degrees from how it ought to be, we ought to hope for such a death.  Because in both cases, the men were the best of men, and their deaths the worst of deaths - BECAUSE of who they were.

John's disciples are allowed to retrieve the body and bury it.  When Jesus hears of this, he retires by boat to a desolate place, but the crowds learn where he is, and seek him out.  It seems as if the boat Jesus was in didn't get very far from shore, and maybe some ran along the bank, watching, and reporting to those that saw that it was Jesus out in that boat.  So by the time they anchored, a crowd was already gathered.  It seems there were villages around there, but none really close to where Jesus was.  So according to Matthew's gospel, the feeding of the 5000 is right after Jesus hears of John's death.  The very same day.  

When Jesus sees the crowds, he has compassion and heals their sick.  They stay with him all day.  As evening comes, the disciples urge Jesus to send the people away to the surrounding villages to buy food for themselves, but Jesus says they'll just feed them here.  All they  have is the five loaves and two fish.  Jesus blesses this meager amount, and has the disciples begin distributing it.  With this food, they feed 5000 men, plus the women and children, and everyone eats their fill.  Then there is more left over than there was when they started.  

Remember that these were likely very poor people, who sometimes went hungry for lack of money to buy bread, and Jesus has just fed them for free.  All of them.  They do understand that Jesus has just provided food at no cost for thousands of people.

After they eat, Jesus dismisses the crowd, and sends them away.  He has already sent his disciples away by boat.  They were to go to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  Jesus goes up on the mountain to pray.  He is there alone, finally.  A rare thing by this point in his ministry.  The boat is long gone, and has encountered strong opposing winds.  Jesus shows up, walking on the water, in the fourth watch of the night - between 3 and 6 am.  They think he is a ghost and are very afraid.  
But Peter decides he wants to try this, so he asks Jesus to call him onto the water.  Jesus does, and Peter walks all the way to him, but then sinks.  Jesus rebukes him for his lack of faith.  They go back to the boat, and the storm ceases.  The disciples worship Jesus, saying "Truly you are the Son of God".  
I don't remember if it was Matthew that told of Jesus calming the storm earlier, but one of the gospels did.  So this was the second time Jesus had shown that he commanded the weather, and now they'd seen him walk on water.  Their eyes were finally seeing and understanding because they recognize now who this is with them.  The first time, they'd been amazed, but didn't make any connection to the Messiah.
They land at Gennesaret.  I think this is the place Jesus had previously cast out Legion into the pigs.  The name is similar, but is it the same?  Because Matthew says that the people heard Jesus was there and brought their sick to him to heal.  This is quite different from the last time, when they had asked him to leave.  In Mark 5, it was the Gerasenes.  That was just one chapter before where we are in Mark today.  So that close together, Mark gives different names entirely for the place where Legion lived and the place they go after feeding the 5000.  So it would seem pretty clear that this is a different place. 

Matthew Chapter 15

Pharisees and scribes come to accuse Jesus, asking why his disciples don't wash their hands.  Jesus' answer is to ask them why they let their own hypocritical rules override the Bible where it says honor your father and mother.  These Pharisees are slow learners.  Every time they've asked Jesus why he "violates" the law in some minor matter, they have been shut down.  Made to look foolish.  Yet they continue with the same tactic.  Trying to make themselves more "religious" than Jesus because they obey a written law.  And Jesus always comes back with how far wrong they are on the inside, despite what they do on the outside.  They wash their hands, but have dirty hearts, dirty ambitions, dirty standards.  In this case, they ask Jesus why he breaks tradition - they know that the hand washing isn't in the law of Moses - and His reply is "Why do you break the law itself?"  Clean up your own back yard before you start on the world.  Jesus quotes Isaiah again, from Isa 29:13.  I believe at that time that Isaiah was still talking mainly to the Northern Kingdom, and Jesus applies it to His day.

2021 - This verse:

2024 - In these first few verses Jesus makes a distinction between the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees.  Clearly, indisputably, the Law takes priority.  Jesus does not in any way acknowledge that the traditions are binding on himself or his disciples. He says, paraphrased, that tradition means nothing, and you criticize based on tradition, while the Law is God's own word, and you have no problems breaking his Law every day.  The Pharisees even refer to it as "the tradition of the elders", admitting, affirming, that this washing stuff is from man and not from God.

2024 - Then Ex 21:17 is quoted, and scared me a little.  Here is the NASB verse in Matthew: 

4 "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' [Mat 15:4 NASB95]. 

He who speaks evil is a very high standard.  If that is a correct translation then I have been breaking this commandment quite frequently lately.  Here is ESV:

4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' [Mat 15:4 ESV]. 

Reviles seems like a lower standard than "speaking evil", but worthy of death for it?  So I went on back to Exodus:

17 "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. [Exo 21:17 ESV].  I went to BLB to find out just what is meant by "curses".  It means

1. to make despicable

2. to curse

So...the bar is indeed high.  I don't curse Mom, but I do say things that, if not true of her, present her as a despicable person.  Not just despicable in her actions, but in her person.  Even so, would Moses have had me stoned for what I've said?  Without checking to see if it is true?  Maybe...not a lot of slack back then, not like now.  I don't think the truth is disallowed.  Even so...I can argue with this, or I can realize that I am in deep trouble here and I need to watch what I'm saying and more importantly, watch what I'm thinking.  Here is my "application" for today!

2024 - The example given is that they were refusing to help their parents financially by saying they were giving the parent's portion to God, so it was no longer "owed" as honor to their parents.  They had abandoned their parents to make themselves look honorable.  Have I abandoned her?  Or just backed up so far that I no longer see her need?

2024 - This one:  9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" [Mat 15:9 ESV].  I'm guessing the Catholics are not very fond of this one.  It says that what man comes up with is not, is never, doctrine.  Only what we can find in the word can be doctrine.

2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." [Mat 15:2 ESV]  Doesn't this question have an oh so familiar ring to it?  Why do some at your church wear their dresses so short?  Or even worse, why do women wear pants on Sunday morning to your church?  Why do you break tradition and sing repetitive choruses instead of traditional hymns?  How can your preacher be a preacher if he wears jeans and a t-shirt in the pulpit?  I remember once, after visiting a church, being approached by some men who told me that I would need to a coat and tie if I came back to that church.  I wonder if that church is still there?  Here is Jesus' answer:  3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [Mat 15:3 ESV]  Wonder if the commandment he had in mind was "Love your neighbor"?  Shouldn't we be trying to purge any and all ill-feeling toward other Christians that is based on tradition rather than on the word?  No matter how far out of our own comfort zone it might be, we need to ask ourselves, and honestly answer, whether it is our tradition or God's word that is violated.

Possible FB post.

2021 - Here is a repeat of a theme that keeps showing up:  10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." [Mat 15:10-11 ESV]  Words are so much more important than we assume in our culture.  It is the words a person says that prove his metal.  The words are the crowbar that opens the door to our secrets.  Yet I spout off and respond and speak so very often without any forethought.  It is a fault of mine.  Perhaps the fault that underlies all the rest.  Every word we speak holds up a magnifying glass to our character for all who care to see the truth those words reveal.    And that magnifying glass works both ways.  It also allows us to more accurately see how to best minister to those we know best.

Possible FB post.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.  These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."

Matthew 15:19‭-‬20 ESV

Tradition, dietary rules in particular are held to as hypocrisy.  The Pharisees had made their interpretations of the word more important than the word.  They'd made salvation about rules and about works rather than about God.

I finally understand the "blind leading the blind" from Jesus' answer to his disciples.  The Pharisees were blind to the truth, and set themselves up as leaders of those seeking God - who had not yet found him.  Blind leading blind.  They will not have safe travels.

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Matthew 15:24 ESV

This still gives me problems.  We know from the OT that Gentiles were always part of the plan, so why this?  He won't even answer this Canaanite women... And this is after the woman at the well... Samaritans are "sort of" Israel I guess.  But the Centurion?

Maybe the whole thing was to show that faith is the key, rather than ancestry.  That Centurion could have been a local boy.

MSB goes back to when Jesus sent out the disciples, telling them to speak only to the lost sheep of Israel.  So not even to all Israel.  This  avoids the deeper question.  Why initially limited?

2020 - Maybe the whole point is for Gentiles to understand that we are receiving only the crumbs.  The promises, the blessings, all that was promised to Abraham, will still accrue primarily to Abraham's descendants.  We get a few things, as Gentiles, but even so, what we get is considered food for dogs?  Sorry.  This seems way too harsh also.

Another theory is that the kingdom had to be offered to Abraham's descendants, and rejected by them, to show God's justice when it came in 70 AD.  The Jews had rejected the prophets, leading to their destruction at the hands of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.  Now they will reject Jesus himself, their own promised Messiah, and the double punishment is thereby earned and well deserved.  And once this second rejection takes place, THEN the Gentiles are offered what the Jews rejected.  The door for the Gentiles is only fully open during the time it is fully closed to the Jews.  This makes a lot more sense I think.

2021 - This is a lesson in faith.  Jesus did not withhold healing from this woman because of her nationality any more than he would have the woman at the well.  Jesus' handling of this situation was so a lesson could be presented to those who saw it.  It was a sermon with a visible "hook" that would never be forgotten by those who saw and heard.  That's what this is.  There's no need to try and go deeper.  And it was the same with that Centurion, where ever he was from.  It was about the public message, the public witness of Jesus, far more than it was about that single event.  Faith is the way to heaven, for all who have faith.

​

2025 - 28 Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. [Mat 15:28 ESV].  Jesus does not speak aloud to this demon.  Jesus forces it out from a distance...possibly.  It does not say that this woman's daughter was with her.  Back in vs 22, the woman describes her daughter as "cruelly demon-possessed".  We don't know specifics, but we know that the demon was doing something "to" the daughter, and that if a person was doing that, it would be considered cruel.  This is a symptom.
2025 - Note that in vss 29-31, sick, lame, blind and so on are brought to him for healing, but in this case, the demon possessed are not mentioned.  Were they so cleared out of the area at this point - or so frightened of him that they left?

From here, Jesus returns to Galilee and heals all who are brought to him.  It says huge multitudes came, and brought those who needed healing, and Jesus healed them all.  This would have been phenomenal.  The news of it would have spread worldwide.  We don't know from how far people might have come.  2021 - If so many were healed, wouldn't there have been some kind of population increase in the Galilee region for years after Jesus?  Or does 70 AD coming in only 40 more years cut that population increase short?  Maybe this is why Josephus tells us there were a million Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD, when that number appears clearly impossible.  But maybe it was used because the population WAS much larger than would have been predicted by the historical trend? 

Feeding of the 4000.   Jesus says the crowd following him had been with him 3 days without food, and he is unwilling to send then away hungry.  (Does Matthew also recount feeding the 5000?)

Here, they have seven loaves and a few fish, not the five and two.  Why though would the disciples doubt if they were there when he fed the 5000 before?  Even says that after this he got in a boat and left for Magadan.  Earlier, he'd sent off the 12 and then walked on water.

2020-There's a lot of difference between the 4000 here and the 5000 earlier.  Still...those disciples...

2023 - This verse:  33 And the disciples said to him, "Where are we to get enough bread in such a desolate place to feed so great a crowd?" [Mat 15:33 ESV].  Remember that when the 5000 were fed, there were towns all around where the people could have gone to buy bread.  Perhaps the disciples too had reasoned that people must have had more bread than they were letting on,  hoarding it from others.  But this time, with the 4,000, that couldn't be the case because there were no bakery's anywhere around.  Perhaps the whole reason for this miracle is to make it absolutely clear that the food given out to the 4,000 was "created" by Jesus.  No doubt could remain - the only "reasonable explanation" shown to be false.

This chapter, and Mark 8, are both sequential to yesterday's reading.  That is, we are moving on from the feeding of the 4000.

"1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven." [Mat 16:1 ESV]
Jesus tells them that they can predict the weather when they see a red sky - morning or evening - but can't see the signs of the times.  Then he tells them that only the sign of Jonah will be given - which was about being under water, not about the heavens - and then he leaves them.
This ties in with what I was thinking about only God being able to manipulate the heavens.  Satan has no power over the heavens.  Any sign there would have to be from God and only from God.  The Pharisees and Sadducees were claiming that they would believe this kind of sign.  Jesus' answer says that the signs they have seen, the fulfillment of prophecy that even they understood, is more than enough to convince anyone willing to understand, are sufficient, and that it is their unwillingness to believe, rather than the lack of irrefutable proof, that is the problem.  And let's not forget that the star showed the way to Jesus while he was still a young child.  The Pharisees had to know this story also, and they had to know that even Herod was able to interpret that sign from heaven - yet they ignored this also.  Need the verse to go with it, and then it would be a
Possible FB post - showing that the lesser signs are enough

Oh my...this verse:
9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? [Mat 16:9-10 ESV]
So Matthew confirms here that the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 both occurred, and were completely separate events.  And yet here are the disciples, again worried about not having any bread.  They were truly literal and existential.  
Jesus gives them a lesson in how to interpret what he says.  They should have remembered from these earlier events that it was not physical bread that was in view.  Physical bread was trivial, and they were eye witnesses to that fact.  They should have deduced that it was a spiritual point being made.  I see also that he said this to his disciples.  Since at this point he had already sent out the 12, and he had called them the 12, we can assume he was talking to a lot more than just 12 when he said these things to "the disciples".
2020-The Pharisees and Sadducees (P's and S's) have just asked for a sign, not so they can believe, but so they can find occasion to criticize Jesus.  Jesus calls them on it, and then leaves.  So when they get to the other side, and the disciples realize there is nothing to eat...again...and Jesus sees an object lesson.  Beware the leaven of the P's and C's.  Leaven makes bread rise.  Leaven has historically represented evil.  No leaven during Passover, because they left Egypt in such a hurry the bread didn't have time to rise.  They ate unleavened bread.  Jesus is NOT telling the disciples how to bake bread, nor is he chastising them because they have forgotten the bread.   They should realize by now that Jesus can "produce" enough bread to satisfy their needs whether they remember to bring any or not.  This is how Jesus' words are to be taken.  If his statements "don't fit", then they are about spiritual matters.  It is the difference between "well how much food DO we have?" which is literal, and "beware the leaven".    The leaven (evil) is the teaching of the P's and C's - the bread.  Don't "consume" their teaching because it contains evil.

These verses:
16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [Mat 16:16-17 ESV]
I was thinking that there was somewhere else where Peter had already said a similar, though not exact thing.  Perhaps in John 6?  Yes, it was in John 6, right after the feeding of the 5,000.  Jesus words are called "a hard saying", and many of his disciples leave.  He addresses the 12 and asks if they will leave also, and Peter answers in part, "You are the Holy One of God".    I would interpret that to mean that Peter recognized Jesus as the Messiah.  But here in Matthew, he recognizes the relationship of Christ to God as Only Son.  But...verse 20.  He tells them strictly to tell no one that He is the Christ.  Why????

2020 - 18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" 19 And they answered, "John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen." 20 Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered, "The Christ of God." [Luk 9:18-20 ESV]  So Jesus had asked this question quite a bit earlier.  Luke says Peter got it right even way back then.  And at that time also, Jesus tells them not to proclaim this part, because he had much suffering yet to do.  Perhaps the point was that if the crowds "connected" that Jesus was Christ, the religious authorities would never have been able to succeed in his murder.  So...nothing in Matt 16:16 is different from what was seen previously - months or years before - in Luke.  But haven't the disciples just had to be reminded yet again to stop worrying about bread?  Perhaps Jesus thought it would also be good to remind them just why it is that they don't need to worry about bread?  Because the man in front of them is the Christ of God, not some magician doing cool tricks.  I think that makes sense.  I think Jesus was exasperated - he pretty much says he is - and took them back to the basics yet again.  This time through, I am noting that a lot of things are repeated at different times.  They weren't taking notes.  Things that were important would need to be repeated, to make sure they were remembered.  Maybe that is why we have four gospels.  To make sure all the important stuff is included...and that the really important stuff is included at least twice - because it takes two witnesses to make it true.  Two times Jesus made it clear that he was Christ.  One time Luke records, another time Matthew records.  Two witnesses say Jesus claimed to be Messiah.  There is no doubt then that Jesus claimed it.  I wonder how many of these things that have given me so many questions in the last two or three day's reading have been about exactly that same gospel principle?

There's a lot here.  The MSB note on vs 19 is very long, and refers to several other notes.  The thrust of it is that Jesus was giving this power to the church - to any body of believers who judged (bound or loosed) the condition of a person as saved or lost.  MSB says that as long as this was done by the church in accordance with scripture, then as the church recognized it, so God recognized and agreed in heaven.  The caveat is that the church must do it in accordance with scripture, and making their own judgements is excluded, since those are likely to be wrong.  This seems like a lot of dancing around to me.  The note seems designed to defend against a charge that I'm not aware of.  Perhaps Peter being given popish authority by the Catholic church is what MSB is refuting?  Since that authority was given to Peter - the first pope - all subsequent pope's inherit it, and all priests partake of the authority in some measure.  Yep, I bet that is what the note is about , but I am not going to research it right now.  

2020-Tried to find my book by White titled something like "The Roman Catholic Controversy", but I cannot find it anywhere.  Spent 15 minutes looking for it.  It is not anywhere that it "should" be.  If I am right about the reasons for MSB's extensive notes, then I will find a lot more information in White's book about this.  I haven't read this book yet, but maybe I put it in one of the vehicles to read as I get downtime.    But at least now I know where I want to look for more information about this passage.  (3/22/21 - I found that book, but still haven't read it. 3/22/22 - and I still haven't read it, though it is on the "Books I want to read" shelf. 2023 - Nope.  Still on that same shelf.)

2023 - I note, this year, that the tense of "I will give" is future.  Simple, plain old, future tense, and in this case that means the same thing in Greek as it does in English.  The keys are not being given at the time Jesus says this, but will be given at some time in the future.  Did they do the whole symbolic "key to the city" thing back then?  Is this all symbolic, indicating that while Peter is to be honored with a temporary granting of authority he does not have, there is nothing current or forever going on here.  Peter WAS prominent in the NT church.  He preached that first sermon, he close out the Jerusalem Council - he had the last word there.  Because everyone agreed already, and he summed it up.  I think the future tense is important here.  I think the giving of keys is important here as symbolism, not as some special "over and above" authority or knowledge or even title that Peter was to get.  We see the binding and loosing elsewhere also.  Need to see if it is always about "one man" or about many.  I know that when  he sends them out on the second mission there is something about them binding and loosing - which leads to the conclusion that Jesus is speaking of the church in the future, not of Peter in the future.  Keys...access, they don't control.  I don't know...still a very complicated verse with so very many possibilities.  And such temptation to interpret the words according to what you already believe rather than interpret them as Jesus meant them.  We ought to hear what is said, not assimilate it into our current thinking.  Hmm...Yes.  That's an important point.

Last but  not  least, why tell no one this time?  The note on vs 20 refers back to both 8:4, where the concern was that the miracles would overshadow the message, and to 12:16, where the crowd was gearing up to make Jesus King by force.  This was a misunderstanding of prophecy, confusing the expected conquering king with Jesus' purpose as suffering servant.  Should the disciples proclaim Jesus as Messiah far and wide, the crowds would look to what the Pharisees were telling them about Messiah, and not to the true purpose in history of Jesus' appearance.

2021 - This is the controversial verse:
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [Mat 16:19 ESV]  Jesus is still speaking to Peter directly, in response to Peter's proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God.  So this verse has been interpreted to say that it was Peter himself, individually, and him only that receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  From such an interpretation, you can give rise to a long line of Popes, given special knowledge from heaven, as Jesus said Peter was given back in verse 17.  You can get to that if you pull this section out and don't look at the rest of the Bible.  But there is that big conference in Jerusalem to decide the issue of Gentile circumcision and so on.  They didn't all go, and sit, and listen to Peter pronounce how it was going to be...or...did they?  Acts 15:7...when all the debating was over, Peter stood up and concluded the matter, and the council of Jerusalem ended.  So they would surely tie this in also.  One needs to be able to refute such a compelling argument.  As in, where do you get that this position that Peter had is to be inherited?  Where is the NT evidence of any such thing for hundreds of years after Peter died?  I still need to read that book.  And then there is vs. 23, which hardly speaks to infallibility...."Get thee behind me Satan..."

The Section title before vs 21 is "Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection".  This is consistent with the recognition that Jesus is Messiah, and his presence and purpose is now to be revealed in detail.  Peter tells him that his death should not occur, and Jesus rebukes him - right after telling him he is giving him the keys!  
In the last section, Jesus tells his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him.  That losing their lives is to gain them, and vv.  This too is consistent with Jesus not wanting to be overwhelmed by the Pharisees misinterpretations of Messiah as conquering king.  He is warning his disciples that they are far more likely to die than to assume positions of authority in Jesus' earthy kingdom - which isn't coming for at least a couple thousand more years.  This is also where Jesus asks what profit there is in gaining the world and losing one's soul?  Gaining the transient and forfeiting the eternal.
Good FB post, point being that worldly success is not "wrong" per say, but is not to be the priority.
There is a note in the TCR that the Greek word used for "life" in vs 25, can also be translated "soul", depending on context.  Same word is also used in vs 26.  Always good to read closely, and see if you agree that the context indicates what the translators have done.

Then vs 28:
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:28 ESV]
A verse that has always been confusing, to me and to others I suspect.  MSB says it occurs in all three synoptic gospels just before the transfiguration.  The glorification of Christ at the transfiguration is the fulfillment of these words.  We must see the transfiguration and the Son of Man coming in his kingdom as the same event.  Hmm...
2020 - Let's include vs 27 in this....27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:27-28 ESV]  Seems to me that if we tie these two verses together as talking about the same "time", then the transfiguration is NOT what is in view.  This verse is talking about a far future time - a time we have not yet seen - when Jesus will judge.  So it would seem that we either must assume that vs 27 is about one time yet in the future, and that vs 28, when some standing there will see something, is about a different time.  Either that, or we must see coming with the angels and judging as being more about the authority to do those things - which may have passed at the transfiguration, rather than the literal fulfillment of this, being what is in view.  For me, neither one satisfies.  I see nothing in Matt 17:1-13 about judgment.  This is a very difficult passage to reconcile.  Even though it is not in parable form.
Unless...what if we see the "royal splendor" of the transfiguration as the confirmation for the benefit of Peter, James, and John, that Jesus will come again AS KING and at that time judge his people - judge ALL people?  That makes pretty good sense.  Jesus told them in 16, and told Peter especially, that he (Jesus) was going to be put to death by the Pharisees.  Right after that, he tells them all that he will judge all men.  Pretty  hard to fit those two things together, even now.  So Jesus shows them, at the transfiguration, the glory that awaits him AFTER he dies and is resurrected.  He shows them that this life, this "mortal coil" is but for a moment, and is nothing compared to what is to come in eternity.  And to drive that point home, a few days later, they see what Jesus anticipates after  his resurrection.   Yeah.  I think this is the way to look at this.  
Later- a sermon on the way to church...Peter got it right that Jesus was the Messiah.  For THAT, he was given the keys to the kingdom.  Special honor for a day!  Later, after this, the disciples argued about who was the greatest, not who was second after Peter!  You are Peter, but THIS rock.  Demonstrative pronoun, not personal pronoun.

2023 - Perhaps this ties right back to the keys to the kingdom.  Perhaps this too is about symbolism.  If we see it that way, then the transfiguration is the symbolism of Jesus future kingship over all the earth.  So Peter being the rock on which the church will be built is about him taking the lead that first sermon - sort of stepping up and being both the spokesman and the lightning rod - the chief source of information - about this new thing called "church".  Yeah...I like the way these two tie together, and think their proximity in the text gives some credibility to that idea.

After 6 days.  Very specific.  Last thing in previous chapter was to take up their crosses.  Last line, though, is "...there are some standing here..."
After 6 days Jesus takes Peter, James and John up a high mountain by themselves.  His face became like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.  Moses and Elijah appear, and talk with Jesus.  Does not say what they looked like - whether they were glorified.  Perhaps this is how we'll know who lived as God willed, and who didn't.  Those who did better will shine brighter, literally.

2023 - We also have to say here that Moses and Elijah - who is to come! - were still spirits.  There has been no bodily resurrection.  I think the best way to think of it is that their appearance was in human form, not spirit form, so that Peter, James and John could see and recognize them.  This is confirmed in vs 9 where Jesus tells them to keep "the vision" a secret.  
Also...maybe John the Baptist is one "like" Elijah, but here, after the death of John, Elijah himself does appear.  And that seems to go well with the two witnesses who appear in Jerusalem at the end.  That is Elijah coming before the Messiah...but it is the second coming at that time.  BUT, there is no getting around vs 12:  "But I tell you that Elijah has already come...", followed by vs. 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.  The ONLY way that I can see to get around this is to say that they understood it wrong.  And that is by no means unprecedented with these guys!  Like the bread in the boat after the 4000, and all that talk about leaven.

God speaks, and tells them Jesus is His beloved Son, and that they are to listen to him.  They are prostrate with fear.  

After something like this, on the way back down the mountain, Jesus tells them to keep this incident a secret until after he is raised from the dead.  Again with keeping things quiet.  MSB note again refers back to 8:4 and 12:16.  These are about the people trying to make Jesus a political leader - by declaring him King or something along that line - which is not his purpose in this advent.  So Jesus constantly reminds them to keep the "spectacular" secret from the crowds in general, because most who would make him King would do so expecting him to kick out the Romans and ease their burdens.  They care nothing for who he really is.
The disciples ask how it is that the scribes say Elijah must come before all these things.  Jesus' answer is interesting:
11 He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. [Mat 17:11 ESV]  This looks to me like a prediction.  That Elijah is still to come.  Jesus continues that Elijah has already come, and was not recognized, referring to John the Baptist.  I should look up the tense of "does" in Elijah does come.  

2023 - Looked up the tense.  It is present middle indicative.  It is usually translated in the present tense.  Maybe something like "Elijah comes" rather than Elijah does come.  The "will restore" is in future active indicative.  So...what does this tell us?  If, in English, we were trying to say that in the future, someone is going to come and fix the broken washing machine, how would we say that - if we had current knowledge that this was absolutely going to happen.  This question is "is the repairman coming?"  The answer is Yes he is, and he will fix the machine.  I don't know....maybe I have been too bogged down with this for years.  But if I was an unbeliever, I would really jump on this.  The prophets said Elijah had to come before Messiah.  Here is that one passage where that happens:  5 "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction." [Mal 4:5-6 ESV].  He comes before the Day of the Lord.  I think that is the second coming...My head is not working.  I am too obsessed with this.  Reading on out...

And what will be restored when Elijah comes?  I don't see that John restored anything.  Unless we consider anticipation of Messiah a restoration.  
The MSB note refers us back to Mt 11:14.  There, it points out that John himself said he was not Elijah, and Luke tells us that John came in the spirit and power of Elijah.  Elijah never died, but was taken away.  Frankly, we aren't sure about Moses either, and these two appeared with Jesus at his transfiguration, and two witnesses will come in the end times...that's another study though.  To continue, the MSB note in 11:14 goes on to say that if Israel had repented at the preaching of John, "then" he would have been the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecies.  Clearly, what would have been restored was the sincere belief of Israel as a nation in their God.  He would have been their God, they would have been His people.  The covenant relationship of God and Israel is what would/will be restored!!!  And still will be, at the end times, when the preaching of the two witnesses will convert countless Jews!  MSB also references Rev 11:5, 6, which describes the two witnesses.  

Jesus heals a boy with a demon that his disciples (doesn't specifically say apostles) could not cast out.  Upon hearing that they couldn't, Jesus says this:
17 And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me." [Mat 17:17 ESV]
He is upset at the whole "generation" over this.  And when the disciples ask Jesus in private why they were unable to cast out this demon, Jesus answers that it was because they had so little faith.  

2025 - This verse:  18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. [Mat 17:18 ESV].  This implies that in this case, Jesus spoke aloud to the demon, commanding it to leave.  Note also that in NASB95 at least, the father of the boy calls him a lunatic, not demon possessed.  Isn't this interesting.  The disciples couldn't cure the boy.  I wonder if it was because they didn't recognize the difference between mental illness and demonic influence?  No...looking at vs 19, when they ask Jesus about this, what they ask is why they could not "drive it out".  So they knew it was a demon.  And we learn it was a difficult kind of demon.  

Then he talks about having faith like a grain of mustard seed moving mountains.  This seems to be where the whole story was leading - the reason it is recorded.  Why was he upset with them, though?  MSB says it is because they were putting faith in their gifts, given them a year earlier to cast out demons.  They had confidence in their own ability to cast out demons instead of looking to God and His will to cast out demons.  This is not a very satisfying explanation to me.  What does any of that have to do with "how long am I to be with you and bear with you?"  

2020 - When Jesus sent out the 12 he had specifically given them power to cast out demons.  They readily applied this on their "mission trip".  But here, they could not.  So we're saying that they had more faith earlier?  Or that they hadn't encountered this kind of demon before?  Or these were different people - disciples and not apostles - that couldn't throw this one out?  If this last, then there is power to throw them out, perhaps delegated by the ultimate authority, and in which faith has minimal influence on the outcome, or they can be thrown out by those with powerful faith, true faith, real faith, even without the power delegated by Jesus to the Apostles.  Jesus' rebuke of the whole generation implies that anyone with faith should have been able to cast out a demon.  Anyone, that is, with even a tiny amount of faith.  Note that ESV leaves out vs 21, the verse about prayer and fasting being required, because it does not show up in all manuscripts.  My guess is that it is the older manuscripts where it is missing, and maybe was someone along the line trying to figure out why this demon was different.  It would be a good study...maybe...to look at all the demons that are cast out, who did it, and how - even through Acts, and see if anything can be learned by comparing and contrasting.  It would also be interesting to note the activity of various demons.  Was the fact that this demon could make the person he controlled throw himself in fire an identifying characteristic?  What other activities tell us what kind of demon we're dealing with?  Are they even here anymore?  Are they allowed to do such things anymore - since the resurrection?  The Unger book seems think they're still around but they do magic tricks, a little foretelling, and things like that.  His book has not mentioned them making people do things they don't want to do except in the area of hypnotism.  Certainly there been nothing in his book like "The Exorcist".  He did talk in the last chapter about prayer and fasting sometimes being required to free someone of the influence of a demon keeping them from church and Bible study and prayer, but I can't remember if he quoted a verse.

When they get to Capernaum again, Peter is asked to pay the temple tax.  Jesus asks him this:
25 He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" [Mat 17:25 ESV]
Peter answers that it is from others.  They exempt their own?  Romans taxed those in occupied territory, but not Roman citizens themselves, perhaps.  I would have thought they also taxed sons, just at a lower rate, but perhaps not.
Jesus seems to be making the point that he and his disciples are not sons of those collecting for the temple.  These were the Scribes and Pharisees.  Jesus is setting himself well apart from them at this time.
Even so, he tells Peter to pay the tax, so those in power will not be offended.  (He has not yet talked about rendering unto Caesar, but this seems to be along the same lines.)  Pay your taxes not because it is right to do so, but because Christian's don't offend others over the things of this world.
2021 - The sons referred to are actual sons.  Not citizens of Rome portrayed as sons.  Actual, physical sons.  Kings don't tax their own sons.  Sons are free.  Jesus pays the tax, Jesus is not a free son of the Pharisees.  They see him as outsider.  Or the point may be that those collecting this tax are in fact not the real sons. 

Chapter 18
In this account, the disciples come and ask Jesus who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  This seems to be different than the account in Mark 9.  Here, the disciples come to Jesus and ask, they don't "get caught" having discussed among themselves who will be greatest.  In answer, he brings in the little child, and tells them children have the attitude that is needed to enter the kingdom.  Jesus mentions humbling ourselves.  Certainly before God, but I think also before men.  MSB note says it is about having nothing to recommend us, nothing to offer.  We enter as children, and must grow up in the kingdom.
MSB note also says that this is the fourth of five discourses Matthew builds his book around.

2023 - This discussion, likely contentious, of who is greatest, occurs AFTER Jesus tells Peter he will build his church on the rock.  So...If Peter is indeed the first pope, hand picked by Jesus to lead them all, what exactly is this discussion about?  Who is second greatest?  Not likely.

7 "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! [Mat 18:7 ESV]
Temptations make us stronger when we successfully resist, penitent when we fail, and more dependent on His help in either case.  Temptations are necessary for us to grow from the children we are as we enter the kingdom into the adults that work God's will.  BUT, those who do the tempting will still be judged for what they do.

Jesus goes on to talk about plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand in order to avoid sin.  I commented on this yesterday in the notes on Mark 9.  Those notes are pretty good.  I would point out that we also will be judged, though we are saved, if we are a bad influence on those inside or outside.  We should not tempt other Christians to sin.  They might drink wine without problems, but we should never encourage them to excess, nor set an example by our own excess.  The same with other sins.  This is what Paul is talking about when he says all things are lawful but not all are expedient.  New Christians, or recent converts, or even those making only slow progress are children in the kingdom, and woe to us if we tempt them with our "religious freedom".  

Interesting that ESV leaves out verse 11, just skips from 10 to 12.  Apparently not all manuscripts even have vs 11, and the ones ESV depends on most leave it out.  So it isn't here.  It says "For the Son of Man came to save the lost."

Jesus tells about the shepherd who celebrates more for the one sheep lost and then found than for the 99 that never went astray in the first place.  The point here is that God is concerned for all believers, but especially concerned for those tempted away from their commitment.  God will take action to bring back such lost sheep, and their recovery is celebrated in heaven.  Perhaps this is about me with my hot and my cold service.  My dedication for years, and then my rebellion for years.  Maybe I have a habit of getting lost.  Thank God He has always found me and brought me back.  And I hope it is the same for those I love who seem to be lost also.  Maybe they are part of the flock, they are just off on some errand that they were tempted into.  This actually makes me feel a lot better...

2025 - Recently finished Chapter 23 in Grudem, on the nature of man - body, soul and spirit.  My understanding after reading this is that most scripture references to the spirit are about the mind, intellect, and will.  They are about what the "brain" of man is doing.  The spirit can cater to either the soul or the body.  Catering to the body is carnal, to the soul is soulful.  A Christian still has an independent mind, and a Christian decides on what to focus.  A carnal Christian  - that is, a SAVED PERSON who seems completely off the rails in what they are pursuing - is one who has chosen to indulge the things of the body.  That is, the mind is energized to seek that which makes the body feel good.  It could be food, drink, sex, exercise, self-indulgences of all kinds.  But it is body first.  A Christian SHOULD, however, focus on soulful things.  The soul is eternal.  After salvation the soul is keenly aware of right and wrong in all decisions.  We can direct our spirit - our will - to do that which is consistent with a saved soul.  We can indulge the eternal instead of the physical.  This, to me, explains how a saved person can go so very far wrong and then return.  This is the state of a lost sheep.  The earthly will, connected physically as it is to the body, can - almost naturally WILL - indulge the physical.  And the body wants the transient more than the eternal.  This is what the fall did to us.  This is sin corrupting the body from the time we are born.

This verse:
14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. [Mat 18:14 ESV]  I can see where this might be understood as a loss of salvation.  Sure enough, the MSB note addresses this "misinterpretation" as follows:
The word here can (and does in this context) refer to spiritual devastation rather than utter eternal destruction.  This does not suggest that God's children ever could perish in the ultimate sense (cf. John 10:28, which says this:  28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. [Jhn 10:28 ESV].)  Spiritual devastation contrasted with utter eternal destruction.  Even when I was wandering about I don't know that I considered myself spiritually devastated.  I always believed, I never doubted.  Jesus was always the Son of God to me.  I always planned to go back to him.  I see others that might be classified as devastated.  They don't believe anymore.  They can't bring themselves back to their first love because mind and/or body rebel.  We can never know ourselves what goes on in their souls.  What we might judge as "never saved" God may know as spiritual devastation.  Something important to keep in mind.

2023 - As to vs 14 above...If it is not the Father's will that they perish, perhaps they will not.  Maybe there is a point to made here that children go to heaven if they die before the age of accountability.  I don't say this verse is a strong argument, but surely it goes on the list of verses that point to children in heaven.

2022 - Vss 10-14,
From vs 14, quoted just above, we see that in these verses about the lost sheep, Jesus is still referencing that little child held up as an example in vs. 2.  So when Jesus says the Father does not will any of the little ones to perish...after saying "...their angels always see the face of my Father...", is he speaking literally of children, or is he speaking of baby Christians, or of all who are still learning to be adult Christians just as the little child must grown up?  Do we all have our own angel in heaven, or do just children have them, or do just the saved have them?  Maybe vs 6 is a clue, because it uses the phrase "who believe in me".  So children who believe.  Surely we have to look at it both ways.  Little children and new believers ought to look at God the same way.  With deep down unquestioned belief in Him.  To tempt either of these - to weaken their faith with hard questions or to inject habitual sin into their lives whenever we are with them - whether children or new Christian adults - is surely about as heinous as it can get.  We don't usually think of these verses as pertaining to little children, pre-salvation but believing, but surely they are in view here also.  That is an interesting state of being though...not saved because not old enough to be accountable yet, but truly believing in God.  All children raised in church will be in this state at some point.  Children so raised accept the reality of God without question.  But at some point, they "become" lost and in need of salvation.  Is it like a switch, or is it a transition?  I don't think there are any verses about it so it would just be speculation to discuss it really.  And what about children NOT raised in church.  They cannot believe in a God of whom they  have not heard.  I don't think such would be accountable any earlier, nor condemned any more than pre-accountability believers, but they are certainly in a more precarious situation once they reach accountability, because they have no knowledge that they need salvation.  So much more difficult a situation, and with each passing day, the odds against them ever knowing Christ get longer.
Are the pre-accountability believers who make a profession at some point, and then drift far away as life progresses the lost sheep Jesus is talking about?  Are those who tempt these out of "the way" the ones by whom temptation comes?  Are these still of the flock, and only drifting far away from where they should be...but STILL of the flock?  How would we ever know???

2022 - Vs 15 seems to be a sharp break with what was discussed in 1-14?  The only connection is that like the little children and the new Christians, God also wants "brothers" to come back into the fold, and so discipline of those who yield to temptation - in order to bring them back - is an appropriate continuation.

This:
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [Mat 18:17 ESV]
I think this might be Jesus' first use of the word church.  MSB says vss 15-17 are the prescription for church discipline.  It is to be considered in light of the previous verses about the lost sheep.  Still a sheep though.  This is the disciplinary process for a brother, not for those outside.  He notes that the goal of this discipline is restoration of the spiritually devastated.  So the offense isn't something like name calling.  It is about perpetual sin.  The MSB note on vs 18 is very good but a little long for here.  Essentially, it says that if restoration is rejected by the offender, that person is excommunicated.  This is not so much a punishment of the offender as it is a removal of a detrimental influence from the church.  While excommunicated, this brother is viewed as an evangelistic prospect, not as a brother.   The real sin of the excommunicated is their hard-hearted impenitence.  All this in the MSB note.

2021 - What if they belong to a different church?  What if we're talking about a neighbor that we believe is saved - or an internet friend that grew up in church but now rejects it?  Do you take a couple others from your church?  It reads as if they need to be witnesses to the problem also, not just people that you told about the problem.  Say, someone you all see at a place he should not be, but you go and talk to him alone to try and urge him to refrain.  But if you are rebuffed, then the others who saw it need to go and talk to him.  And then the whole church.  So...it seems that everyone needs to know the one in trouble.  Only if all are witnesses, and all know that this person is "within", does this course really apply.  I have heard MacArthur say that if their members get divorced for non-scriptural reasons, they read their names out in the church, they call them impenitent and out of God's will, and they "dis-fellowship" them.  I can see that since your divorce filing would be in the paper.  Everyone would know.  Such public problems are easily addressed by this procedure.  But what about the more private ones?  What about a foul mouth?  I guess that might be addressed.  What about pornography?  Probably no one will know about that, but at most one other.  There won't be enough witnesses, at least not for a while.  Drinking at home to excess?  Your kids know about it.  Perhaps someone here and there will discover it.  But you drop out of church when you do this habitually.  Did anyone come and check on you and so find out you were drinking yourself silly?  They should have.  You should have been missed, and you should have been contacted by phone and in person and it should have been addressed!  We fall down on this, though.  We just pretty much ignore these instructions for the church that come from Jesus himself.  
BUT, look how it starts:  "If your brother sins against you..."  Is another's drinking a sin against me?  Or is this a plural you?  No, it is not plural.  Second person singular personal pronoun.  Several translations leave out "against you" entirely.  They just say, if your brother sins, then do this.  ESV says against you.  I am not a scholar, but the words are there in Greek that are translated "against you".  NASB is a noteworthy translation that omits them.  If the words against you are there, and the you is singular, then this would seem to be about disputes with other church members personally.  NOT about drinking, smoking, and carrying on.  Those would seem to be a different matter.

2022 - I think - this year I think - this is about interpersonal conflict.  I think what is in view are things like a brother selling you a car with a bum transmission that he knew about.  Perhaps a brother you beat out for a promotion at work starts telling lies about you and trashing your reputation before non-believers.  Maybe he gets angry at you and gives you a black eye and is unrepentant about it.  I think these are the sorts of transgressions in view in this passage.  This is not about the lady across the aisle who's dress is too short, too tight, too low cut.  That is a whole church matter, that is a deacon/elder matter.  That is not what this discipline passage is about.  This is about not allowing those who cheat their brothers, who lie about their brothers, who perhaps out and out steal from their brothers, or who sleep with their brother's wife, to remain in the church if they are unrepentant about their actions.  Such people will continually nurture discord and disharmony within the church.  This cannot be allowed to continue.  They might still be saved, but they cannot remain if they behave this way.
Possible FB post, using Mt 18:15 cf as the verse.

2025 - In fact, it seems odd that Jesus would be talking about church discipline here, before there are any churches.  There are only synagogues at this point.  He did, previously to this chapter, tell Peter that he is the rock on which the church "will be" built.  That was in Matt 16:18, before the transfiguration.  That declaration by Jesus comes after he's asked his disciples who others say he is, and  then who they say he is.  Peter gets it right.  Then there is the whole "what rock to we really mean", that Peter is special or that Christ the Messiah is the rock on which the church is built - as opposed to the synagogue?  In any case, Jesus had used that word "ekklesia" before.  So Jesus has foreshadowed the rise of the church.  It is possible that he is now telling them how the church is to operate.  Contextually, we can't really get there though.  We have to remember that Matthew is not overly chronological, and may have decided for some reason that this was a good place to insert this information.  And it does make a little sense that way...because we talked about those who put stumbling blocks in front of children, and then we talked about sheep that get entirely lost, and then we have a procedure for reconciliation when we are offended by a brother.  Topically, it does work.  I had never seen that before...
And then it goes on to forgiveness of a brother.  This fits right into the previous progression in that even if a brother who offends us does not repent, we are STILL to forgive that brother, though he be thrown out of the church, not because he's earned it, but because we were forgiven by God, when we certainly had not earned it.  

2025 - And based n the above 2025 note, all of Matthew 18 finally settles into an easily understandable context, a rhythm, that makes perfect sense.  What a nice morning this has been.

2020-Where Mt 18:18 talks about "binding on earth...", MSB refers back to a note on Mt. 16:19 that used similar language.  In 16 MSB talks about "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" referring to authority granted to Peter - and by extension to all other believers - to declare what is bound or loosed in heaven.  So MSB ties 16 and 18 together as being about church discipline - and 18 certainly is, and the exact same phrasing about binding and loosing is found in Jesus' words to Peter as are found in 18 when Jesus is talking to all the disciples attending.  So to appropriate these words to Peter as giving him some exclusive authority is going too far  Perhaps he did become the nominal spokesperson for the 12, and in that had some additional authority, but church authority belongs to the church, or even to any gathering of "2 or 3" in Jesus' name.  Now this isn't to say that these tiny groups will get it right every time.  Going on with the MSB note on 16:19, In connection with discipline of those within the church, any duly constituted body has the authority to act according to God's own word, as found in scripture ONLY!!!!, to determine if a believers specific sin will be forgiven or unforgiven.  Well...specific sins unforgiven to believers does not ring true at all.  So...expanding that, if a member of the church falls into sin, resists repeated attempts at discipline, and persists in that sin, it is within the authority of the church to declare that person lost, never saved.  If the church is in accordance with God's word when they say that, then they are simply agreeing with what is already the case the heaven.  Same for forgiveness of a very grave sin repented of.  If the church determines it should be forgiven because it has been put away, then that agrees with what is determined in heaven.  This seems like it would subject to a charge of double talk - the interpretation I mean, not the scripture.  There would be much to study here.  In at least these two places - Mt. 16 and 18 - the church is given what appears to be significant authority in the determination of a persons forgiveness.  Christ died for all sins - or if you are Calvinist - for the sins of all believers.  How then could the church decide that this believer right here who has left the church and is running amok as a drug dealer - and who has shunned church discipline - should not get into heaven?  And then the church can declare that sin - that ongoing practice of sin - unforgiven, and in essence say that person is not saved.  For a Calvinist, they are saying he was never saved because if he had been he couldn't lose that.  Nor would he be forever trapped in this sin of his.  This would indeed be a matter for the church to determine, and I don't know how you'd even go about it.  But I suspect that a lot of modern churches refuse to do this, and that many problems are the result.  The church discipline in 18 seems to be on a lesser basis than what is in 16...but they use the same words, so maybe not.  I am sure there is a lot of Roman Catholic Doctrine right in here.

2021 - Extending the 2020 note just before this, perhaps this is the place where sins against the church are addressed.  First, we talk about how to handle it when a brother in the church sins against us.  But then, with this binding and loosing, we are talking about the ultimate power of church discipline.  It would apply to unrepentant brother against brother sins, but at the time of church discipline, the church itself could declare that it is a sin that evidences a lack of salvation.  And if the church does this, and properly, then it is the same as what is done in heaven.  It gets pretty dicey here.  I can see most anybody being hesitant to declare a church member a lost person.  But that is what this is about I think.  And especially so if you look back at 16.  

2022 - This verse:
"20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."" [Mat 18:20 ESV]
This appears to be one of those verses that is constantly and repeatedly used out of context and given a meaning that it does not have.  This is not about how many people it takes to have "church".  Not even close.  This is about church discipline, and the power of two or three church members to discipline a brother - to excommunicate a brother.  If two or three agree that it is necessary to excommunicate - and the whole church backs them - then their "binding" of the one disciplined is supported by God in heaven, and He will act also to discipline that brother.  This says what the church pronounces as sentence, God will execute.  It is about what happens on earth, not what happens in heaven.  
Possible follow-up post to Mt. 18:15.

Peter asks how often he should forgive.  He asks this right after the church discipline lesson, which MSB tied back to Mt 16, and Jesus's telling Peter he was the rock upon...  Jesus tells the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant.  Here is the summary verse, and it should bring us all up short:
35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart." [Mat 18:35 ESV]  The master put the "forgiven" servant into prison.  Though the debt had been forgiven, the treatment of others by the one forgiven got him re-evaluated.  He was imprisoned until the debt was paid.  Perhaps forever, since the amount was so large.  MSB notes that he was given to the torturers - NOT the executioners.  Severe discipline, not final condemnation.  This is not about salvation, but about not forgiving others as we want God to forgive us.  Ahh...MSB note says that the debt had been forgiven, and no longer existed.  What was owed now was penance for the unforgiving spirit of this servant toward his fellow servants.  Chastening is in view, and would continue until a change of attitude.  Makes much more sense....or not.  See next from 2020.

2020-Again, subject to a charge of double talk by the interpreter of the parable.  It says, in so many words, that he was delivered to the jailers "until he should pay for all his debts".  Isn't it a bit of a stretch to believe that Jesus was no longer talking about that big debt?  We have been talking about church discipline, and now personal forgiveness of those who owe us.  Owe us money only?  Or also who have offended us to the point where we have a hard time overlooking what they've done to us?  And the punishment here is because the servant would not forgive as he had been forgiven, and because of that, he gets "tortured" until he gets better.  So...saved people with forgiveness problems have to stay in some kind of "purgatory" in heaven until their attitudes are properly adjusted for entry into heaven?  Is this where the Catholics get that?  I'd never much thought about this parable before because on the surface it seems pretty simple.  Forgive as you are forgiven.  But today's reading says it is way more complicated than that.  So is this parable an amplification of the kind of standard the church should enforce?  It was the other servants - other church members - that reported the behavior of the forgiven but unforgiving servant to the master.  They "bound him on earth" and declared him unforgiven.  So that fits with what went before.  Can the debt of sin ever be paid except by Christ?  No.  Was any sin of believers "unpaid" by Christ?  No.  So because the debt was so large, the implication was that this sin in the servant could not ever be paid back - in human terms.  Likewise in heaven, unforgiven sin can never be "paid for", even with an eternity of torture.  The sin against a perfect God is of such proportion that it's punishment must match.  And that is forever.  So this seems to be better...I wonder if I went back and looked at the material before and after each parable if they would all take on a context I'd not really seen before, and drive their principle teaching home even more memorably.

2021 - This parable, I believe, is to drive home the lesson of church discipline, especially as to the binding and loosing on earth.  That King who forgave the unpayable debt believed he saw true repentance.  That King represents the church, not God.  The church welcomed this pretty horrible sinner into the church.  After doing so, it was reported that the sinner was in fact not behaving at all like a repentant believer, but like an outsider.  His behavior was reported to the church.  Upon learning that in fact, this repentant sinner was not much changed at all from his former state, the church takes action.  Perhaps the "torture" of being put out of the church and thrust back into a sinful life will bring about the needed change.  Perhaps even to the point where this sinner will forgive a brother of his debt, or give him more time to pay it back.  This would signal true repentance - or at least get an audience with the King for a re-evaluation.  And if there was no repentance, then the "putting out" and the "delivering to the torturers" would in fact agree with heaven.  The church must judge the behavior of its members.  Difficult as that may seem, it is required. It keeps the church purer, and it keeps diabolical influence out of the church.

2022 - It might be tempting to say that since this started, way back in vs 15, with "If your brother offends you", and now Jesus says forgive them 70x7, that Jesus is negating everything he just said about church discipline.  It cannot possibly mean that.  Jesus does not contradict himself.  So we must look deeper.  One way to look at it is to understand that even if a brother does offend you, and you go through the process of church discipline, and that brother - perhaps a repeat offender - is excommunicated, you are not allowed to hold a grudge against them, nor will you be consulted about when or whether to later reinstate that brother's fellowship.  You still cannot hate your brother, no matter how often the church disciplines him over his actions toward you.  This is interpersonal conflict, resolved under the authority of the church.  It is up to the church to decide, each time, whether the brother is truly repentant.  The individual making the charge does not get to decide this.  
So in the parable, the servant who begs forgiveness perhaps represents a brother excommunicated for something truly heinous, and now he says he's repented and wants to be brought back into fellowship.  In the parable, the one offended is the King - the church - and it is the church that has the authority to bind or loose.  Part of the point here - for Peter's benefit - is that all authority is in the church, not in the one who was originally offended.
This "reinstated" servant demonstrates for all to see that he was not in fact repentant.  His actions are brought to the church, not by the poor guy that the servant has thrown into prison, but by his brothers.  That is, the church disciplinary body - as represented in the parable by the king - still has authority to bind or loose.  Perhaps this means that once you are subject to church discipline, from that point forward, you are subject directly to them, and not to the two or three witnesses anymore.  The weight of making decisions about your "state of fellowship" are now permanently in the hands of the church.  So in the parable, the "church" takes up the case again, in light of this evidence that they were too forgiving, and they reimpose a harsher penalty.  BUT, the one this unrepentant had thrown into prison is not a part of that process, and is obligated to forgive even this one that ruined his life, and leave "vengeance", leave binding and loosing, to the church.  
Possible third post in the series...

18 ended with the parable of the unforgiving servant.  This chapter is about divorce.  Jesus has left Galilee and is in something called Judea beyond the Jordan.  Perea is the area E of the Jordan per MSB.  

2022 - Matthew does make it clear that there is a break between 18 and 19, so the teaching on divorce doesn't just come out of nowhere.  And it is not necessarily connected with the parable at the end of 18.

The Pharisees show up even in this remote area, and try to trip Jesus up with their questions.  This is their phrasing:
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [Mat 19:3 ESV]  The end of the sentence could have been after wife, but they apparently knew there were causes that were a lawful basis for divorce.  They are asking Jesus if you can divorce her just because you don't want her for your wife anymore.  For any reason whatever.  Jesus answers with three verses from Genesis - things Moses wrote.  Gen 1:27, 5:2, and 2:24 are quoted in Mt 19.5.  The gist is that marriage makes two people one in a supernatural way.  It is something that God does, something that cannot be seen or proven by human means.  It is a God thing.  To divorce someone is to try and undo this God thing.  In His eyes, it will be unsuccessful anyway.  They were likely thinking "We have him now!".  They were thinking of legal divorce, not God-agreed divorce.
They knew Moses said other things later.  So they ask sarcastically why, then, did Moses say they could give a certificate.  They ask why Moses "commanded" divorce.  Per MSB they misrepresent what Moses said in Dt 24:1-4.  But this wasn't a command to divorce, but a limitation on remarriage in the event of a divorce.  Here is the passage from Deuteronomy:
1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. [Deu 24:1-4 ESV]
When you read it, it is certainly not about divorce.  It is about remarriage.  And the woman in view in the passage has given good reason for the divorce - indecency within her - and so this is not for just "any cause".  The Pharisees are trying to persuade the crowds with misquotes, half-truths, and lies.  This tactic is still around today.

Jesus clarifies, as to the original question of "for any cause":
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." [Mat 19:9 ESV]  This verse is about men.  That's the first thing I notice.  About men who divorce their wives for anything other than sexual immorality.  Those reasons are here invalidated, and that MAN is an adulterer if he remarries after this.  Adultery is a capital offense.  Some of the Pharisees asking the questions were almost certainly divorced themselves and Jesus has just said they are worthy of death.  They would have been furious.  
2022 - One might be tempted to say, from this phrasing, that it is ok to get rid of any wife by divorce so long as you don't get married again.  But that's not really what it says.  Divorce, except for immorality, is wrong always.  In ADDITION to that, if you divorce AND remarry, then you have committed a crime worthy of death.  This is how Jesus rebuked them for making Mosaic Law superior to God's intentions.  They had asked "Why then did Moses..." the law-giver extraordinaire say it was ok then?  Do you make yourself greater than Moses?  Jesus makes it clear that there was a proper way of doing things long before Moses came along.  That Moses' action was precipitated by the hardness and cruelty of Israel rather than by anything God commanded him to do (THIS IS KEY!!!), and that going strictly by God's Law, those who divorce ought to be stoned.
Outside chance this could be a FB post...

2020-The TCR footnote mentions that there are two additional phrases added in some manuscripts - one phrase in some, the other in others - to the end of vs. 9.  Here it is as the ESV puts it:
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." [Mat 19:9 ESV]
Here is one of the other phrases, from the NKJV.  It reads about the same, just more archaically, in the KJV:
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." [Mat 19:9 NKJV]
I did not find an example of the last one, but it is worded "...except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."  This one seems to be focused on consequences to the woman who is put away.  Not sure how she is responsible in this way for what a former husband did to her.  None of the translations I looked at - which is 14 mainstream English translations found in BLB.  So this last one must be considered by most translators to have been added far later.

Even Jesus' own disciples are appalled at how strict Jesus is about divorce, saying if that's the case, it's better not to marry at all ever!  This reaction is perhaps indicative of just how prevalent, even ubiquitous, divorce has become.  Maybe even more so than today.  Jesus addresses this with what strikes me as a rather odd tangent.  He talks about how this saying is not meant for everyone, but only for those to whom it is given.  I think this means it is for anyone who is contemplating marriage, and not for those who aren't physically able for marriage.  It may mean that if you aren't willing to go into marriage with the standard for divorce set this high, then no, you probably shouldn't get married at all.  The other possibility is that there were special marriage rules for eunuchs, who couldn't consummate a marriage anyway, but who might want to be married for companionship?  Maybe a eunuch could divorce because the marriage wasn't consummated.  Maybe he wasn't forthcoming about his limitations?  What Jesus has just said would not apply to such a situation at all.  So Jesus tells them this rule is not universal.  MSB notes imply that this is a passage used to say that celibacy is better than marriage, which the Catholics use to require celibacy of priests.  MSB says that's not at all what is in view here.
I wonder if there are any passages that talk about eunuchs and marriages elsewhere?  2020 - Reading the MSB note on vs 12 this year, I think I've taken this wrong in the past.  They say "then maybe we shouldn't get married at all if we have to meet that standard!?!?!?"  And Jesus agrees with them.  His answer is that yes, for some, choosing celibacy is the best way to go.  That's what his first sentence is about.  Not everyone can meet this standard for marriage, and if you cannot, then no, you should not get married.  He uses the word "eunuchs" not literally, as those who cannot have sex, but of those who might choose not to have sex.  A eunuch is one who does not have sex, either because they cannot - as those born eunuchs, a very rare group, made eunuchs by men, another rare group, and then those who make themselves eunuchs  The largest group, because it includes those who choose to remain celibate, not just those who physically make themselves celibate.  This is still a difficult passage, but I think this is some progress this year.
2023 - We know that later in the NT, Paul will say that most people are incapable of self-imposed celibacy, so MOST people ought to get married - high standard or not.  There are two small groups who might prefer marriage, but who cannot get married because they are eunuchs.  These divorce laws are not about them, because the marriage laws are not about them.  An un-consummated marriage is NOT a marriage in God's eyes.  So for such to divorce is outside what we are talking about.  But those who choose celibacy - in marriage - are flirting with this other problem that Paul talks about, and for this group, divorcing because they "prefer" celibacy after a properly consummated marriage, still have to deal with this rule.  If they change their minds, and remarry, even this very "devout" group, is still committing adultery.  Knowing the Pharisees, there were people who "dedicated themselves to study" and so in their "portrayed zeal" for the word, they divorced their wives and left their children behind.  Then six months later, they say "Ok, all done studying, so I think I'll go back to getting married...but to someone else and I still won't be responsible for my children from the previous marriage."  Yeah.  This is VERY likely what was going on.  It would be no surprise to me to learn that the ones who sought him out to ask the question were in fact these "self-imposed celibates", who had divorced their wives, come out to demonstrate that their level of dedication to the word exempted them from this law.  Hadn't Jesus talked about divorce BEFORE this incident in Matthew?  These had heard about it, and come out to defend themselves!  Finally...something that explains Jesus "strange" response, and make perfect sense in this setting.

Suffer the little children...the kingdom of heaven is made of such.  I think this is about unquestioning trust and love.  Those in heaven are there because they love and trust God without any question.  2020 - This is just 3 verses long.  It was also a short passage where I read it yesterday in Luke.

This next section is also following along with Luke as far as the order in which the material is presented...or Luke was following Matthew, we really don't know which.  
The story of the rich young man, who asks Jesus how to be saved.  Jesus tells him by keeping the commandments.  The intent is that one lives a life in keeping with the commandments of God, trying always to be better than we really are.  The man presses on, asking which specific commandments he has to obey?  Jesus names some.  The first two are sins Jesus says at other points are sins even if we only think them - murder and adultery.  Who has not committed at least one of those???  Only liars I think.  No stealing or lying.  Hard for anyone to claim innocence from these two also.  Then honoring parents, and then last, Jesus says love your neighbor as yourself.  This is a hugely broad command that I don't think anyone anywhere has lived without breaking.  Jesus is saying that if you want to get to heaven by obedience to rules - which is what the man was wanting to do - then you have to live an impossibly perfect life.  That was the point.  It cannot be done!  This man's problem is that he won't admit his sin - won't confess - and so has no repentance in him.  These two things are required for salvation - repentance, confession, and then making Jesus Lord of our lives.  You have to admit wrong before you can be saved.
But the man, now being dishonest with Jesus as he is dishonest with himself, says he's done all that - been sinless to this point - but he still isn't saved.  So this man realizes that there is still a problem.  Even as he says he's done all that is required, he knows that something still is missing.  And Jesus goes straight to the real object of this man's love and trust.  It is his money that he has faith in.  His money gives him such self-confidence, and people around him treat him as if that confidence is warranted, so that he never sees sin as a problem in his life.  He is not humble, because he looks up to no one and to nothing.  He holds his head high because of his wealth - and those who see his wealth treat him with earthly respect.  There is a Proverb about it.  Those who have money see it as their defense, their separation from the want all around them.  And because they trust their wealth, they are separated from God.  That was the case with this man, and Jesus points it out.  The disciples take Jesus very literally again, believing that only those in poverty will be saved.  Not so.  It says that with God, all things are possible, even the salvation of rich people.  I think it is important to note that this young man was independently wealthy at a young age.  He'd never wanted for anything probably.  Inherited wealth maybe.  He had never had to depend on God at all.  Not like someone who worked hard over a lifetime and built up his estate.  Proverbs most certainly encourages living that way.  Planning ahead, putting aside, being vigilant.  All that is in Proverbs.  Jesus isn't turning all that over with these words about rich people.

2023 - And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:23 ESV  I think it is important to see that Jesus is taking about unsaved,  rich,  adults.   This is not about the children of rich kids.   Once a list person has "made himself rich", it is difficult to give up control.

2023 - This verse:  And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Matthew 19:29 ESV
Ever notice that wives are not mentioned here?  There is no allowance to leave wives even in this.  The MSB has a note that says "One early ms adds "or wife". 

Chapter 20
19 ended with Jesus' answer to Peter about what those who'd left home to follow Jesus would get.  Jesus tells Peter what he will get in the resurrection - in the Millennial.  And he says that all who are there, who left something behind, will get it back 100 fold.  (2021 - or multi-fold.  There's a note in the TCR that the word isn't necessarily a promise of 100.)
2022 - Looking at the transition from 19 to 20, it seems that the chapter break is just inserted.  There doesn't seem to be any reason to think that Jesus' discourse here didn't just continue uninterrupted.  From rewards for those who gave up earthly things to follow Him on earth, to the parable of the laborers.

So now this chapter starts with the parable of the laborers.  
2022 - This verse:
"7 They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.'" [Mat 20:7 ESV]
So...it is not that these men didn't want to work, nor were they unwilling to work.  No work had been given to them, though the hour was quite late.  Is this parable about those saved at the last hour of their lives still receiving the same salvation as those who were saved as very young children, or is this about saved but not given any labor to do until very late in their lives?  Maybe it is even bigger than that, and this is about the church age, and how many - as in the US where it is so very easy to be a Christian - and how much of it goes by with little to harvest and so not enough work to go around.  If you look at the master's response to them saying no one hired them, it is almost like he sends them out even though they are not really even needed.  Just so they aren't standing around.  Does that mean that if we don't feel a strong calling to risk our lives for Christ that we should at least do a little something before we die?  Does this parable mean that we will be rewarded for what the master calls us to do, in equal measure with those called to do far more than we for far longer than we did, because that is what we were called for?  That interpretation seems like an "out" for so many of us who haven't got much to point to as our sacrifice in this life.  But it isn't...any more than Jonah going the other way was.  If he says "go to work" and we don't, that is very bad.  But everyone cannot be Jonah...This is interesting.  I do think I am right that this is NOT about salvation, it is about the rewards.  And even in rewards, there seems to be little difference made between Billy Graham and John Doe.  Those 11th hour workers were there and ready to work all day, but not called until the last hour...but when called, they went.

I like the master's answer to those who grumbled about not being paid more than those who only worked an hour:
15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' [Mat 20:15 ESV]
The Kingdom is God's, and he gives it to whosoever he will.  This goes along with the hard saying about Jesus saving only those God chooses.  There was another parable also like this, where some thought they were treated unfairly but I've lost the connection.  The lost sheep is similar.  He leaves the 99 to get the lost one.
2020 - It's easy to say this just means that it is never too late.  Or to say it means that all will be equal in heaven.  Surely there will be justice in that all will be judged the same, and I think that "same" is that we'll be judged on what we did with what we were given.  As in the parable of the talents.  What we've lost, if anything, will be restored a hundred fold.  This is a huge reward in the next world for following God in this one.  Beyond that, the reward is about how well we stewarded what was entrusted to us - we all have abilities and resources.  Do we sit around and not make use of them, or do we dig and scrape to get as much as we can from them?
Possible FB post 2021.
2021 - This verse:
16 So the last will be first, and the first last." [Mat 20:16 ESV]  Here is an interesting slant on this verse...Those who worked longest received their pay last.  Those who barely worked at all received their pay first.  Perhaps this verse - vs 16 - is just about the order in which we will be judged and not about how the best receive no more than the least.  I think seeing it as everyone getting the same might apply to all spending eternity in heaven, but I don't think it is consistent with other scriptures about judgment to say that there will be no difference at all.  Daniel will stand in the place appointed for him.  James and John were not allowed a high position because it was already promised to others.  Those others will have earned their position in the hierarchy, and there will be no taking turns.  Better to be rewarded at the end than at the beginning.

2023 - This year, even more, it seems to me that this is not about getting saved in the nick of time.  This is about the order in which people will be judged - when the saved will be judged.  Now, it seems to be that those hired last, or those who did the least work, will be rewarded first, and paid the same.  But ALL will get paid, so this is all about saved people.  It is NOT about poor people being rich, poor singers being Pavarotti style baritones, or the physically weak being Charles Atlas in heaven.  I think it means that everyone will know that those first in line at the judgment did the least...but what we do is NOT what determines whether we are in heaven.  Jesus determines that - ONLY Jesus determines that.  But as judgment goes on, accomplishment will increase, and all present will know that.  Perhaps John the Baptist will be the last man judged at this judgment?  There will be honor to those judged last.

2024 - So let's think about this...Jesus begins this parable by telling us it is about "the kingdom of heaven", and how things work there.  Some work very very hard and very very long, some show up at the last minute.  Yet all receive the same pay.  
Three kingdoms...here and now, the kingdom is spiritual, the kingdom is the church.  Since it is a spiritual kingdom, we might say that the "pay" is also spiritual.  I would tend to say that the pay is different though, depending on how much you work at it.  Surely the pay in this kingdom is about a closer walk.  But not physical pay.
There is the Millennial, a physical kingdom where Christ will be on a physical throne and reign with a rod of iron.  The saved will come into that kingdom, and the Millennial begins right after Armageddon.  Is this about those who choose to be on Jesus' side in that battle the day before the battle occurs, and yet they enter the Millennial just as those who have been loyal in the face of the most intense persecution in the history of the planet?  They get it, they get a job, they get a place, and so on.  Those who show up the last day are just as rich or just as poor as those who endured the whole seven years.  This seems to make some sense.
Or it could be about eternity in heaven.  Everyone gets eternal life.  Forever life.  Does it really matter if you wear a big crown or a small if you get eternal life?  
I don't know...perhaps it means all of these.  Perhaps it means that we all live our lives and deal with what comes.  That being saved and faithful in all things does not guarantee a more successful, peaceful, disease free, extra long life.  In the New Covenant age, we all live in the same broken world.  But...how does the all day or just the last hour part fit into this view?
SEE BELOW, COMMENTS ON VS 28.  THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.  As is so very often the case, you cannot pick a single "paragraph" out of what Jesus says, out of what Matthew or Luke write.  Jesus did not think in "threads" but in rope, with many threads bound into each cord and the cords wrapped around each other to make a coherent unbreakable whole.  

Is there not an example anywhere of one who was dedicated, lost his/her way, and came back at the end?  You could make the prodigal son say that.  You could make the 99 and 1 say that.  But is that really what they are about?  MSB says no in both cases.  Says the prodigal and the 1 were lost until the end.
(7/25/20 - What about this, from today's reading:
176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant, for I do not forget your commandments. [Psa 119:176 ESV]
How does this not confirm once and for all that the lost sheep in the parable are saved, but strayed.  And here too, the implication is that the sheep is so lost that even though he/she is now trying to get back to the fold, it is too "lost" to do so.  Wow.  The Bible confirms itself internally in so many ways.  The Bible interprets itself internally.)
Possible FB text noted 3/27/23.

Jesus foretells coming events in Jerusalem.  This is only 2 verses, but this is at least the second gospel that has related them, and it has been very specific both times.  2020-It is the third time we've read Jesus' foretelling of events.  Yesterday's comments explain how it is that he told them so specifically, but yet they were surprised when events went just as predicted.

James and John want the good seats.  But in Matthew's account, it is their mother who asks on their behalf.  They say they can drink the same cup, and Jesus tells them they will do so...but they don't get those chairs.  We've been talking about rewards since the rich young ruler.  We have the brief "aside" of Jesus telling them what will happen to him, and then we go right back to rewards.  This time, James and John request a specific reward.  Matthew and Mark both tell us about this request, Luke leaves it out entirely.  2020 - In Mark, the mother is not mentioned at all.  In Matthew, it is entirely the mother who initiates the request.  Also, Jesus' initial response in both accounts is "You don't know what you're asking".  I guess the lesson is pretty straight forward.  If we pray for something out of God's will, we aren't going to get it, whether we ask it, or Mom asks it for us.  I'm not sure they should have known who would get these spots....but they should have known this:  13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days." [Dan 12:13 ESV]  They should have known that at the end, there would be places assigned to certain people.  And they should have known Daniel didn't ask it.  So they were violating what Jesus had told them about sitting low and waiting to be asked to come up higher.  They certainly had that wrong.  And I think they believed that Jesus as King was what was about to come about while they were in Jerusalem.  They thought these seats were just around the corner.  But just around the corner, Herod has James killed, and John has a long long way to go, including exile on Patmos, before he dies.  I wonder if their drinking the same cup as Christ is in fact a combination.  Between them - between James and John, they die for what they believe, and for no other crime.  And they suffer and are deprived of worldly wealth for their entire lives.  If you look at what they each went through, then they did drink the cup that Jesus drank.  Jesus makes it plain again that seeking honor and top position is a Gentile thing, and not to be sought.  This is so antagonistic to what the world teaches...

2023 - Hmm...this just occurred to me.  Gentile government and civil organization is never, ever based upon a theocratic form of government.  Israel was perhaps the first and only legitimate theocracy ever formed, though Iran I think claims that is what they have - perhaps other Muslim countries do also.  The "values" that derive from a secular government are never - rarely? - consistent with those of a theocracy.  So for this reason, secular ambition is a called a Gentile characteristic.

One other point here...There was a pretty big crowd traveling with Jesus apparently, if James' and John's mother was with them.  

2021 - Vs. 20 makes it clear that James and John were with their mother when she made her request.  They were part of the request, they knew what she was about to ask, and they were with her - signifying that they too were in on the request.  So the fact that the mother is not mentioned in the other account - Mark's account, the first gospel's account - doesn't mean she wasn't there.  It just takes more note of James and John being part of the request.

2024 - This verse:  28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." [Mat 20:28 ESV].  My tendency, and I think the tendency of most people, is to allocate the labor, the sacrifice, the load equally among all those in the group.  We feel we are being treated unfairly if we have to do a little more...for the same pay!!!...than someone else.  I "weigh the workload" every day and insist on getting "my time" to play instead of volunteering to do all the work - volunteering to be the slave and to "give my life" for others, and stop insisting on fair treatment.  This is a categorically mistaken way to do things, as clearly taught in this passage.  I need to just stop it, and BE a SLAVE.  BE poor in spirit, be meek, mourn.  It all ties, it is all about the same thing.  We all get paid the same here, whether we do all the work or almost none!  There is no room for resentment, because the master decides whom to assign to this job or that - here easy there difficult.

Two blind men healed as they leave Jericho.  Yesterday's account told only of one I believe.  Yes...Mark and Luke mention only one.  MSB note reconciles the differences.  2020 - This account in Matthew does not mention that it was faith that healed them.  I made much of that aspect yesterday, and put together possibly three FB posts.  Matthew's account focuses on Jesus' reason for healing them.  He had pity on them.  It wasn't about their faith at all.
34 And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him. [Mat 20:34 ESV]

Chapter 21
As they near Jerusalem, in Bethphage, Jesus sends two disciples ahead to bring back a donkey colt for him to ride.  This fulfills scripture in Is 62.11, Zec. 9:9.
11 Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the earth: Say to the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." [Isa 62:11 ESV]
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. [Zec 9:9 ESV]
2021 - Here is the ESV version of Matthew's quoting of the verse from Zechariah:
5 "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'" [Mat 21:5 ESV]  In Greek, a very distinctively different word is used for the second "donkey" in Zechariah.  Going back to the interlinear in Zechariah, what it says is that he would be riding a he-ass, the foal of a she-ass.  But definitely a donkey in both places.  The NT interlinear used by BLB is the Textus Receptus.
It is also interesting that in 2021 I am reading this on the day after palm Sunday.

I also notice this:
2 saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. [Mat 21:2 ESV]  Both the donkey and the colt are brought.  In Mark and Luke, it is only the colt that Jesus requests.  Matthew continues this way:  7 They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. [Mat 21:7 ESV]  So not a mistake.  Matthew means both...and Matthew was there.  Also this verse about the entry:  9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" [Mat 21:9 ESV]   Crowds ahead of Jesus, crowds behind.  A couple of items from MSB.  First, Hosanna means "Save now", and comes from Ps 118:25:  25 Save us, we pray, O LORD! O LORD, we pray, give us success! [Psa 118:25 ESV]  The next verse is also quoted:  26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD. [Psa 118:26 ESV]  Psalm 118 is clearly about the Messiah.  Anyone reading it sees that immediately, so the "stir" may also have been that these crowds were proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had entered Jerusalem.
2024 - In Rummages sermon this past Sunday - Palm Sunday - he said that Hosanna meant "Save us now" and Hallelujah meant praise God now.
2021 - Hosanna is two words in Hebrew, as shown in the interlinear presentation.  Transliterated it is "yoshaa" and "anna".  The meaning is more complicated, with several English words used to translate them.  I am increasingly disappointed in the ability of the English language to express other languages.  Hebrew and Greek in particular seem much better designed to express subtle shades of meaning than does English.  One last thing about this verse.  It has a named "design", but I cannot remember the name.  The verse goes a, b, c - c, b, a.  I am sad that it is too late for me to master Greek and Hebrew.  Also, the Textus Receptus has already transliterated the two Hebrew words into the word Hosanna, which we then take directly into English.

2023 - Here is a thought...Perhaps one of the factors that made this particular time the right time for Jesus to come was the presence of not one, but TWO languages which were understood on a more or less worldwide basis.  Both Latin and Greek were studied by the most learned men of the time, both - but especially Greek - can express shades of meaning that not only cannot be expressed in English, but do not even exist in English.  Jesus surely spoke all these, plus Aramaic.  I found this:
"The book of Genesis speaks of a man who was called Shem (or Sem), from whom the Semites are descendant.
Shem had two sons, one named Heber and another named Aram.
From Heber came the Hebrews, and the Hebrew language.
From Aram came the Arameans, and the Aramaic language.
The Hebrew people are well known to all, they are also the people of Israel.
The Arameans, the sons of Aram, were a people who lived in the region of Syria. The country called “Aram” in the Hebrew biblical text, is translated into Western languages as “Syria“.
The language of the Arameans, the Aramaic, ended up taking over the entire Middle East region in the ancient world.
https://jonathan-frate.com/2020/12/17/the-difference-between-hebrew-and-aramaic/
I think there are places where we "believe" Jesus spoke Aramaic, and surely he would have spoken a lot in Hebrew.  I don't know that we think he ever spoke Latin.  After reading the above, he spoke the languages of the sons of Shem.  Do we think Jesus sometimes spoke Greek?  How would we ever know for sure?  The apostles quoted the Septuagint, which I believe is the OT translated from Hebrew to Greek.  If fishermen were able to read that, then Greek was pretty common to all in Jesus' time.

2023 - It also had to be a time when no one could "video" events.  Else "blessed are those who believe and have not seen" would have very little meaning.  Perhaps that is why the extra-Biblical documentation of the time is also pretty sparse.  

These verses describe Jesus' entry into Jerusalem:
10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, "Who is this?" 11 And the crowds said, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee." [Mat 21:10-11 ESV]
The whole city.  Jesus entry was not a minor thing, noticed only by a few.  Word spread and the whole city knew who had come because of the reception that he got, and because he was called "The Son of David".  

2023 - The crowds believed - the GENERAL belief - was that Jesus was a prophet, notwithstanding those who were quoting Psa 118 as he entered the city.  Did those recognize him as Messiah, or merely do as God willed to fulfill prophecy.  I mean, did that colt that means so much to us mean anything at all to them, other than to make them wonder why a grown man was riding a colt when a full grown she-ass was right there?  

2020 - I suspect the number of people accompanying Jesus also made an impression.  This would have been a big deal.  

Jesus drives out the money changers.  His problem with them was that they were buying and selling - carrying on commerce - within the temple itself.  The temple was not for business, it was for prayer.

After driving them out, Jesus remains in the temple, and the blind and lame come to him and are healed.  Right there in public, he heals the blind and the lame.  The bystanders, seeing these things and recognizing them as miracles from God, are praising Jesus with the words "Hosanna to the Son of David".  
2020 - It was the children who were there that cried out with these words.  Children would not have had in depth knowledge of OT scripture.  The fact that it was children shows that the words - the proclamation - was in fact coming from God.  This was a fulfillment of prophecy, not an accident, and these children were quoting it about Jesus.  When the chief priests confront Jesus about these proclaiming him Messiah, he again points to scripture fulfilled, this time Psa 8:2, which is a Psalm of praise to God.  MSB note says by quoting this Psalm, Jesus was claiming the right to be worshiped by the crowd.  Only God can be worshiped.  So Jesus was claiming, clearly and plainly, to be God.  He was doing it right in the middle of the temple, as he did miracles that only God could do.  And yet, they still denied.
2021 - What a demonstration of authority.  He drove them out, though he was not a priest or a temple officer.  He had not been designated or authorized to clean up the mess in the temple.  He just did it.  But right after that, he sat in that same temple healing the blind and lame for all to see.  The Pharisees hadn't sent him, but whoever did send him made him able to do the impossible in public, with no strings or wires.  Who would dare ask one doing these things who had authorized him?  

The chief priests and scribes are very upset by this, thinking it blasphemy.  They reproach Jesus because Jesus does not deny what they are saying.  He is in fact demonstrating that they are correct, but the officials just won't see the truth.  After this Jesus leaves for Bethany for the night.

Next day, Jesus curses the fig tree, says prayers asked in faith will be answered.
2021 - This plays on the events in Jeremiah that Bobby Kelly taught about.  But note the severity of what Jesus says and the implications for the Jews:
19 And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. [Mat 21:19 ESV]  No fruit ever again.  If this whole thing is representative of Israel, then what are we to make of "never again" in light of what we know is coming in Revelation?  In light of the future fulfillment of the promises to Abraham?  Many questions come up.  Will they receive but not bear fruit?  Hardly seems likely, though in the last days I think only Jews will be converted, and maybe only the the 144,000 will be doing any preaching?  Or perhaps that fig tree would never bear again as a picture of how little Israel as a nation will do for God during the Age of the Gentiles.

He returns then to the temple.  Second day.  
The parable of the two sons (NOT the parable of the prodigal son.  This is different!) - one who said he would and didn't, the other said he wouldn't but did.  The true son was the one that did, despite what he had said.  Sinners - tax collectors and prostitutes contrasted with scribes and chief priests - said no first, but then repented at the preaching of John.  They are the good sons.  But the Pharisees, "religious people" from childhood - but worshiping in body but not in spirit and truth - are the bad son.  They claim to obey, but in their hearts they do not.   This is a good definition of "religious" people.  They go through the motions, and they want recognition, respect, even homage for their wonderful worshiping, but they neglect the salt, the core, the real object of worship.  Their worship is about the rules, not about the ruler.  2020 - But Jesus relates this back to John the Baptist, whom he had focused his question back at the Pharisees about.  Why do these go together?  Why so much about John the Baptist here?  This is important.  Focus here next year.  Especially the part in vs 32 that says even when they noticed this, they still didn't change their minds.  ....Still 2020 - Forgot the 8:15 service is cancelled today, as is Sunday School.  So I am back home with unexpected time.  Hopefully, I can make good use of it...
2021 - This verse:
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. [Mat 21:19, 32 ESV]  It is ok to get it wrong the first time, to go way down the wrong road the first time.  As long as you get it right in the end, you are still a son.  But if you claim to be on board from the start, and go through the motions your whole life, but were never truly committed, never really a believer...then the worst of the worst who changed will have it far better than you.
Possible FB post.
2022 - Days later...interesting that he went to the two sons separately.  Their father did not makes his request to them together at the same time.  He asked the one for loyalty, and then asked the other.

So this is the second day in Jerusalem, when Jesus goes back to the Temple.  The quotes from Messianic Psalms occurred the day before.  Jesus has withered the fig tree on his way back into Jerusalem this second day - connecting with Jeremiah (13 When I would gather them, declares the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them." [Jer 8:13 ESV]).  So the nation of Israel is not bearing fruit.  The Mosaic/Sinai covenant has become completely fruitless.  (2023 - Ah.  Here is the answer to fruitless.  The Jews, under the Law, will not bear fruit any more.  The New Covenant will supersede, and become the covenant under which fruit is counted.  This makes perfect sense.)  Jesus goes back to the Temple, and as he enters, the chief priests and elders accost him and ask what authority he has, and who gave him the authority, to do the things he's doing.  He says he'll tell them, if they'll answer his question first:  25 The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?"...[Mat 21:25a ESV]  John was baptizing as a way to "spot" the Messiah when he came.  He preached the baptism of repentance in order to identify Jesus, the person, the Messiah in the flesh not the "concept".  So is the question "Who told John that the Messiah was so close?  Or, and I think this is closer, is Jesus asking whether John had come up with his ministry on his own, as a sort of itinerant preacher thing, or whether John was sent by God to deliver this specific message, which would make John the first true prophet in Israel since Malachi.  Jesus posed a dilemma, and that was what it was?  Was John a true prophet?  If so...then they know who's authority Jesus has, because they know who John said Jesus was.  And if they know, why do they ask?  And they are too cowardly to say John was not a prophet, even though the context of the passage requires that this be what they believed.  So they just punt and say they don't know.  Jesus' answer labels them for the cowards they are.  If they won't answer, he won't answer.  So the point of this exchange was to establish who John really was, and that the religious elite denied John, so they must surely deny Jesus.  You can't accept just one of them.  
Then the parable of the two sons.  One says he won't, but does.  The other says he will, but doesn't.  Jesus question is, "Which one did his father's will?"  They absolutely have to answer that the one who actually did it, despite what he said, despite his initial disrespect, belligerence, and insubordinate attitude.  In the end, he did it right.  Just as we saw in the parable of the workers!  They all did the work.  There was a difference in quantity, but they all worked according to their contract.  The Pharisees and priests were "born" to their calling, claimed to be faithful, but were not.

2025 - Here is another thought.  The Pharisees saw themselves as sinless for their entire lives. Their pride was in their sinlessness, which meant they had personally earned salvation and owed no thank to God or anyone else.  They were perfection embodied.  And then Jesus says, the prostitutes and the taxpayers who listened to John and who recognized Jesus were FAR better than the Pharisees.  Jesus tells them that obedience to man made rules has nothing to do with salvation.  Humility before God, recognition of our own sinfulness and helplessness in the face of that sin, is the place salvation is found.

2022 - The scribes and Pharisees believed themselves sinless since birth.  They had so distorted the commandments that it was possible to live a sinless life.  It was living such a life that they believed gave them authority over others.  They took great pride in never having sinned.  They are the ones who SAY they obey, but when examined closely, according to what God really requires, they are just as guilty as the rest.  Just as guilty as those who said no, and then repented at the preaching of John.  What a good Post!

The rank and file made no claims to holiness, but believed when the time came, and followed Christ.  Jesus drives this home with his second reference to John as prophet.  John was a true prophet, and the elite did not believe him.  They were saying "yes", but didn't do the work.  But the poor and uneducated?  They recognized John as a prophet, and responded to his message.  
So this second parable is just a firm, solid, undeniable reinforcement of the priests' and elders' refusal, up to and including, that very day, to acknowledge that John had come from God.  And if John was from God, so was his message, and his message, his witness, was that Jesus was the Messiah.  The religious elite did not believe the OT prophets, and they still don't believe them in NT times.  The parable of the tenants comes next, and makes the point still more forcefully.  Those chosen to maintain the vineyard refuse to fulfill their responsibilities.  They refuse to "pay up" for the blessings heaped on them by the master.  So the kingdom is taken away.  The case is made.  OT rejection, NT rejection, all by the elite, but the rank and file believe.  Therefore, all will be taken from the chosen, and given to the rank and file.  From the Jews and given to the Gentiles.

2020 - Sunday morning, running out of time.  Next year, read 21 first.
The parable of the tenants who keep killing messengers and finally the son of the owner who wants only what is due him from the tenants.  He's not asking for extra.  The tenants are those God has chosen - Israel in fact - yet in the main, they are rejecting his prophets, and now his son.
2020 - Ends with this verse:  43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. [Mat 21:43 ESV]  The Jews are just not in the hunt right now.  The history unfolding is not about them, doesn't include them, and yet is preparation for them.  I wonder if Psa 122:6-9 is ...Yes of course it is.
2021 - This verse would be a good proof text that the kingdom of God is already here in some sense.  The Age of the Gentiles is an earthly kingdom of God as run by those for whom it was never intended.  I mean, it was, because all the nations of the earth were to be blessed through Abraham, but it does not say that all the nations were to participate in running the kingdom.  This is a version of the kingdom but won't realize the full glory intended for the kingdom.  That kingdom won't come around until the Jews come home to Zion and Jesus himself sits on his earthly throne.

Matthew 22
This begins right after the parable of the tenants, which had angered the chief priests and other elite greatly.  They dearly wanted to arrest and kill Jesus, but the crowds provided too many witnesses.

This chapter opens with the parable of the wedding feast.  The feast in the parable is prepared by a king, and is a celebration of the wedding of the king's son.  I had not seen that before.  When the feast is ready, the king sends servants to invite the guests for whom it was prepared.  They not only refuse to come but they abuse and even kill some of the servants sent to invite them.  This is appalling.  Then there is this verse, which again, I had never seen:
7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. [Mat 22:7 ESV]  This is surely a reference to God's wrath against Israel, active at this time, punishing them with the double punishment, blinding them to their own Messiah, dispensing justice for the breaking of the Sinai Covenant.  Surely a line like this must have an important meaning and is not one of those "don't read too much into it things".  The MSB note on 7 says it anticipated 70 AD.  Indeed it does, but MSB does not mention that this is the culmination of God's double punishment of Israel.

9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. [Mat 22:9-10 ESV]
The invitation to the kingdom is generalized, broadened.  ALL are now invited.  Good AND bad.  So we shouldn't be surprised about who we run into at church.  They may be just as surprised to see us there!  

There is an attendee at this feast, though, who did not dress for it.  He was undeserving, yet invited, and though he joins the celebrants, he is not really committed to the cause.  He won't even trouble himself to dress for the the occasion.  Though all are invited, all are still obligated to the king that invited them.  He is still the king, and attending his party while disrespecting him lands you in a very bad place - as bad as those who rejected to start with.  We owe our invitations to those who rejected the first invitation.  If not for their arrogance, we would all be standing around outside staring at the light coming through the windows.  But if the door is opened for us, we better be dressed for the occasion!

2020 - 14 For many are called, but few are chosen." [Mat 22:14 ESV]  This is how the parable of the wedding feast ends, after the one who attended but did not dress for it is thrown out.  I think the verse means that many hear the gospel, but only the elect can respond to it.  Perhaps the poorly dressed guest is there to let us - Gentiles - know that since we are "substitute" guests, if we reject the gospel, our punishment will be greater.  If your child disobeys he is still your child.  If your neighbor's children come over and get belligerent, you will have no patience at all, throw them out, and never let them come over again.  This poor guest at the feast represents so very many in the world today, who spurn the gospel, the Bible, that Jesus was virgin born, that his miracles were real.  How many Gentiles will have a hotter place in hell because they had no appreciation of the kind of grace it took to offer them a place in heaven with the children of God?
2021 - Frankly, I am still not clear about who this poorly dressed wedding guest represents.  How was he in the celebration hall?  How did he get in there if he was not sincere?  Reading the MSB notes on this didn't really help all that much.  MSB says this guest "seems to represent" those who adopt the trappings of church membership and salvation but don't really believe.  Despite the offer of the gospel, they still prefer to depend on themselves and their own accomplishments to save them.  They won't accept the gift offered, though they accept the invitation to attend the wedding.  There is arrogance in this.  There is self-reliance in this.  This is non-participation in the wedding.  I had thought of this also - that he only seems to be a guest.  But he is in the hall....He got in through the door.  And it seems that if he was a "false guest", he would have worn the nice clothes so as to appear to be a proper guest, and keep his reservations to himself.  But this guest is "showing off" his reservations, his disbelief to all the other guests.  He is creating a scene with his overt refusal to be a part of the celebration.  He is a detractor stealing the joy of participation from those who did readily and sincerely embrace their invitations.  The king burned the city of those who killed his servants...70 AD is in view.  AFTER 70 AD, these other guests are invited.  Maybe this is not about salvation at all, but about the nation of Israel being replaced by the church as the vehicle of God's plan?  Back to what MSB said, perhaps this guest represents the false teachers that will infiltrate the church - not salvation, but the body of the church - on their own terms and try to steal away the joy of the Gentile converts.  I think this might be closer to what is in view here.  The false teachers are an infection, but they are not the majority.  They are "one" guest, not a crowd of detractors. This parable is about the reason for the Age of the Gentiles, and this guest represents the other side of the battle that will continue between the world and the spirit.  (((When enough individual Jews reject the covenant represented by the city, then the whole city gets burned down - with everyone who was in it, not just those who killed the servants.  That whole institution as represented by the city is burned down.  And a wholly new guest list is created, from among other cities and peoples and times.  And instead of staying in their cities, they all gather in the hall - which represents the church.  This is not about the individuals, this is about the city and the hall.)))
2022 - I have not reread the text yet, but I reread my notes.  At this point, I think I was more on target about the poorly dressed guest in 2020.  He was lucky to get an invitation at all.  Rather than feel honored and very lucky indeed to be invited to a wedding reserved for others, and rather than be fearful of disrespecting the King because of what the King had done to the invited guests who spurned him, this guest struts around as if he should have been there all along.  He behaves as if the only requirement for him is that he show up.  He is present, but he is not responsible.  He accepts the blessings and the gifts, but he rejects the other side of being a guest - take up they cross, rejoice in persecution, put on the clothes that identify you as a guest of the king.  As Gentiles, we were just passing through town out on the bypass, when the King's messengers offered us a wedding reception, gifts, and a feast.  We are in a castle for dinner instead of McDonald's.  So don't dress like you're at McDonald's!
This is too good not to post!  I think it might take two or three posts...First, the cost to the Jews of rejecting the King.  22:7.  Then, maybe, the invitation to us Gentiles.  The good AND the bad, and the line about not being surprised by who we see at church!  Then third, the ungrateful guest, and his fate.
2023 - Again, I haven't read the text yet, but I've reread my notes again.  A couple of thoughts...When the real guests are so hostile to the King, he is willing to let anyone come to the wedding.  "Both good and bad" tells us that the gospel is offered to anyone and everyone - to rich and poor, black and white, honest and convicted.  God calls all men through the gospel.  This is a church age, a Gentile thing.  Under the OC, you had to be Jewish, or to live with the Jews as a servant or a foreigner.  But you were not up to standard if you were not Jewish.  Now, under the NC, ALL are invited.  So that's what that part means.  This year, I am leaning towards the false teachers as the ones represented by the poorly dressed guest.  They want the benefits and blessings - the feast - of being part of the wedding, but they WILL NOT submit to the King's requirements.  They move among the grateful, but they keep themselves separated from them by not submitting to the King.  These are not saved, but they are among the saved, and they are a bad example to the saved.  These are sent to hell, because they were offered the feast, but they did not embrace the King.  Hell is where they'd have gone before, since they are not Jews, and now, after rejecting something so undeserved and yet beyond price - something free - they go to a very bad place.  A worse place.  Hell has degrees, and these will be in the hotter part.  That's this year.
2023 - Or...what if I'm just reading too much into it.  When the invited guest reject, different guests are invited.  SOME of them arrive and recognize that they are receiving an undeserved banquet.  But not all Gentiles come.  And those who hear the invitation, but don't accept it gratefully, go to a worse hell than the Gentiles before 70 AD, who were not invited anyway.  Sounded better in my head than it does written down.  Does not account for a number of the details in the parable.

2024 - "Called" is Greek "klay' toi", Strongs 2822.  It is an adjective, NOT a verb!  It is a description of a subset of the many.  Many are called.  Are is the verb.  It means invited, or called - especially as a guest.  In this sense, those who did not come the first time were called also.  The slaves were sent to invite them.  "Chosen" is the Greek work "ek kleck toi".  It is an adjective also, and is a completely different Greek word.  This is not about a shade on the meaning of one or the other.  This means something else.  Here is Strong's definition of G1588 - select; by implication, favorite:—chosen, elect.  The second time, everyone was invited, both the evil and the good.  All were called.  But there is still a standard in place.  Both evil and good are called, but only those who submit to the terms are elected.  They are invited to a special gathering, with no regard for who they are or what they've done.  These don't have to be Jews, don't have to be circumcised, don't even have to be good people.  But they do have to submit to the one who's invitation they accept.  There is no "playing at" being a wedding guest.  It must be real.  ALL are invited, but only those who dress for the occasion, who give homage, who are grateful to the point of honoring the one who called them are elected.  That's what it means.  Adjectives, NOT verbs!  It is about those who come, not about the caller.

2025 - This time, I read the text first, and then my notes on this parable, from beginning to end.  Interesting that there are notes every year.  Here is what I think in 2025...Yes!!!  2024 has it right!  Christ died for ALL MEN.  He paid for ALL SINS.  But that is not a "pass".  You must still acknowledge the King, submit to his laws and commands, realize that you would never even have been invited were it not for the sacrifice of Christ!  You don't have to start off as "a good person".  You can be anything.  You do not get more credit for being a good person.  Both the good and the evil were invited!  Prior behavior was irrelevant, current behavior was irrelevant.  The servants went out and invited absolutely everyone.  This is the church age, this is where we are now.  A lot of those invited in this round didn't come at all.  They went on with their lives, doing what they were doing anyway, whether good or bad.  Some were thrilled to be invited, and went to the wedding, and were forever grateful.  And then there is this other group...the one who believed that he somehow deserved the "position" without feeling any gratitude.  The Pharisees were like this weren't they?  They had "fixed" the rules so they could earn their way in, and no thanks to anyone for it.  For those with this attitude...outer darkness.  Further from the light than even those who would not come at all.  They knew enough to get it right, and instead chose their own rules.  
Just look how long it has taken me to see this clearly.  But I think I have it right now.  It is a far more broadly applicable parable than I ever saw before.  It says so very much in just a few words.

Render unto Caesar.  Even if it is guns that he wants.  The attempt to entrap Jesus by showing him a threat - a lawbreaker - to the Romans - fails miserably.

The Sadducees make their attempt.  They construct what they believe is a dilemma about resurrection - which they do not believe in.  They fail as miserably as the first group did.

These are Jesus' words in answer to "which is the great commandment?":
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. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." [Mat 22:37-40 ESV].  All the Law and the Prophets, that is, all the Old Testament, all of the Sinai covenant, with all the sacrifices and ritual and tedious laws, is still built on just these two "rules". Love God.  Love others as yourself.  Note that it doesn't say not to love yourself.  Loving yourself is built in.  It is part and parcel to being human.  And it is ok to have self-preservation high on your list, because we are made that way.  But you love others just as much.  This would still be in effect for Jews also, even those who don't recognize Jesus as Christ.  These two laws should still apply to their behavior, as to the behavior of Christians.  This remark was addressed to the Jews.

Jesus poses a question of his own to the learned assembled:
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." [Mat 22:41-42 ESV]
Jesus quotes Psa. 110:1. The Lord said to my Lord... And asks how David can call his own son his Lord.  It could only happen if the Messiah predated David, and was incarnated as his son.  Though his son physically, still his Lord spiritually.  2020 - Only if the son of David is God.  Ahh...the Son of God, not only the Son of David, and the Son of Man.  THE Lord said to my Lord...

After these three incidents, the elite gave up asking Jesus questions and trying to trap him.  When intellect fails, physical attacks take over.  They are about to get brutish and violent.

Matthew 23
Picks up from yesterday, "How then does he call him Lord if he is his son?"
Except for the first few words, this entire chapter is in red.  He is in Jerusalem.  It is very near his death.  These are the things he talked about that last day.
In vss 1-12 Jesus tells them to listen to the scribes and Pharisees, because they "sit on Moses seat".  They are correct in the things they teach about the law.  Therefore, the people were to obey that part.  They were to observe their words, but not their works.  3b says they do not practice what they preach.  
2021 - Here is that verse:
3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. [Mat 23:3 ESV]
How many sermons are here?  False teachers, leaders, preachers, those who water down, those who take out the sting, those who modify for modern conditions.  All are in this verse.  We are to obey the underlying word, but we are to ignore the hypocritical practice of those who teach the word falsely.

They make the burdens of worship heavy on the people, but they themselves don't carry that burden.  The Pharisees were so concerned with jots and tittles that they made worship burdensome.  Like tithing even to the tenth gram of a spice they grew in the window box.  They added such minute record keeping to the law and then probably bragged about how precise their own records were.  They made things extreme that were meant to be principles.  Worship was meant to be joyous and free, they had made it burdensome and bitter.

2020 - These first 12 verses "shine the light" on the religious elite.  Jesus is not indicting the Romans who are oppressing the people, he doesn't mention them at all, ever.  The Government was not the problem in Israel.  It was the religious elite.  Hmm...Were Pharisees supposed to be descendants of Aaron, or were they all Levites?  I don't think so.  
   2021 - This seems like a good FB post today.  Wonder why it didn't occur to me then?

2020 - So I went and looked up Pharisee.  Here is what I found:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharisee  This is absolutely amazing.  Why did no one ever ever ever talk about this!?!?  It is worth following this link and reading about just where the Pharisees came from and what they stood for.  Once you have this article as context for who they were, and then you see the castigation that Jesus heaps on them, you surely see where the attitude of "not changing with the times" comes from, you see that "higher criticism" is surely in the same vein with the Pharisees, and you should - absolutely should - reject that out of hand!  I'm going to summarize it here, but the article is a must read!

   The Pharisees were a "party" that arose during the intertestamentary period, probably in the time of the Hasmoneans, 165-160 BC, shortly after the Maccabean revolt.  They were "spiritually aligned" with the Hasmoneans.  The distinctive, separating aspect of this group was their insistence on the binding force of oral tradition.  That tradition, to this day, is a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought.  (As it is a basic tenet of Catholic thought!)  The Pharisees arose in contrast to the Sadducees who were a priestly group, and who had always provided the spiritual leadership of Israel.  The main distinction was that the Sadducees believed that EVERYTHING needed to have its basis in the Torah - the first five books.  The Pharisees thought modern problems, since they could not possibly have been anticipated by Moses or the Torah (there's a "thinking" problem right there!) must be dealt with in a thoughtful way, and "adjusted" to modern situations.  That meant going outside the literal, word for word, one to one correspondence that the Sadducees insisted was the only correct way.  "They interpreted the Law according to its spirit."  (Wow.  Just wow.)  And this sentence:  "When in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more-acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics."  (So they used their own reasoning to CHANGE the Law of God and make it applicable to the times.  And as they did this, they made it more "doable" for themselves, while making it next to impossible for those they proposed to inform.  No wonder Jesus was so direct in his criticism of them.  And in these first verses of Matt 23, you get these words:  2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. [Mat 23:2-4 ESV].  When they quote Scripture, listen to that, but do not do as they do.  This would just cut all authority to modify the Law right out from under them.  Jesus endorses a strict interpretation here.  I guess the next thing to look up is exactly when and why the Sadducees decided that there was no resurrection from the dead.  The Sadducees misinterpreted, the Pharisees reinterpreted.)  

Ok, moving on....but the above is just...sooo much makes sense now!!!  (Later, 1/2/21, Since the Pharisees had only become a "thing" in about 160 BC, they would have considered themselves separate - smarter, better, wiser - than their father's who had killed the prophets.  They weren't just better than anyone in 1st century Jerusalem, they were also smarter than all who came before them.  Just like Millennials!)

2022 - Jesus tells the crowds in these first few verses not to call people "rabbi", because there is one teacher, and all are brothers, not to call people "Father" because we have one Father who is in heaven, and not to call people "Instructor" (Greek word is "kathegetes") because there is only one instructor, Christ.   I am not aware of an English word that is transliterated from kath-aig-A-tace'.  The first says all are on the same level.  That teacher is the coming, and is the Holy Spirit.  Call no one Father, because God is in his heaven.  Call no one instructor, for Christ is here to open those doors.  This is the Trinity.

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. [Mat 23:13 ESV]
Starting in vs 13, we see the first use of "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"  Very direct language, very accusing, and without wiggle room.  Note that Jesus is addressing the scribes and Pharisees directly, with the all the people including his disciples there to hear every word.  This is the Messiah publicly demolishing the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees, and refocusing ALL authority on the word, as written instead of as interpreted.  There are seven woes listed.  These are addressed to the most (self)-important religious leaders of the time.  What follows are many examples of the ways in which these leaders have perverted the law with their traditions, with their interpretations that stress the minutiae while completely overlooking the broad brush.  
Another good FB post, following the one above.  Use that first woe as an example of the seven, and then explain the rest.

The first one says they not only are so wrong that they themselves won't get to heaven, but that they are preventing others from getting there also.  A very serious charge given Jesus' earlier condemnation of those who mislead children.  Secondly, they go to great lengths to convert foreigners to Judaism, and then teach them their own perverted version of it, making the proselytes to Judaism even worse than they themselves are.  They should have left those people alone!  This is an interesting concept!  

The third, in 16-22, is about swearing.  Jesus shows how they have given priority to the "physical" rather than to the holy and spiritual.  They have made the sacrifice more important than the altar.  This is a long section.  They were swearing by the offering, but if you swore by the altar, that one you didn't have to really keep.  They were upside down in their thinking.   Seems they were making what they could see and sell and tax and control more important than the God who provided them in the first place.
2022 - And why would they go to the trouble of making these distinctions about swearing?  Only purpose would be to cheat those who "didn't" know the rules.  Perhaps these rules had not formerly been public.  The Pharisees could swear by the altar to pay a certain price, then refuse to do so and thereby cheat the seller, and claim they were still sinless because the seller should have known that oath was not binding.  They went to this much trouble to make it "fair" to cheat someone!  What a mindset!

The fourth is about how they weigh out the tenth of mint - of irrelevant herbs instead of the corn and wheat tithes that were intended - and spend no time worrying about mercy and justice.  They obey the specifics but not the intent.  The fifth time is about another human tradition they've added and made weighty while neglecting the real point.  They make sure the dishes are clean on the outside - dishes and themselves - for others to see they use clean utensils, but they don't make sure the inside is clean, neither of dishes or of themselves.  The sixth is about how nice their clothes are, so that they look pious and dedicated, but on the inside are dead men's bones.  Stinking rotting flesh on the inside, unsaved, unacceptable to God on the inside where it matters but fastidious perfection on the outside - for men to see, while they neglect the things of God.  

2022 - This verse:  "24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" [Mat 23:24 ESV]
Doesn't this reference "passing" a gnat?  Isn't this about eliminating a gnat and making a huge deal of something that is no "strain" at all, while swallowing something that you are never going to be able to "get rid of"?  Jesus is saying they act like tithing a tenth of the tiniest is a huge deal, while they consume great clods of evil that they can never expel.  I'd not seen it this way before...but what else could it mean?

2022 - Vs 25, To make the outside clean, you must first get the inside clean.  Look at the profound wisdom in this.  How laser focused on the Pharisees was Jesus here.  How accurate this description, so that all who heard - the CROWDS heard - just how far down the wrong path the Pharisees had gone, and they recognized the truth of it.  The "eminence" of the Pharisees was gone forever after Jesus said these things in 23.

28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [Mat 23:28 ESV]  Is this me?  Is this the modern church?  NO! It is NOT the modern church.  It is not about an organization, it is about individuals.  It ties right back to the one about how our words proclaim our cleanness or uncleanness, rather than what we eat doing so.  The outside can look just fine, like a tomb can look clean and wholesome, but on the inside, rotten, stinking, dead men's bones.  This was all said about religious leadership in the time of Roman occupation.  The government was doing what you would expect them to do.  But the church leadership was undermining the true foundation of that society - of all society.
A third FB post in the series.

The seventh and last is their outward honoring of the dead prophets - especially those murdered for the things they preached.  They do this to show that, had they been there in those days, they'd have recognized and accepted the truth those prophet's proclaimed, and heeded their warnings, unlike their fathers.  2021 - They were smarter than all who came before them.  Jesus first points out that they are condemning themselves already in confessing that they are their father's sons, inheritors of what their father's did.  This vs;  32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. [Mat 23:32 ESV] , and then also this verse:  36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. [Mat 23:36 ESV]  I think Jesus is saying that they are their father's sons in that they too are about to reject and murder and persecute and deny the truth of the things they hear.  They are going to crucify the Messiah - surely a worse crime than even their own evil fathers ever did - then persecute, whip, chase and kill others who proclaim the gospel.  This will bring the wrath of God already incited by their fathers, already being played out, also on themselves, not just as descendants of evil men but because they are as bad or worse than those men.  This generation will receive the culmination of God's wrath.  The double punishment will be visited on them.  (2020 - I need to get this whole thing put together...)

2021 - This is just too much...There must be a way to put the description of the Pharisaic mindset above from Brittanica with vss 29-32.  In the same way that the Pharisees changed the rules in order to portray themselves as righteous, knowledgeable, fair, pure in heart, and a wiser and nobler people than any who ever came before, so our "leaders" today would NEVER  have owned slaves, NEVER have looked down their noses at Asians, NEVER have taken advantage of opportunities that came from being children of a wealthy home.  These SJW's who shout their superiority over the fathers who produced them back through generations are in fact declaring themselves as guilty as their father's were for the sins they commit.  Because just like their ancestors, they see themselves as greater than  those around them because of their self-declared brilliance, not realizing that the only difference between them and their fathers is that they are beating down a different class of people.  But make no mistake, they are beating down whole groups of people in the name of moral superiority.  This is the same thing!  (((This is all originally in the Matt 23 commetns.)))
Can I possibly put this together as a FB post, or must this be a website treatise with a link?

2021 - This verse:
36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. [Mat 23:36 ESV]
This was Jesus' last day as the flesh and blood that we are.  And on this day, he tells the people listening that they are the last generation of the Mosaic Law, the last generation of God's chosen people.  He is telling them that 70 AD is coming, that the Law is about to be abrogated, and that the church age will replace the Mosaic Law as the Gentiles will replace the chosen.  This scenario is going to repeat.  The day is coming when the last seven years will unfold.  That generation will see the end as laid out in revelation.  That will be then end of the Age of the Gentiles, and see the resurgence of the chosen nation of Israel, as the Jews recognize Christ in almost universal numbers across the world, and they come home to Jerusalem.  That will be the end for the Gentiles, as they will have gone as far astray in their turn as Israel did in Jesus' time.  It will be as the days of Noah, because in Noah's day, there were only Gentiles.  Before you go wagging your head and saying tut tut tut about Israel, just remember that an even worse time is coming to the Gentiles.  We must look to our own families, our children, and our grandchildren to make sure that they are not still here when those days unfold.

Last verse of the chapter, after all these condemnations, is here:
39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Mat 23:39 ESV]
I think this is the blindness on them.  They just won't recognize the Christ of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah.  They will not today recognize Jesus as Christ though they have the benefit of hindsight and of the New Testament.  A terrible thing for them to be shut off from seeing Jesus.  2020 - Jesus is quoting an OT scripture of the Messiah.  I don't think it is about blindness, I think he is telling them that he is going back to heaven, and they won't see him again until he comes to fulfill...Oh my.  It is Psalm 118:26, the same Psalm quoted as he entered Jerusalem, same as the young men were quoting as Jesus taught and  healed in the temple.  Taking a sec to read that Psalm.  The Messianic part of this Psalm seems to start in vs 22.  Before that it seems to be by David about his own relationship with God, even in the times of his distress. There is an MSB note at Mark 11:9 saying this is part of the Hallel (The Hebrew word for praise) comprised of Psa 113-118 which was sung at all the Jewish religious festivals, most notably at the Passover.

Chapter 24
(2021 - Do not study Matthew 24 without studying Luke 17 also.  Luke 17 has "timestamps" that Matt 24 does not.)
(2021 - Here also I will put the new notes, the 2021 notes, below in their own section.)
This is the third account of these events.  As presented in the Chronological Bible, we had Luke 21 first, then Mark 13, and now Matthew 24.  There are new notes on those two previous accounts that I think finally interpret Jesus' words in a way that makes sense to me.  Doesn't mean they make sense to anyone else.  Doesn't mean they're right.  So keeping in mind that this same ground has been covered twice already, I will be a little less "stand alone" on the notes here in Matthew.  I will try to focus more on additions or deletions here.

VERSES 1-14
Note verse 2:
2 But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." [Mat 24:2 ESV]  The wailing wall is a stack of stones.  They are stacked really high.  I think one would be fully justified to say that the wailing wall is not part of the temple.  But if I wanted it to be the temple, I might say that Jesus was standing up top looking at columns and arches and such - the Temple, not it's foundation - when he said "not one stone...".  And this last is probably the case.  Is the wailing wall part of the wrath toward the Jews?  It is almost like their most sacred spot is in the basement of the Dome of the Rock.  Is that an accident?  Is that an obvious indication that the wall is not a big deal?  Maybe even that it isn't where the Temple even was?

2022 - Clearly, Jesus and the disciples (we are talking about more than just the 12 here) had left the city, and gone outside the walls and were seated - resting, recuperating from the day's events - on the Mount of Olives.  They were away from the crowds, they had found some privacy and respite.  We don't know who asks the questions, because likely one started asking and others added to it.  It could even be that Matthew is giving us an idea of the questions that were asked as Jesus' taught them about what was coming.  The questions may have built upon Jesus' teaching, rather than all having been asked at the beginning, and then Jesus organized them before he began answering.  This last is the way I've always pictured his answers.  He listened to all the questions, organized what he wanted to teach them, and then his discourse, uninterrupted.  But it may not really have played out quite that way.

2025 - It makes one wonder about the advisability of putting words in red, and implying that they are the precise exact words spoken by Jesus, in the correct order, and uninterrupted.  This is a pretty big stretch.  Entirely possible within the context of inspired writing...but is it really that way?

The questions are different in Matthew.  There are clearly, distinctly three questions in Matthew where Luke and Mark had only two.  Mark and Luke seem to confine the questions to ONLY what Jesus had said about the stones.  They want to know when these things are going to happen, and what the sign will be that they are about to happen.  Neither Mark nor Luke asks anything beyond that.  Which does not mean they didn't know that got talked about also.  In fact, since both of them do include the information Jesus gave about his second coming, we can assume they knew that part also.  That is just not what they focused on.  Matthew on the other hand includes the further questions.  He too asks "when will these things be", and I think this first question is about the Temple.  But beyond that, Matthew also asks what will be the sign of your coming.  Not the sign of when the Temple will fall, but of Jesus return.  That is an interesting question, isn't it?  Because we've been told at least twice that the disciples at this point still did not understand that Jesus was going to die, rise again, ascend to heaven, and come back a second time.  If they didn't get that, why would they ask when Jesus is coming back?  And the third question in Matthew is "what is the sign of the end of the age".  I think that's how that goes together.   As in Luke and Mark, Jesus' answer begins with a warning that they should not be deceived.

These warnings continue down through vs 8.  Matthew does not mention any signs in the heavens either.  We only saw that in one of the three.  Matthew stays right with Mark through vs. 8.  Luke adds in the terrors and great signs in the heavens.  Then all  three come right back together to talk about the persecution that is coming.  Delivered up to synagogues and prisons.  They will be hated, even killed for Jesus' name's sake.  Matthew talks about this persecution but he spends a lot less time on it than Mark and Luke did.  Matthew doesn't mention that the gospel must first be preached to all nations as Mark mentions at this point in the answer.  (LATER...Oh my!  If this is about 70 AD, then maybe it means the gospel had to be preached to all the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel as a nation!!!  All the Jews had to be given a chance to embrace the Kingdom of God before Jerusalem  - and the Temple - fell.  Because those who were still following the Law after the Temple fell had no place at all to continue the requirements of the Law.  To stay under the Law after that point meant you were just out there with no way to delay the punishment for sin until next year.  At this point, it was the gospel or nothing, and it was necessary that all have a chance to embrace the New Covenant before the old became simply impossible!  I think this is right.  I think this is very right!)  Matthew doesn't talk about not preparing their remarks beforehand when they are delivered up.  These instructions may well have been to the apostles only, to tell them what lay ahead for them specifically.  Many Christians prior to 70 AD were persecuted, and many converted Jews were also, but the warning still seems to be specifically for the apostles.  Matthew sort of hits a glancing mention of parents against children, brother against brother, but again, he is very brief about this.  

2022 - Vs 9:  "9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake." [Mat 24:9 ESV].  If we take the position that Jesus is answering the first question - when will the temple stones be thrown down, then we have to understand this verse as referencing events before 70 AD.  So the "hated by all nations" would first and foremost refer to Rome hating Christians and blaming them for everything bad that happened, and burning them at the stake and all those things.  Remember also though, from Acts, that Paul was thrown into prison also by local authorities in lesser provinces.  Surely Ephesus hated Christians and persecuted them as far as the followers of Diana are concerned.  The Greeks despised their talk of life after death, ridiculed them, and possibly in local jurisdictions imprisoned and killed Christians and stole their assets.  But Rome was the dominant force in the Middle East, near East, and Asia at this time, and all the way up into Europe.  So for the most part, it makes good sense to see this verse as Jesus talking about the coming Roman and Roman-inspired persecution of Christians up until 70 AD.

Then in Matt 24:11 he talks about false prophets.  Back in vss 4, 5 Matthew says Jesus warned them about false Christs - those who would claim to be Jesus returned already. Now Matthew adds a warning against false prophets also.  These will steer people off the track.  Jesus says that iniquity will be multiplied.  In ESV it says "lawlessness will be increased".  I don't know that this was a specific characteristic of Jerusalem prior to AD 70.  I don't know if it got considerably worse leading up to then.  After all, it was the Romans who were making most of the laws by this time.  From the Fall of Jerusalem videos I watched yesterday, there were many rebellions, many groups that opposed the Romans, and then there were also those who thought Roman rule was just fine.  These probably turned their relatives in the rebel groups over to the Romans.  That may be what all this is about precisely.  This verse:
10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. [Mat 24:10 ESV]  This would have been the betrayal of their countrymen - of patriots some might call them - to the Romans.  They are falling away from loyalty to Israel.  The Jews had already rejected the gospel, so they are not falling away from that.  

Then this verse:  13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. [Mat 24:13 ESV]  This comes right after "the love of many will grow cold".  So I think this means not to give up, not to live in depression, not to decide there is no hope in God.  As the times get worse and worse - more lawless, more upside down, where even your own family may betray you and you have to live and work and sleep with this kind of stress - Jesus' followers are to endure.  To rest in him no matter what the world brings.  Because those who do will be saved to eternal life in heaven.  This is not about physical survival of the hardships.  Can't be if you look back at vs. 9 where it said some would be put to death.  

Then vs 14:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [Mat 24:14 ESV]  See above, LATER in all caps.  The Kingdom was offered to the Jews.  The gospel of the Kingdom had to be preached - to all the Jews - before the end of the Temple.  There were no Jews in North or South American at that time, none in most of Africa, the Far East, or Russia and China.  There were no Jews there to be reached.  The Jewish world at that time was much smaller, and the gospel did indeed reach the whole world of the Jews before 70 AD.  This makes so many verses finally clear.

VERSES 15-28
2023 - While reading Rev 6, I made some more notes on these verses.  See those between the three stars in the notes on that chapter.
Vs 15 we get to the abomination of desolation.  Here are the next verses:
15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. [Mat 24:15-16 ESV]  In the Gore video I saw yesterday, he tied the siege of Jerusalem by the Governor of Syria to the verse in Luke that says "when you see Jerusalem surrounded".  That's Luke 21:20, which then proceeds to say "flee to the mountains".  Matthew and Mark don't mention the siege, but they mention the abomination of desolation and then they say flee to the mountains.  If we take that 6 day siege by Syria as the specific event that Luke is talking about, then it seems to me we would need to put that abomination of desolation showing up pretty much simultaneously.  The video said they didn't know why that governor left.  Cestius Gallus was the leader of the surrounding forces from Syria.  Jerusalem was surrounded and then the siege abandoned, which Christians in Jerusalem recognized as the sign Jesus had told them to look for.  Gore says they left the city in numbers.  But we don't see the abomination of desolation here.  I don't think it makes any sense to believe that Mark and Matthew are jumping  here to end times while Luke continues talking about 70 AD.  I think it is logical to assume that the abomination of desolation - which I believe is an idol, a statue, and false god - was placed in the Temple somewhere right along here.  Hmm...Gore says that the zealots - the rebel groups - inside Jerusalem took the breaking of the siege as a sign from God that he would rescue them and they took off after the Syrians and killed many of them.  Was there perhaps a rebel leader who elevated himself to God's appointed?  No...I think it was an idol.  But...at this siege, the Romans had pretty much been run out of town?  Who would have set up that idol at this particular time???  

Mark says the a of d will be seen standing where he ought not to be.  Matthew says he will be standing in the holy place.  (need to make sure there is no alternate word construction here.  Are we sure he means the Holy Place in the Temple?  This would be inside the doors, inside being the key word, between the door and the veil.  "...ought not to be" is much broader.  And back in Daniel, it is not about the a of d "standing", but about the a of d being "set up".  Daniel also mentions - in both 11 and 12 - that the "regular burnt offering" will be taken away.  It would be good to do a study of all the times that ever happened, and especially the times it happened between 29 AD and 70 AD.  You know, it could be that this happened with the a of d and the regular  burnt offering at one point, and everyone's eyebrows went up, and then sometime later (or sometime before) Cestius Gallus surrounded the city.  Circumstances indicate to me that the a of d would have come sometime before the city was surrounded.  There is a lot of digging to be done here.  Moving on though today...Oh!  One more thing.  That parenthetical "let the reader understand" is in both Mark and Matthew when they talk about the a of d.  Surely this means it will take some real study to recognize when this happens.  Maybe it was done in secret, and only the people of that time were aware of it, and it was never recorded anywhere?

(((2023 - So let me just insert as I read these notes today that I am thinking 24:1-14 are about events pre-70 AD, but then in 15, when the A of D shows up, is about end times.  Through vs 14 is in my past, 15 on has not yet happened.  See if that holds up as we keep going.  Vss 15-28 are about the revelation of the A of D and the Son of Perdition.  The rise of the miss-labeled Antichrist, all the way up to just before the second coming and Armageddon.  Vss 29-31 are the rapture.  There is overlap here...The rapture occurs before "the vultures gather", though Armageddon may be shaping up before the rapture.  32-35 are about these last few signs.  Once the sun goes dark, the generation that sees that happen will see the end of it all.  The second coming of Christ to establish his kingdom will not be some "any time now event", but an imminent "you will see it" event.  So vs 36 means NOT that Jesus could just appear any second for the second coming, but that we need to watch the fig tree!  Watch for the signs, because we do not know when these events will be begin to unfold.  Why would Jesus say this UNLESS a lot of these things will happen BEFORE the rapture!?!?!  He is telling his disciples this, not addressing future left behind converts!  Once these things begin to unfold, THEN you better be watching every minute FOR THE RAPTURE, not the second coming!!!  Except...why the parable of the 10 virgins? AHHH!  They all knew the bridegroom's arrival was imminent, just didn't know the exact hour!!!  That fits also!!!  Yes, this year, it makes sense to me as summarized inside these parentheses.)))

2024 - These notes are not well organized...so I am putting this addition right here for now.  The verbs in vs 22, "had been cut short" and "would have been saved" are both aorist passive indicative.  The aorist tells us that we are not sure of when this will take place.  When translated into English, it is customary to express this as past tense...which can be very misleading sometimes and certainly is here.  The "when" of the cutting short and the saving is best determined by looking back at vs 21, where the verb "there will be" is in future tense, denoting that what we're talking about has not yet happened at the time Jesus is talking, and also the verb in 22b, where "will be cut short" is also in future tense.  So the two aorist verbs are bracketed by future tense verbs, making it clear that this dreadful time is both future, and will be supernaturally shortened.  Jesus is talking about HIS future.  For those that say this has already happened, we need proof that there was a situation  in the past, referred to by Jesus, that would have resulted in the demise of all mankind, but God stopped it.  When did mankind historically come near extinction...which is the only thing that can or will keep God from fulfilling the Abrahamic promises?

2022 - Some additional scriptures that I think are relevant here.
First this, from Paul:
"3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. ... 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." [2Th 2:3-4, 8-10 ESV]
We know from the context of this passage that the early Christians in Thessalonica were afraid Christ had already come.  Paul is making it clear to them that Christ had NOT come back yet by reminding them of two "signs" of the second coming that he had previously discussed with them.  There will be a rebellion, and the foretold "Man of Lawlessness" will be recognized for who and what he is.  Paul makes no reference to Daniel, as was made in Luke and Matthew.  Paul's reference seems to point very clearly to a walking and talking human being - a man.  So let's look at some verses from Daniel:
"31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate." [Dan 11:31 ESV]
"9 He said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. 11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days." [Dan 12:9-11 ESV]
The verses from Dan 12 are an amplification of those in 11, not something new and/or separate.  We know this because in 11, we see that a person takes away the regular burnt offering, and in 12, we see how long that will last.  3.5 years of 360 days each, plus 30 days.  The same event is in view.  This 3.5 year interval, in connection with vs 9 saying these events are sealed until the time of the end meaning that is when these events will occur.  What does this tells us?  We know that forces controlled by the man spoken about in 11:31 will set up an abomination of desolation - doesn't say where exactly - near the time of the end.  We can be pretty certain that it will be set up 1290 days before the second coming of Christ.  
So the real point here is that Jesus, in Matthew 24:15, is NOT talking about AD 70, but about the same time Daniel and Paul were talking about, which in context is clearly a visible, recognizable sign of the RAPTURE, not of the second coming.  This seems inarguable in light of 2Th 2:1-4 which is about our being gathered together.
Furthermore, Jesus is speaking to his disciples, and telling them - the church, the saved who may be alive and remaining at the rapture, that they will see and recognize the abomination of desolation.
There is a lot of confusion for me here...A few more verses:
"27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."" [Dan 9:27 ESV]  This verse is talking about a person, a "he", rather than one of neuter gender as we see in Dan 11 and 12.  Here in 9, we are talking about a King.  It is difficult for me to see how you get from "on the wing of abominations come shall come one who makes desolate" to "the abomination of desolations".  Daniel was written long before Matt 24 and in a different language.  It is not possible that Jesus interpreted Dan 9 incorrectly.  But...then you have Dan 11, where they "set up" the abomination that makes desolate, as if it is a "thing" and not a "person".  
"15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain." [Rev 13:15 ESV]  To me, this "image of the beast" is the abomination of desolation.  But it is hard to make these words say "the one who makes desolate and came on the wings of abomination".
So...let's not spend any more time here trying to figure out if we are talking about the beast himself, or a statue made to the beast.  These two things appear to come along VERY close together indeed during the end times.  So maybe Jesus is speaking of one and Daniel the other but they are nevertheless both speaking of the same chronological point in the history of earth.  And that time, I think unarguably, is somewhere in the 7 year tribulation period.

2022 - So if we accept the reasoning above, and place the appearance of the a of d - whichever it may be - in the 7 year period at the end of the world - and PRIOR TO the rapture - then several things ought to be noted.
One is that Jesus wants his disciples to know how to identify that the time has come.  They asked him, and he tells them, not because he likes their intellectual curiosity about end times, but because this is vital information for the coming church age.  Jesus tells us in vs 36 of this same chapter that even HE does not know the calendar date when these things will occur.  Therefore, it was entirely possible that these disciples he was speaking to would see these events, and they would need to recognize that they were inside this prophecy.  I will not go into detail here, but in Revelation, the final ruler of this world, the beast who functions under the direction of Satan, the beast depicted in the image made by the second beast that can speak and cause people to worship the first beast as god, shows up in Revelation 13, AFTER Satan has been cast out of heaven.  The statue shows up at the end of the trumpet judgments which come after the seven seals.  This is VERY FAR into that last seven years...and Jesus' disciples needed to know about it, so they would recognize what was happening.

2022 - My working theory is that the rapture occurs inside the sixth seal.  That's when the church leaves the earth, and no saved people are left on earth.  I think the references in both the OT and the NT about the sun going dark, the moon turning to blood, and stars falling from the sky can all be correlated to the rapture - which occurs at the sixth seal.  After the rapture, two things begin.  First, the wrath of God is released on the earth.  The seals were tribulation, but not of a kind and proportion that will be seen during the pouring out of wrath.  Second, Christ begins gathering his people Israel so the promises can be fulfilled.  We see this begin with the  appointment of the 144,000 just after the the sixth seal and before the seventh.  At this same time, we see great multitudes around the throne in heaven.  This is the bema judgment.  The church has just been raptured out, and are judged for their works.  This happens in heaven as the 144,000 are appointed on earth.  Christ judging his church is the indication that he is assuming Kingship over the earth itself, not just a spiritual kingdom, but he is now beginning to move toward establishing his earthly kingdom.  This kingdom is for the Jews, and at this time, with the preaching of the 144,000, vast numbers will be converted and begin coming home to Israel.  As a further indication that we are at a turning point in God's plan, the seventh seal is opened and...nothing happens.  There is silence as a preliminary to the commencement of a new phase of God's plan.  And then God's wrath begins with the seven trumpets.  Inside the sixth trumpet, we get this verse:
"7 but that in the days of the trumpet call to be sounded by the seventh angel, the mystery of God would be fulfilled, just as he announced to his servants the prophets." [Rev 10:7 ESV].  The mystery revealed.  This verse sheds more light on that:
"7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way." [2Th 2:7 ESV].  To whom does this "mystery of lawlessness" refer?  Context says it is the first beast of the earth.  The one so many call Antichrist.  THE Antichrist.  He will be revealed shortly after the sixth trumpet, which occurs in Rev 10.  Then we get the two witnesses in Jerusalem, obviously sent by God since they cannot be killed, they call down fire from heaven - all supernatural events inexplicable by science.  The whole world - all the lost still on earth - will recognize that God is real, and is at work on the earth.  No more atheist beyond this point.  Then at 11:15, this:
"15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever."" [Rev 11:15 ESV].
ONLY NOW are the dragon and his angels expelled from heaven.  This must happen before the dragon can empower his Antichrist and elevate to world power above all men on earth at that time.  NOW, in Revelation 13, after all the trumps, is this mystery revealed.  The earth will KNOW that the Antichrist is Satan's pawn, that his power is from Satan and not from God, and the earth will know that a great opposition, a great battle, the final battle, is on the horizon.  
2022 - Why did Jesus want his disciples to know and recognize events all the way at the end of the 7th trumpet...unless they were going to be there?  The church came out at the end of the seals, but the Jews - which is who Jesus was speaking to on the Mt of Olives - would still be around, unsaved because of their blindness for the entire Age of the Gentiles - and they will need to recognize the signs as they read the NT for the first time.  They will need to "fix" their location in the chronology of the end times.
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE Matthew 24 is about.
Beginning in vs 16 then, we understand that Satan has been thrown down to earth, he is FURIOUS about that, and he elevates the Antichrist to power with the sole aim of wiping the Jews from the face of the earth.  All the masks are off, all the players identified.  So if you are a Jew when the man of lawlessness is revealed, Jesus says to RUN for your Lives!  The Great Tribulation is in progress, and Jesus return as conquering King is now imminent.


(((The next few comments were put in BEFORE the 2022 comments above.  I think of them as an earlier iteration that turned out to be inaccurate. I think the 2022 comments above are very accurate.  I don't want to delete what is below, because I want to be able to remember how I got to 2022.  I put in three *'s to bracket my previous interpretation.  Below the second three, I continue with 2022. )))

***
Then we go into the "alas" or the woe in other translations, and the "those days" part.  Pregnant women will be in a bad way, don't even go back home, and all that, and these are in all three accounts.  Then in Matthew, these two verses:
21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. [Mat 24:21-22 ESV]
So.  Yesterday, I thought we could say here that this tribulation was the worse thing that had ever happened to Jerusalem, even worse than the Babylonian siege in 586 BC.  But today, I see this "no, and never will be" part, which means it will never be worse than this.  Ever.  Even in the end times.  I don't think I am prepared to say that what happened in 70 AD was worse than the world will ever see.  Then read on to the part where no human would be saved were this not cut short, and one is almost forced to say that beginning in Matt 24.19, and beginning in Mark 13:17, these two writers have shifted to end times.  Luke, however, does not shift here.  Luke talks about the age of the Gentiles here.  And why shouldn't he?  He is writing to Gentiles.  In the Harmony, there is a big gap between Luke 21:23a and 23b, and and an even bigger gap between Lk 23:24 and 24.  In that first gap Matthew and Mark put the information about the tribulation of those days being so bad.  End times perhaps.  In the second gap, Matthew and Mark talk about false Christs and false prophets, while Luke is silent at this point.  

So how do we reconcile this...Do we back up and say that Matthew and Mark switched to end times when they talked about the abomination of desolation?  And only Luke continues with the events prior to 70 AD?  If we say that, then Matthew and Mark left out some pretty important stuff for both Jews and Christians in Jerusalem leading up to 70 AD.  Why would they leave out the surrounding army and go all the way to the end and talk about the abomination?  And Luke doesn't talk about the abomination at all.  Luke doesn't talk about it maybe because the saved Gentiles won't be around when the abomination appears?  Only Jews will need to be aware of that, and what is to come after.  If we interpret it this way, we have to say that "getting out of town ASAP and not coming back home if you're already gone" is common advice to both 70 AD and the end times.  Sames words are used...which naturally makes you want to see them as speaking of the same time period.  But does not require it to be that way...

So.  Let's revise, and say that Matthew and Mark, speaking to Jews, are talking about the near future destruction of Jerusalem until they mention the abomination of desolation.  Their narratives from that point are about the end times, and specifically about the breaking of the covenant with many that the Antichrist will make.  When he breaks that covenant, persecution of the Jews such as has never before been seen will commence and Antichrist and Satan try to prevent the fulfilling of the promises to Abraham by genocidally eliminating the Jews.  There will be the same sort of betrayals then - brother betraying brother - as was seen in 70 AD, and covered by Luke as to the Gentiles in the near term.  And then they all come back together at the second coming, when Christ will return - with the saved, including the Gentiles - and the timelines re-converge here.  This happens at Mark 13:29, Matthew 24:24, and Luke 21:25.  

If you read it this way, then Luke's message to the Gentiles diverges (the gap starts) at Luke 21:19 and goes to Luke 21:25.  In that gap, you have Mark 13:14-28 and Matthew 24:15-23.  So as of right now, this is how I think it all fits together.  If you read it this way, then the one biggest problem I had with getting surrounding armies and a of d together and documented at the same time goes away completely.  It means that only Luke passed on what Jesus said about surrounding armies, but just because Luke is the only one who wrote it down does not in the least mean that it wasn't common knowledge in the church at Jerusalem.  Maybe Matthew and Mark didn't need to write that down.  Matthew was educated and went into a lot more detail about the end times for the benefit of the Jews.  By the time he wrote his book he understood better what was coming for the Jews.  Mark was writing Peter's version, likely from Rome, under house arrest, and mainly to Christians there in Rome.  They didn't need to know what was going to happen in Jerusalem in 70 AD because they were not IN Jerusalem.   Oh my...that is a really good point!  So the only "weakness" in this is why Matthew didn't say more about 70 AD.  If Matthew was in the Jerusalem church - that is, if he spent the rest of his life after the ascension right there in Jerusalem with the Jews - he would have known that the surrounding army thing was common knowledge, and may have felt no need at all to state the obvious.

And why didn't Luke say anything here about the second coming?  Because he'd already related what Jesus said about that back in Luke 17.  There, Jesus answered the Pharisees, and then he spoke directly to his disciples about the son of man coming.  There, Luke recorded Jesus' words about the time of the Son of Man coming being like the days of Noah, and he talks about two women grinding and about two in one bed, with one taken.  So in Luke, he talks about grinding grain and sleeping.  AND, some manuscripts also put in the verse about two in the field, but ESV leave that vs of Luke 17 - vs 36 - out of the text and puts it in the footnote.  One a day job, the other night.  Matthew 24 talks about two men and two women, both doing day jobs.  Why day and night?  Because like the rapture, when Jesus comes, half the world will be in daylight, half in darkness.  In both cases, he will gather from the whole world.  It makes sense that the world will be a bad place, trying to move on despite the terrible things that are happening, because in Tribulation, only the Jews, or mostly the Jews, are the only ones who'll be saved, and they'll be outcasts, they'll be hunted, they'll be imprisoned and killed for their beliefs.  People who will sit idly by while this kind of things goes on are just like Nazis.  Partying while the Jews are gassed, like nothing is out of place.  So Luke doesn't need to talk about the son of man, because he's already done that.  Just to kind of drive that point home, only Luke relates that question of the Pharisees, and Jesus' address to his disciples about the coming of the Son of Man afterward.  Matthew and Mark hadn't put that in writing before.  Matthew, since he was writing to the Jews, put it into his chapter 24 in great detail.  

Later in 2021 - I came back to Matthew 24:28.  It corresponds to Luke 17:
28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. [Mat 24:28 ESV]
37 And they said to him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." [Luk 17:37 ESV]
Luke was recounting Jesus' words about the coming of the son of man.  Jesus mentions Noah and the Ark, and so refers to the whole world dying.  That's a lot of corpses.  He also talks about Sodom and Gomorrah and fire raining down on those places.  Again, a lot of corpses on that occasion also.  So in Luke, they want to know where all these dead bodies will be.  Jesus gives the corpse and eagle answer.  What about in Matthew?  Well he is also relating Jesus words about the coming of the son of man.  He uses much the same language, but Matthew doesn't put the part about the days of Noah here.  He skips all that and goes straight from the coming being like lightning to the carcase and the eagles.  But Matthew does use that phrase later in the chapter, after the corpse and eagle reference, over in vs. 37.  It certainly seems that the verses from Luke and Matthew are talking about the same time - the second advent, when the Conquering King comes.  As for that corpse and eagle thing...MSB says the return of the Son of Man will be visible from a long way, as a dead body can be located from far away by the vultures circling.  He says this goes along with the lightning as another example of the visibility of the return.  I...don't really buy that. MSB goes on to say this imagery also speaks of the judgment that will accompany His return.  I think so.  This imagery ties in to Noah's time, and to Sodom and Gomorrah as to the level of judgement that will occur.
***

2022 - Then jump ahead to vs 27:
"27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." [Mat 24:27 ESV]
Here is the sign of his coming.  This directly answers the question posed to him in vs 3.  All the things described in 15-26 will happen.  Persecution of the Jews will at a level never seen before, nor ever again.  They will be desperate for the return of Christ to relieve them of their desperate circumstances.  When they hear of signs and wonders being performed, they will want to believe they are true, and that they mean Christ is returned.  They will long for it as never before.  The signs and wonders will be counterfeits orchestrated and empowered by Satan himself to tempt the Jews out of hiding so that he can wipe them all out.  THAT is why Jesus is so detailed in what he says here.  And he caps it off with the TRUE sign of his coming.  A light as bright as lightning, shining for the whole world to see.  That, and nothing short of that, will be the sign.

VERSES 29-31

This has been a really productive, but long morning, the third of three.  I am going to just read through the rest of this chapter - vvs 29-51 - and focus on them next year.  

In vs 29 of Matthew 24 the accounts all come back together.  They combine at the second coming of Christ, in power and glory, as conquering king.  He will gather the elect at that time.  It says he will gather them from the four corners of the earth and from the ends of heaven.  So he will gather the living saved and those who have died saved up to that time.  All these will be gathered up and come with him.  The dead in Christ will all have been gathered to heaven at the rapture, along with the living saved at that time.  Then the times of Tribulation and Great Tribulation, which are about the Jews almost exclusively, will take place.  So the only people left for him to gather will be those saved and still alive in Great Trib - those who endure to the end - and those who have died during Trib and Great Trib - the martyrs under the throne!

2022 - So I have a big problem here.  I have maintained that these signs within the sixth seal are the signs of the rapture:
"12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place." [Rev 6:12-14 ESV].  Compare this with Matthew 24:
"29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." [Mat 24:29 ESV]
Here is the problem:  Matthew 24 puts these signs in heaven AFTER the end of Great Tribulation.  And AFTER that, the angels go out with a trumpet and gather his elect.  This sounds for all the world like the rapture, and correlates well with the Parable of the Wheat and Tares that Jesus tells later.  So...did Matthew put this in here out of order?  Is the rapture one thing, and this gathering in another thing?  Perhaps a consolidation of the Jews who survive Great Tribulation just prior to Armageddon?  The signs are not exactly the same, but really, if the rapture had already occurred...Ahhhh...The signs would have to be similar...no, it makes sense that the signs prior to the rapture - when Jesus appears in the sky - would be very similar to the signs when Jesus returns to earth FROM the sky!  So both Matthew 24 AND Revelation cover BOTH the rapture - the near return - and the Second Advent - which is the completed return to earth.  And this gathering here in vs 31 is indeed the gathering of all those saved on the earth, almost all of whom will be Jews.
(Stopping here in 2022.  There is more in vss 36 to the end of the chapter.  I need to determine what time these verses are about...rather than just assuming I know.  But I will leave that to 2023.)

36-39, For next time:  How can it be that the world will not be expecting the second coming if it is at the end of Great Trib?  (Later - Go look at the explanation in Luke 17).  Surely all will know by that time that the Bible is real and correct, and things will be in such an upheaval that they can't be going about business as usual.  Can they?  With all those people dying, with supernatural creatures around, with a "forced" worldwide religion and worship of a man.  These verses are only in Matthew.  (Wrong.  They are in Luke 17).  These verses are not about the rapture.  So many think they are because of the whole one taken and one left thing.  But if Jesus is going to gather his own at the second coming then this kind of thing is sure to happen.  But it won't be secret.  And Matthew says nothing about two sleeping in the bed at night.  Both things he mentions happen in the day time, so the gathering here could be instantaneous.  Where is that other verse, about two sleeping in the same bed?  It is NOT matched up in the Harmony with these verses in Matthew 24.  It is Luke 17: 26-37 or so.  It has much in common with this passage, as I believe Luke 19 also did.   That corpse and vulture thing is also in Luke 17.  What does this phrase mean?   Luke 19:41-44 is the other passage I was thinking of.  Give the Gore video, Luke 19 is clearly about 70 AD.

There is still a LOT to be assimilated from these chapters.  But it is time to move on today.

2022 - I just can't seem to get myself out of 24.  I started 25 and it just seems to be required that I get the rest of the way through 24 before I can begin to assimilate 25.  Everything from 24:4 to 25:46, the end of 25, is in red.  Matthew wrote it as a single discourse, one continuous illumination of things to come by Jesus himself.  There is not a word here that is unimportant.  You just cannot skip over anything.  24-25 almost have to be covered on the same day.

2022 - So.  24:36-51.
Vss 32-35 are an injunction to watch for the signs in their entirety.  You have to be able to distinguish the end times from say the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.  There is no denying that persecution was monstrous during that time, hatred of the Jews was at a fever pitch.  But were there false Christ's around, trying to draw the Jews to them with supernatural miracles?  Was Hitler ever in Jerusalem at all?  There wasn't even a temple.  They didn't even have a country.  So the signs were not all there.  You have to be discerning to apply Jesus' words about the end accurately.

2022 - Vss 36-44 describe the moral conditions prevailing in the world as the end nears.  More information, more signs to look for.  Additional information for those who will experience Great Tribulation.  How are we to understand the whole "one taken and the other left" concept.  I have always heard this applied to the rapture.  But as of today, in 2022, that doesn't seem to be what it is really about.  It seems to be more about this second gathering, done by angels, of those elect.  Not a gathering to heaven, but an earthly gathering into the protection of Christ just before he descends to earth to establish his kingdom.  If you "accept" the analysis to this point, you almost have to read it as something that occurs near the end of Great Tribulation.  The implication is that somehow, even during Great Trib, people - unsaved people - will be operating under the assumption that life is going to go on as normal.  The only way I see to resolve this would be that most of the world has put their trust in Antichrist to keep order and to return things to normal.  They will be trying to go on with life as if they are NOT living in the last seven years.  It is difficult to reconcile this with the earlier idea that there will be no atheists at this time.  If that is also true, then we can only understand this days of Noah reference as people knowing God is real and choosing willfully to disregard His power and his utter control of human events.  That is a bit of a stretch...but that is where you have to be.

2022 - So what then are we to make of vss. 45 on, and especially of vs 48 on and the wicked servant?  This would have to be about Jews who choose to accept the prevailing morality of the world at that time, and accept Antichrist as their leader.  Those who worship him in order to avoid persecution, and in so doing they betray their own people, and they eschew the promises to Israel.  These are Jews who ignore the 144,000 and attempt to assimilate themselves into that final Satanic world order.  Because how would we otherwise understand their fate:
"51 and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Mat 24:51 ESV].  There are good servants and evil servants at the end of this chapter - and I would say ALL the servants in view are the Jews.  Jews who still refuse Christ during t/gt will be surely deserving of the kind of fate that vs 51 foretells.
2023 - So the 2022  paragraph just above is all wrong as I see it today.  A better interpretation of this is included at the beginning of the Matthew 25 discussion.  Take a look there.





THE Notes below are from 2020
Last chapter had the 7 woes to the scribes and Pharisees, ending with their father's killing of the prophets, and Jesus saying they are their father's sons.  Then the lament over Jerusalem.  Now 24 starts, after this message of 7 woes, with Jesus leaving the temple.  As Mark and Luke record, Matthew also says his disciples remarked about the magnificence of the buildings of the temple.  Architecture seems an odd thing to bring up at this time.  But in Matt 23, Jesus says "See, your house is left to you desolate".  They may have believed the "house" was the temple.   This lament is not recorded in Mark.  In Luke, it says people were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings - right after the widow's mites.  This is the same sequence as in Mark.

The quote is the same though.  Not one stone left upon another.  Matthew puts the upcoming discussion on the Mt. of Olives also, as Luke did.  It was a private discussion, not for the crowds.  In Matthew there are three questions.  First, when will these things be (referring to the tumbled stones) in a general way.  Based on what follows, I think they wondered if it was coming immediately, or at some point well into the future.  Second question is about the "sign" of his coming, third is about the sign of the end of the age.  From this, I don't see how anyone could think all three questions are concerned with just one future event.  The destruction of the temple, the coming of Jesus as King, and the end of the world are the three times in view.

Jesus begins his answer with a description of what "normal" will be.  False Christs will come, saying they are Jesus returned, and leading people astray.  Wars and rumors of wars, always.  Don't even be alarmed by these things, the "end is not yet".  Then vs 7 says this:
7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. [Mat 24:7 ESV]  Wars will continue, as will famines and earthquakes.  These things are normal, they are not signs or portents at all.  These are just the beginning.  Birth pangs.  At some point, labor will begin.  Maybe you could make a case for alternating peace and upheaval...but how would you ever see that as a sign?  You wouldn't.  You cannot look to these things as indicators.

In vs 9, as in Mark and Luke, the whole world will turn against Christians.  They will be killed.  In the face of this level of persecution, many will fall away, even turn on each other, ratting others out to save themselves.  Even during this, the one who endures will be saved.  To me, this phrase says that this time of persecution is the last seven years.  I think this is about saved Jews during Trib and Great Trib, and not about the church.  The church will be gone when these things happen.  It makes sense that Matthew would be writing to the Jews about this time.

This verse:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. [Mat 24:14 ESV]
The 144,000 and the two witnesses of the end will proclaim this gospel.  The 144000 are sealed right after the sixth seal - which I think is where the rapture will occur.  Only Jews will be left at that time, and the 144,000 will be the missionaries to them.  

Then - AFTER the gospel is proclaimed - the Abomination of Desolation appears.  When he is seen, those in Judea should flee to the mountains.  They shouldn't go home.  Once the A of D makes his true purpose and identity known, persecution of the Jews will rise to an unprecedented level.  He, and Satan, will be trying to rid the whole planet of Jews to prevent the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, at Sinai, and to David.  A Son of David is to sit on the throne.  If there are no Jews left, then David has no son to fulfill this.  That's why they don't go home.  This part is not about 70 AD.  When Jerusalem is encompassed by armies - as in Luke I believe it was - that is about 70 AD.  This is not.  Vs 21 confirms:
21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. [Mat 24:21 ESV]
Unprecedented tribulation.  Great tribulation.  The last half of the last 7.  
In those days also, false Christs will arise and do great signs and wonders.  This is about the beast and the false prophet!  They are the fakes, tempting even the elect to go astray.  Jesus says then that when He appears again, when he comes back to take His earthly kingdom, there will be no room for speculation.  They won't have to wonder if this one or that one is the real one.  It will be an obvious fact.

Then, AFTER all this persecution and tribulation, this will happen:
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. [Mat 24:29 ESV]
How can anyone say that this verse in Matthew is not exactly about this next verse in Revelation????:
12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. [Rev 6:12-13 ESV]

AFTER these heavenly events, THEN the sign of the Son of Man appears.  The earth will mourn, because for the most part, at that time, the earth is evil.  Those left have taken the mark of the beast to stay out of trouble, and now they see the Son of Man arriving, they know their time is over, and that they are about to be ended once and for all.  If this was the rapture, why would the world mourn?  He will gather the elect from the four winds and from the ends of heaven.  This is the gathering before the Millennial.

These signs will foretell the second coming as green shoots on a fig tree foretell summer is near.  The generation that sees these signs will be the final generation.  

It will be as the days of Noah.  None will be feeling like things are really getting bad, there will be no general anticipation of end time events.  But those who've read Matthew 24 are to be looking for it always.  This could be interpreted as the rapture...but not in context.  The whole Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory is Jesus arrival to begin the Millennial kingdom.  

First, when will these things be (referring to the tumbled stones) in a general way. Not right away, but during the generation that sees the signs.
vs 34 answers this question.

Second question is about the "sign" of his coming, vs 30 - THEN will appear the sign.  The sun, moon and stars will give the sign of the appearance of the Son of Man.  Very specific about that.

third is about the sign of the end of the age. Perhaps vs 35 - heaven and earth will pass away.  This is after the Son of Man appears.  So the Millennial comes before the end, not the other way around.  The Millennial is on this earth, not the new heaven and the new earth.  

Vss 36-51 are about being ready.  Not joining those who act like the people of Noah's day, but staying apart from them.  Don't be lulled into this kind of "eat, drink, and be merry" thinking.  Life is more than parties, and persecution comes first for those who believe.  It will be a terrible time.  

These warnings are for the Jews who will still be here, and still be elect, during Trib and Great Trib.  They are not for the church.

First time, 1/3/19
And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
Matthew 24:10 NKJV
The language here is interesting.  Many offended and hating each other.  That's what that the US like right now.  Still, I don't think that verse is about the US.

These are essentially the same things as read in yesterday's chapters.  The gospel must reach all nations and then the end will come.  But the end of Jerusalem did come, and arguably before all nations heard the gospel.  The nations known at that time perhaps?  Doubtful that China and Russia had heard it.

So what is he talking about here if not Jerusalem?  There are three questions.  These things, His coming, and the end of the age.  Are there three separate answers?

The first answer seems to be about Jerusalem, the second about the end of the age, and then of the second coming - the signs of his coming.  But so many people more studied than I have looked at these passages for centuries without coming to anything resembling a consensus, it would be silly to think that I could figure it out.

I did do an analysis of my own under Bible Study, and called it "End Times - One Answer or Three?"  I am not pasting it in here because it is long, and is already somewhere else. 

Chapter 25
(Next day...Just noticed that Matt 24:43-25:46, that is all those parables from the master/thief analogy through the sheep and goat judgment, are recorded ONLY in Matthew.  That is surely an important point in interpreting these!)
In the reading, this is the day after 24, which ended with the warning that we need to stay ready, because we don't know when He will come back.  It is about sincere servanthood, not fake.  Not hypocritical.
2021 - Chronologically, Jesus has talked about his triumphant return on the clouds with those who were in heaven, and his gathering from the whole earth of those who have been saved, who remained faithful during trib and great trib.  He's implied that many will die, as in Noah's day and as in Sodom and Gomorrah but has not addressed the battle directly.  He's told the parable of the fig tree, which says to watch for the signs, for the events that lead up to this time.  I think he means the sun, moon, stars, and the a of d in the Holy Place.  (Which means there must be a temple.)   He goes further, and talks about the faithful servant waiting for his master, and the reward that servant will get.  If my understanding is correct, these remarks are addressed, out in the future, to those who survive Great Trib.  That reward will be given during the Millennial reign, as positions I'm thinking.  

2023 - Look at how the first verse starts:  
1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. [Mat 25:1 ESV].  
The Greek word translated "then" is tote, and it means "at that time".  So we should ask "at what time?"  When exactly are we talking about.  It seems to me that it MUST refer back to the previous chapter, to the same time that was in view at the end of 24.  So what was the last thing in 24?  Well let's backtrack...From 24:45-51 we have the parable comparing two servants.  The faithful is doing what he was instructed to do, and is found occupied in that task when the master returns home.  This servant will be "promoted" to a position of great responsibility when the master returns and declares him faithful.  But the wicked servant has grown doubtful that his master will return, and sort of "put himself in charge", and is taking advantage of the lesser servants, beating them, and indulging himself and his buddies in drunken parties.  This servant will be "cut in pieces" and put with the hypocrites, in a place where "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".  We've seen Matthew use this phrase a number of times already:
12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Mat 8:12 ESV]
42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ... 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [Mat 13:42, 50 ESV]
13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' [Mat 22:13 ESV]
30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' [Mat 25:30 ESV]
It seems pretty indisputable that this term is applied to hell and its eternal torments.  So this would mean that the unfaithful servant is unsaved.  
So when is this?  It could be at the establishment of Jesus' reign on earth, because this seems to be a judgment by the King.  Jesus will judge the living.  This is sheep and goat I think.  This is faithful and unfaithful.  Those on the left are going to hell, on the right into the Kingdom.  It seems difficult to say this is the rapture.  The saved will come out and relocate to heaven...but those left behind are subject to wrath, not to hell itself...Unless...what if weeping and gnashing of teeth is the world post-rapture?  But...if I do that, then it might also apply to the sheep and goat judgment...no...that one specifically says it is Jesus judging pre-MIllennial.
2023 - And that puts us back to vs 36, which is, I now believe, and as noted in the 2023 note in Chapter 24, enjoins those on earth when the end signs Jesus describes begin to happen.  So we might well say that when these signs begin, the 70th week is already in progress.  Ok...so where does that put the 10 virgins?
"Then" is this period of time when the rapture is imminent.  This makes good sense with the picture painted of a bridegroom we know is coming, and very soon, but we don't know the time precisely.  The foolish virgins are told "I do not know you", in the present tense.  That sounds very much like "23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' [Mat 7:23 ESV]".  Never - in the past, so depart, in the present.  These certainly seem to be talking about the same day.
2023 - The Talents come right after.  The last servant, who did nothing with what was left in his charge, is cast into outer darkness.  Again, this is hell.  This is not the rapture...unless outer darkness is the wrath of God.
2023 - Then 31 comes.  This is the actual passage about the sheep and goat judgment.  Look how it ends, in vs 46:  46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [Mat 25:46 ESV].  So...eternal punishment sounds like hell, not like wrath.  Remember that some will be saved during wrath, though what a catastrophic, weepy, gnashing time they will have to achieve it.
2023 - BUT, look at the similarity here:
30 ...and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. [Mat 24:30-31 ESV]
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [Mat 25:31 ESV]
I want to say that 24 is the rapture and 25 is the second coming.  25 is definitely the second coming.  He will not sit on his throne on earth until then.  The time in view in this verses is the most certain of the two, in my opinion.  And he will come with his angels...but will the raptured be with him???  Is this the bema seat on earth, with those still living on earth and the raptured returned all judged together?  Man...I don't want to go there....In the first, he "sends out" his angels, in the second, he "comes with" his angels.  In the first he gathers, in the second he sits.

2023 - Based on the above, there is oh so very much to consider here...In the 10 virgins and the talents, EVERYONE KNOWS that the bridegroom/master is supposed to arrive, but there is no certainty as to when.  In both parables, some behave as if the arrival is imminent, and yet they prepare for it to be delayed still.  5 virgins take extra oil...they know his arrival is soon, but maybe not within "one full lamp of oil".  Two of the three servants invest what they were given, even though they know he will be back any minute, but possibly not before a short term CD matures.  These are still serving their master, whereas the one just waits for him while doing nothing at all.  Same if we go back to 24 and the faithful vs the wicked servant.  The faithful is still working as commanded, the wicked is eating drinking and being merry.  Total disregard for imminence.  So these three parables may be saying that even as we realize from the appearance of the A of D, even though tribulation/persecution of the saints will be the worst of any time in history - motivating hiding and denial, and burying until he comes, even though tempted by beguiling signs and wonders by false Christs (we'll be looking for Christ, we'll be enduring but just barely, so we will WANT them to BE Christ at last), and then will come a darkened sun, a dark moon, and falling stars.  During all this, we are to remain faithful, to be prepared for his appearance, to be doing what he has commanded us to do.  Think Great Commission during the worst time Christians have ever known.  Jesus is telling his disciples to endure even in such a time, and not to "fall away".  The pretenders are going to be weeded out during this time - oh my!!!, the wheat and the tares!!!!.  It will be obvious when they take the mark!!!  And then, after 25:30, we skip right over wrath, and in 25:31 we are at the Pre-Millennial judgment.  And the faithful, the prepared, the true servants will be rewarded for "loving their neighbors" through such an evil time.  And the fakes, the virgins with no oil, the trusted servants who party with the drunks, and the talent buryers, who looked only to their own good in their shortsightedness, will be sent straight to hell.   So yeah...beginning above at 2023 - Look...down through this paragraph is what I think 24 and 25 are about as I read them in April of 2023.

This one (Chapter 25) opens with the parable of the 10 virgins - very similar to the end of 24.  Five were foolish and took no extra oil.  They were not ready for a long wait, for a delay.  But five were.  The foolish were maybe like those who put off "salvation" until a better time.  Who think they can make that a decision of convenience instead of commitment.  This attitude does not anticipate adversity, unexpected events.  This attitude is also arrogant, not realizing that it is the bridegroom in the story that determines the chronology - the order of events, their start, and their finish.  We have no power at all over that - we just read it in 24.  Decide now, and be prepared.  That is the only way.  There are no second chances.

2021 - If both the end of 24 and this in 25 are about the same thing, we wouldn't need both parables.  In fact...back up a little.  Mat 24:43-44 is about the master of the house himself, who does not know when the thief is coming.  So let's try to compare and contrast these three stories.  In the first, the master is the one in authority, the one given the "keys" perhaps.  He is the homeowner.  He is the one that loses if the house is robbed, the servants do not.  Are these church leadership that we're talking about, those entrusted with the "preservation" of the gospel?  Maybe.  In the other two parables, we aren't talking about one person but a group of peers.  In 24, they are all servants - not masters of the house, but some are over their fellow servants - so they have been delegated the authority of the master to take care of things.  Proper behavior for a servant with authority is contrasted with bad behavior.  Some look after the master's servants - those over whom this servant has been placed, others get tyrannical and abusive and disdain the authority of the absent master.  In 25, all 10 virgins are together and seem to know each other.  They are certainly not enemies.  They are not called servants.  They are brides without a groom who want to celebrate the wedding.  They want to attend the wedding feast.  This is not about behavior, but preparation.  The first two did not address preparation at all.  This is about priority, about commitment, about "prepping" if you will.  Contingencies have to be anticipated.  Was this a warning that the second coming might be far, far away, and that they needed to be mentally prepared for a war, not just for battle?  That if they get to the point where they decide it is now, and it turns out to be delayed still longer, they might miss out completely.  Is this a warning against cults and Jim Jones types?  

Also 2021 -  So, I think there are enough differences in those last two warnings of 24 and this first parable in 25 to see that they are definitely not about the same things.  Possible the master of the house refers to the apostles, those given the authority to found the early church, the New Covenant.  Then the servants are the church age, the Gentile age.  There too, some will have authority to keep the gospel intact, to maintain it, and to keep Satan from obliterating it until Jesus comes again.  Then the virgins...all alike, nothing to distinguish them except their level of preparation, their foresight.  They are women.  So not leaders.  Perhaps the virgins represent Gentiles.  No...can't see where that clarifies anything - though that would make it apostles, elect Jews, and then Gentiles.  Gentiles don't get a second chance.  This church age is all we get.  We need to take advantage of what is offered here (the church is the bride of Christ!  We are the bride!), without delay, without fail, and with full preparation, else we are forever locked out.  God threw off his covenant with Israel, but they will get a second chance in the tribulation, just a very difficult one.  There won't be a second church age.  Hmm...this does make some sense to look at it this way.

2022 - Paragraph above is all wrong.  Looking at vs 13, the final vs of the parable, it says this:
"13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour." [Mat 25:13 ESV]  Compare this to these vss from Mt 24:
"33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. ...
42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. ...
44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. ...
46 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes." [Mat 24:33, 42, 44, 46 ESV]
Putting all these together makes it pretty ridiculous to conclude that Jesus is not still talking about his second coming.  The question is, why does he repeat these warnings so many times?  He is talking to the same people, at the same time, no the Mt. of Olives.  Was it told so many different ways because some would remember a story about figs, others about servants, and others about weddings?  It is so important that Jesus wanted it stated so many ways that all would understand at least one of the parables?  Or is it that the persecution will be so great, that the temptation to submit to the beast will be so compelling, that Jesus wants to emphasize over and over that this is the last time Israel will get to make a choice.  And is it possible that there is something more to vs 5 than we usually consider:
"5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept." [Mat 25:5 ESV]
Is this verse a foreshadowing of the Age of the Gentiles, which has gone on for 2000 years?  In context, that seems quite unlikely to me...but still possible.  It could also mean that Christ's return at the end of Great Tribulation will not be precisely as anticipated.  Remember that Daniel talks about the sacrifice being delayed for 1290 days, and then later in Daniel we get this verse:  "12 Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days." [Dan 12:12 ESV].  There is a 45 day delay there.  What is that about...unless it is what Jesus is talking about in vs 5?  I am way stretched out there with this possible interpretation...but Jesus emphasizes over and over that they should not give up, even though they will be desperate to do so!

The parable of the talents comes next.  Talents here represent 20 years wages for a laborer.  Seems to me the value of a talent changes depending on the story.  Could be that several words are translated as talent though the underlying meanings are very different.  In this story, the footnote says it is 20 years wages.  MSB says a talent is a measure of weight, not a coin.  Also, MSB says in 18, the word translated money in "master's money" is in fact the word for "silver".  Note also that this master gave a different amount to each, according to his ability.  MSB says the word talent in this parable is often - and erroneously - translated "natural ability". That is not what it says.
But could it also apply to that?  To stewardship over the ability God gives us?  Or does it mean God's material blessings on us are a reflection not only of what we have ability to handle, but of our willingness to handle it properly?  Never heard it preached this way.

The one who received the least, which means he also had the least ability, didn't even try.  He buried the money so it wouldn't be lost.  The one who got two doubled that money, just as the one who got five.  Their abilities were equal?  Or the one in the middle would have bogged down trying to make decisions about five?  It is the one with one that the parable is about.  The master comes back after a long time, and settles accounts.  The first is called "good and faithful", and since he was faithful over a little, he will be set over much.  So not made independently wealthy so he doesn't have to do anything, but given more responsibility, even more to look after than before, because he has demonstrated that he can be good and faithful.  He had the ability to start with.  But this one was faithful.  So he is put over more.  Similarly with the one who was given two talents.  

The last servant perceived his master as a hard man, a difficult and demanding lord.  One who reaped where he had not sown.  (This same language was used much earlier in Luke 19 in the parable of the 10 minas - much less than talents, but the story is similar.  In Luke, Jesus was approaching Jerusalem for the last time, and told the parable because so many though the kingdom was about to be revealed.  The parable of the minas was to tell them it would be a while, and that they should be diligent in the meantime.  This parable uses a much larger sum, but the point seems to be the same, the perceptions of the servants seem to be the same.  And the 10 virgins fits in that they also did the minimum - looked only to the immediate future and made no preparations for the unforeseen or long-delayed return.  The third servant, as the one in the parable of the minas, should at least have bought a CD and gotten some interest.  The one talent is given to the first servant, because he who has most will get more, and he who has little will lose even that.  This servant is specifically thrown into outer darkness - which always means hell.  In the minas, we don't really know the fate of the unfaithful servant, but we do know what happens to those who didn't want the master to rule over them.  They were brought and slaughtered before the master.  In this one, the servant is cast out.

The minas parable was about Israel, I believe.  Not really about individuals.  Those slaughtered were those on whom God's double punishment fell - or especially on those who actively rejected Jesus and  his message and deprived others of that message.  They were worse than the ones who who didn't understand what was going on.  Jesus spoke in parables so these servants would not be punished more severely because they rejected with more complete knowledge.  Hmm....That's a good phrase...The more we have opportunity to understand yet still reject means we did nothing with a lot.  Even the one with one talent received a lot.  And since he didn't build on it - didn't even go to church, much less study his bible every day and go out and gain interest for the church - even the knowledge (potential for reward in heaven) that he had was taken away.  In this country, we are given a lot of opportunity and very little persecution for it.  We have been given 5 talents, and what have we done with it?  Also, as Gentiles, it is a very valuable thing to be offered a place in a kingdom given to others.  Much value is here.  If we reject what we're offered...outer darkness is surely deserved.

2021 - Well I don't like what I've said above about these talents.  Are they like the seed that fell on different ground?   Do the talents represent opportunity?  Doesn't seem so, as this parable says the money was entrusted based on ability.  And the one with the least ability did nothing, but his master isn't just disappointed when this one with little ability does nothing, he is angry at him.  Calls him wicked and slothful.  Even if you have the least ability, you are not excused?  Slothful.  Didn't even use the ability he had.  Gentiles again?  Not part of the promises to Abraham, not blessed by God and set apart for all eternity.  Gentiles are given the least in terms of advantages and promises.  But if you squander that, and do absolutely nothing, then you're a write-off.  You are out, no second chances.  Oh my....in the church age, God doesn't require much of us.  No sacrifices, not feasts, no seriously impossible set of rules to try and memorize and follow.  None of that.  Love the Lord they God, and they neighbor as thyself.  That's all that is required of us.  But if we won't even do that????  This interpretation would seem to be consistent with the 2021 stuff I said above about the previous three parables.

2022 - This year, my thinking is that this parable also is about surviving Great Tribulation as a Jew.  But an interpretation that "fits" with all that has gone before is pretty fleeting at this point.  Note that the servant who did nothing gets thrown out where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth, just like the wicked servant back in 24:51 who mistreated his fellow servants though he was in a position to help them.  Perhaps this is more of the same.  Those in Great Trib who find themselves able support other believers during these horrible times - by virtue of their position, their resources, their special abilities - maybe able to help Jews get home to Israel, or able to hide Jews on the run, or able to supply food to those who cannot buy or sell...This works if we go back and understand the "one taken one left" as meaning that even in these dark times, some faithful servants will be able to work, to produce, to harvest.  Some will be able to circumvent the mark - otherwise all would starve.  Like Joseph in Egypt maybe, somehow in a position of power withing a wicked regime.  To look after only yourself in such a situation, while others have to deal unprecedented persecution, earns only contempt from the master.  (Looking ahead, this interpretation also seems to fit with the sheep and goat judgment.  A judgment of the Jews who survive the Great Tribulation, and in so doing, are classified as faithful servants of their master.  These and these alone go into the Millennial kingdom.)

This next verse seems to be a big transition, but watch, as it may fall right in with the talents:
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [Mat 25:31 ESV]  This almost has to be a reference to the Millennial kingdom.  MSB agrees.  The sheep and goat judgement, at the beginning of the millennial.  This is a judgement of those who have endured to the end.  Sides will have been taken, decisions made.  Some are to enter the kingdom - the Millennial Kingdom - and some will not.  The sheep will come and inherit.  This would seem to me to be addressed to the Jews saved during the previous 7 years.  They will have converted and endured persecution as no people in history ever did.  Perhaps this is why it is the "nations" that are gathered.  They are being rewarded for feeding Jesus when he was hungry and so on.  They do not understand what he means.  He is not speaking of them literally feeding the person, Jesus, but of feeding and caring for saved individual who were needy.  He is talking about those who maintained a charitable disposition in the midst of great persecution and at great risk to themselves.  It is this same list of things that the goats did not do.  They didn't ignore Jesus himself, but they ignored the needs of those whom Jesus loved.  They ignored kingdom citizens.  Perhaps, during the 7 years, these ignored the persecution of the Jews, as many in Germany did during WWII.  Those who saw and did nothing are rejected.  Jesus will know who they are.  Those who saw and helped - even at the risk of their own lives - will now be rewarded for their compassion.

It says the righteous go away into eternal life, and the wicked into eternal punishment.  Yet both groups are alive.  Will all be changed at this second coming?  All have eternal bodies?  I thought there would still be death, and still be rebellion during the Millennial because there will be that one last battle at the end of it.  Surely that battle will not be along the lines of angels vs angels?  

What about this eternal punishment though:
20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. [Rev 19:20 ESV]  Is this lake of fire hell?  Are these the only two who will be cast into it alive?  Or will the goats be thrown in there with them.  After all, it was the goats who persecuted the Jews and followed the beast and the false prophet.  Maybe they get the same punishment as them?

Or....maybe the tribulation is about Jews, primarily, and this judgement is of the Gentiles that either helped or hindered them?  Any remaining Jews survived until the end.  They ALL get in.  But not all Gentiles will.  Jesus will reign fairly and justly.  Even Gentiles who survived, but opposed the Jews, will have no place in the Millennial Kingdom.  They must be judged at the beginning and either put out or welcomed.  

2021 - I don't really agree with the interpretation above.  When, exactly, is this judgement?  Two possibilities I think.  One is that It is after the second coming, and after the battle that initiates the Millennial.  So a pre-Millennial judgement.  The other possibility is that this judgement is after the Millennial, after that last great battle.  So is there just one judgment, or are there two?  I guess that's the first question to be settled.  Sheep and goat, mercy seat, Great White throne?  All the same, all different?  Fact is, I do not know.  This is also that old question about whether the saved will have all their sins revealed at a judgement?  There is nothing in this judgement about deeds being recounted.  Are the goats here sent away, and then called forth again from hell itself for the final judgment at the great white throne?  This does talk about a throne.  

(2021 - I don't know.  I don't think it's a short answer.  I'm stopping here for now, church starts (livestreamed) in 15 minutes.  I will either come back to this later, or try to put it together when I read Revelation in a few weeks.)

(10/31/21, after church.  Charlie taught about hell, and said that he found himself in over his head studying about it.  That got me thinking about all this.  Per MSB, the sheep and goat judgement is at the beginning of the Millennial, when Jesus defeats the forces of Satan, and assumes the throne of David here on earth.  That would mean that those being judged are alive, and have survived tribulation and great tribulation.  It would mean that these were NOT saved at the rapture, else they would already be in heaven.  Some of the assembled are saved, and some are not, but ALL are living human beings.  Here is the result of this judgement:  46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [Mat 25:46 ESV].  So the evil are sent, alive, into eternal punishment, in their mortal bodies.  The righteous, go into heaven in mortal bodies?  No, we no that cannot be right from 1Co 15, corrupt bodies cannot go into non-corrupt heaven.  It could be that after being judged, then just as at the rapture, the sheep are changed in a twinkling and go into heaven, and the goats are changed just as quickly and sent to hell.  In their eternal, not their earthly bodies.  So then, who does that leave to enjoy the Millennial Kingdom?  Yeah...this is not nearly as "easy" to figure out as some might think.

I really don't see much provision here for those who are judged at this throne be be brought back later, at the "Great White Throne" and get judged a second time.  So it would seem that ONLY those who survive alive to the end of the tribulation period are judged here, and they are judged for their actions during the previous seven years.  

So, to sort of sum up, at the rapture, all who have been saved from Pentecost to that second, that is, those who are already "in Christ", are changed into immortal bodies and go to heaven.  No one goes to hell at the rapture.  So who's left, and where are they?  Well...there won't be a single saved person on the earth, because the rapture has just occurred.  Unless...what about the 144,000?  They are sealed and invincible, but those to whom they preach are not.  These are sealed after the sixth seal is opened.  So it could be that those in Christ are taken out, and the 144,000 are sealed to begin their evangelism of the Jews, and turn them back to God and to His Son.  These two things - rapture and 144,000 - happen together.  So left on earth are unsaved Jews and unsaved Gentiles.  The Jews, very likely all of them, are going to be saved during this time.  I don't think very many Gentiles will, but some will.  Again, it just seems to work that the sheep and goats will all be Gentiles and they're going to be sent off to their fate, and then the Jews alone will enter the Millennial Kingdom.  

NO!  Look at this:
4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. [Rev 20:4-5 ESV]  So those who resurrect during the rapture are not part of this.  This does say that resurrected people killed during tribulation will rise from the dead and live on EARTH, not heaven.  They would have been in heaven - the martyrs under the throne perhaps - and they come back to earth FROM heaven.  They will be like angels in this regard.  So into the Millennial, you have trib survivors, you have trib resurrected.  And it could still be all Jews, or it could be Jews in charge, and the sheep - the good Gentiles form trib - that go forward from here.
That leaves the raptured un-judged.  That leaves the martyred from trib unjudged.  The goats from trib are in hell - already judged.  The sheep from trib are on the Millennial earth, judged.  The rest of the dead stay dead.  Who are they?  Pre-Pentecost saved people like OT saints and such, Abraham, Moses and like that.  Pre-pentecost unsaved.  Jezebel, Baalam,  Unsaved dead from the tribulation period.  Unsaved from Pentecost to rapture.  

So.  The GWT Judgement is clearly at the end of the Millennial.  At the Great White Throne we have this:
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. [Rev 20:11-15 ESV]

It is the dead who are standing before this throne.  So can we say that it is only the dead who have not yet been judged that are at the Great White Throne?  That would mean all those listed above as "the rest of the dead".  So the goats are already in the lake of fire, but the other unsaved groups are still in Sheol, burning, to be sure, but not in the permanent lake of fire.  These unsaved - including the unsaved who died during Trib - will now be judged.  Death and Hades - repositories of the unsaved - will be judged guilty and move from Hades/Sheol to the lake of fire.  The only saved people here will be the OT saints.  It is for them that the book of life is brought forward, otherwise it would be completely unnecessary.  

This judgement seems to be about the saved and unsaved.  The unsaved will be condemned because they are not in the book of life, therefore their deeds will be recounted as evidence that they deserve the lake of fire.  Those written in the book need no further judgement.  No one in that book has their sins recounted.  Jesus took ALL those away, they are no longer recorded.  The saved have no sins to judge in either case.

((This works out pretty good, from NO! onwards makes good sense to me.  Still need to find that passage about judgement in Daniel and see if this view holds up to that.  But I am pretty happy with this for a Halloween Sunday afternoon.)
These too:  10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; [Rom 14:10 ESV]  Bema is here.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. [2Co 5:10 ESV]  Bema is in this verse also.
These are the only two references I find to this judgement.  An article I found said this was the judgement of the raptured for what they'd done with what they were given.  I do not find anything but speculation pointing to that.  I note also that one is God's bema, the other is Christ's bema.

Enough...I need to come back to this big time.  I have certainly convinced myself that this is not nearly as simple as Shawn thinks it is.  And when I come back, there was a passage Shawn read out of Daniel, too.  Need to get that in here and reconciled.

2Co 5, on 11/7/21 2021-2, there are more notes on judgement.  I need to gather them all together and try and reduce to lowest terms.

Matthew Chapter 26
Starts with "when Jesus had finished all these sayings..." referring back to the parables and the final judgement of 25, and the prophecies of 24.  Note also that in this chapter, we shift to a narrative of events - a history of the things that went on.
The Passover is now 2 days away, and Jesus tells them that he will be delivered to be crucified that day.  No response from them is recorded.
The chief priests and the elders gather in the palace of Caiaphas and plot to arrest Jesus by stealth - so the people who support him won't revolt.  They are putting themselves and their own thinking "above" the popular sentiment of the people.  There is no record that they ever considered another course.

Jesus goes to the home of Simon the (former) leper that evening.  Jesus is reclining at table there - so he was there for dinner - when "a woman", who is never named - pours very expensive ointment on his head.  The first time Jesus is anointed was at the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.  That first time, the one who does it is named, the ointment is on his feet, and she wipes them with her hair.  It is only Judas who is offended in the first instance, and they specifically say it was because he was a thief and would have liked the money they got for it.  The details are so different that it has to be a second time, not a chronologically contradictory account.  
BUT, MSB says this is an account, and that it corresponds with John's account.  The account here in Matthew is adding details - head and feet, Simon the leper but Mary serving and annointing.  MSB says the different account is in Luke 7.  In that account the woman wet his feet with her tears, anointed them with ointment, and then wiped his feet with her hair. This was at a Pharisee's house.  It was Simon's house.
Jesus, back in Matthew now, tells them this woman will always be remembered where the gospel is taught.  Because of what she did, or because there seem to be contradictory accounts?
2022 - This verse:
"8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste?" [Mat 26:8 ESV].  Judas was not the only one who thought this was a waste of money - though he may have been the only one of the 12.  It uses disciples here, not apostles.  Still, many seem to have resented it.  
2022 - Per note in MSB, Mark also talks about this, and sets the value of the ointment at >300 denarii.  This is in Mark 14:3-9, and surely is the same story.  The extra details there are that the vial contained "pure nard".  MSB says it comes from the "nard" plant, native to India.  The bottle it was in was made of alabaster.  The MSB note at Mt 26:7  says alabaster was "a fine variety of marble, quarried in Egypt, which could be carved into delicate containers for storing costly perfumes.  
2022 - There is also an account of this in John 12:1-8.  There we learn that the woman who did this was Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha.  Lazarus was there that night when this happened.  How much did Mary love Jesus, who had raised her brother from the dead?  What would she consider "too costly" to give him?  Nothing, surely.  John says she poured it on his feet, and then wiped his feet with her hair.  Note that Jesus says in Mt 26:12 that "...she poured this perfume on My body..."  This would indicate that it wasn't just his head that she anointed, nor just his feet.  Further, spices and such were used on the whole, wrapped body prior to burial.  All these passages together give us a pretty complete picture of what happened.
What they don't tell us is that Mary's hair likely smelled wonderful for a good while after this.  When people smelled it, they were probably told the story.  They would associate the smell with the story from then on.  The question is, was nard used mostly as a perfume, or as a burial spice at that time in history?  Perhaps those who smelled the nard in Mary's hair as she passed wondered why she smelled of "death".  This would also be consistent with Jesus' remarks about the nard.

Matthew gives little space to Judas' betrayal.  Judas went and offered his help for a fee.  They didn't recruit him.  His actions came from within.
2022 - The conspirators surely already had a plan to take Jesus captive (Mt 26:3-5), but not during the feast.  They were going to wait until AFTER the Passover.  When Judas came to them, and offered to betray Jesus at an earlier time and in a way that would not alert the crowds, they likely jumped at the chance.  They surely would have preferred that Jesus NOT be present during the feast.

The Passover meal.  In Matthew, there is no mention of an upper room.  Instead, Jesus has someone go and tell "a certain man" that he and his disciples will keep the Passover at this man's house.  Does not imply that this man joined them.  Further, Matthew reads that Jesus was at supper with the twelve.  But there is a footnote that says some manuscripts add "disciples", so it reads "the 12 disciples".  Still, it was just those twelve.  Jesus tells them that his betrayer is among them.  The 12 are the only ones there.  They start asking if it is them, each in turn.  Jesus says it's the one who dipped his hand in with him.  It reads as if this was already past, but maybe they hadn't been paying attention and didn't know.  Then Judas asks if it is him, and Jesus answers "You have said so".  Matthew was there.  His account makes it seem as though they all knew it would be Judas, and they knew it before the fact.  I hadn't really noted this before.  They are all asking "is it I?", going around the table sort of, one at a time.  And when Judas asks, Jesus makes it pretty clear.  They would all have heard this.
2022 - When Judas asked, in turn I am sure so that it looked like he too was surprised at this revelation, whether it was him, Jesus answer was two Greek works...if they were speaking Greek instead of Hebrew...which I don't see how we can possibly know.  The words were:
σὺ εἶπας.  The root words are pronounced su lego, but that second word starts with an "e" sound.  The two words shown are the inflected forms.  I don't know how they would be pronounced exactly.  I "think" the first word is pretty close to "soo".  The second word, inflected, has the letters eipaz, maybe pronounced eepaz?  I guess it isn't really important, but these words spoken by Jesus were very knowing, very profound, and I'd just like to know what they really sound like - in both Greek and Hebrew.  The word translated "you have said" is lego, and is in the aorist tense.  That means it is divorced from any particular time.  Didn't mean Judas said this in the past, present or future.  Just meant he said it.  The literal translation is "you have said it yourself", and use of the aorist perhaps told Judas that Jesus knew he had already set things up, and he knew that the deed would soon be done.  What Judas was doing started prior to this and would be "fulfilled" later that night, when Judas identifies - betrays in the future - Jesus to those coming to arrest him.  "You have said it yourself" is how NASB95 translates, but it seems to be the only one that does so.

2023 - Now that BLB has a forward inline, you can see both the basic form of these words, and also the inflected form - how they were modified for use in a spoken sentence.  The words that Jesus spoke are pronounced "sy eipas".  I give it a long y and pronounce ei as in eight.  So "sigh aypas".  But again, this is Greek.  Why would 13 Jews in a room celebrating Passover be speaking in Greek at that time?  That first word mean "it yourself" and the second word means "you have said it".  Notice that legos is the root of that second word.  I wonder if these are the very same words Jesus will use when Pilate asks him if he is a king?  That is in Matt 27:11, and the forms are a bit different.  To Judas, Jesus uses the aorist form - translated as past tense as the aorist usually is...but meaning it is fact without specifying when it happened or will happen.  In 27:11 it is a simple present active indicative.  BUT, later in this chapter, Jesus uses exactly these same words to answer Caiaphas when asked if he is really claiming to be Jesus Christ.  sy eipas.  You  have said so.  Here, Jesus is not directly answering the question.  Perhaps he is not directly answering Judas either, and that is why the other disciples didn't immediately  understand the meaning.  Jesus is sort of saying "that is your own opinion".  

Then the Lord's Supper:
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Mat 26:28 ESV]
A blood covenant, not a covenant of salt?  Is there a deliberate contrast here or am I reading far too much into it?  Surely a lot of bulls and goats shed blood in connection with the previous covenant.  What is changing here is the temporary nature of those bulls and goats to the permanent forgiveness accomplished by perfect blood.  I think Jesus is telling them that his death is about the old covenant.  The blood covenant.  
2022 - "poured out for many".  A good proof text for limited atonement.  He died for those who would be saved.  He died for OT saints already dead.  He did not die for everyone, or everyone would be in heaven.

2021 - Having read in Leviticus a couple days ago about Aaron's sons not eating the part of the sin offering that they were supposed to eat, and seeing that if they didn't eat it they couldn't make atonement for the sin - this is the sin that transferred to the offering had to be intrinsic to the one offering the atonement sacrifice - the Lord's supper takes on another aspect.  Could it be that in the same way the priests' eating of the sin offering allows them to "take on" that sin and then make atonement for it in their position as priest, now, since all are priests, by the Lord's supper, we "take on" the sacrifice of Jesus, and appropriate that atonement back to ourselves?  It is like the direction of flow has reversed, sort of.  
2022 - The 2021 note just above seems like a huge stretch now.  I don't think that's what it means at all.  Especially since in vs 28, when speaking of the cup, he says it is his "blood of the covenant".  Some - not all - manuscripts insert "new" before covenant.  ESV did not use that, so maybe these other manuscripts are not the "best available".  In the OT, the blood of the animal to be sacrificed was sprinkled on the altar, and the rest poured out at the base.  Under the Law, drinking blood was prohibited.  So this is a pretty sharp break.  For the priest under Mosaic Law, eating part of the sacrifice was required.  But they never consumed the blood.  Under the NT, symbolically at least, the blood is also consumed.  This seems like a pretty big deal.  What should we discern from this dramatic departure as to the blood?  Perhaps blood was prohibited because it was not "sufficient".  Flesh could be eaten, but the "life of the flesh is in the blood".  For permanent atonement, only "effectual" blood - pure blood, sinless blood - will suffice.  And until Jesus, no such blood was ever obtained for sacrifice.  Jesus' blood atones.  Therefore Jesus' blood should be consumed, same as the flesh was consumed.  I think this is how the apostles would have understood it.  And for me, it adds still more meaning to the observance of the Lord's supper.

2023 - The wording is "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant..."  He definitely tells them to drink the blood.  We might note that it is covenant blood and not sacrifice blood, but they are consuming blood.  This is what I do not understand.

After this, they leave the room where they were eating and go to the Mt. of Olives.  I wonder if Judas brought the Pharisees to this little room first, and not finding him there, guessed correctly that Jesus would be in the garden?

This verse:
31 Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' [Mat 26:31 ESV]  It would be a good study to see where all in the NT this phrase "fall away" is used.  I'd want to see the Greek words that were used, not just the places that are translated that way.  The 11 were saved already.  How could they not have been?  Yet the term "fall away" is used, rather than that their salvation will be lost.  
2022 - I had not noticed before that Jesus doesn't tell them they will fall until after they arrive on the Mt of Olives.  In the dark he tells them this.
2022 - The Greek word for "fall away" is "skandalizo".  Like our "scandal".  Perhaps a better translation would be "You will all be scandalized..."  Reading the definitions for the word I found the following:
"to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey
1. to cause to fall away
2. to be offended in one, i.e. to see in another what I disapprove of and what hinders me from acknowledging his authority
3. to cause one to judge unfavorably or unjustly of another"
So much more clear.  Jesus gets arrested by the authorities.  He's going to jail.  The man they see as the future King of Israel, with themselves at his right hand, is tied up and led away as if he has no power at all.  They are his followers.  They are likely to be arrested also.  It would be the same feeling you'd get if your best friend was arrested for some high crime - for something good people don't talk about. That is what "fall away" means in this verse.  It is not even remotely about salvation.

Peter says he won't fall away, even if the rest do.  Three times, Jesus says.  After hearing Jesus say this, Peter says he will die before he denies.  All the others say the same.

They go to Gethsemane.  I think Gethsemane is a subset of the Mt. of Olives.  That's what current maps show.  But we probably don't really know.  The Romans likely wiped out everything around there.  Once in Gethsemane, the weight of the coming events settles on Jesus, and he is "...sorrowful, even to death...".  MSB says he was sorrowful because of all the sins that would soon be his to bear.  It would have been difficult for a sinless man even to contemplate the ugliness of so much sin on him.

First, he, takes Peter, James and John apart from the rest.  He tells the rest to sit here.  Then, he separates himself from the three, and tells them to sit and watch.  Jesus prays for the cup to pass.
He returns to the three and they are all asleep.  He addresses Peter for not staying awake, and tells him to watch and pray.  Jesus separates himself and prays a second time.  Then he goes back, finds them sleeping again, and leaves them alone.  Jesus prays a third time.  After this third time he tells them to get up, for his betrayer is there.  
2022 - This verse:
"41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."" [Mat 26:41 ESV].  I have never understood this second phrase.  Now I think I see the point.  Jesus is not talking about Peter, James and John here, who want to stay awake but cannot, he is talking about himself!  Jesus, in Spirit, is willing to go to the cross and die for all mankind.  But as a man, about to suffer unspeakably, he is weak, his is unable to "embrace" what is coming.  We see here that he was both God and man, as his betrayer arrives.
2022 - This verse:
"42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."" [Mat 26:42 ESV].  Again we see that to drink something is to take it in, and make it part of you.  To fully integrate it within you.  When we drink the cup of his blood, we make his suffering and death on the cross a part of us, integral to what we are and in a way we participate in his suffering.  Because it is his shed blood that saves us.

2022 - This gets me through vs 46 of 75.  I will speed  up a bit from here.

Sure enough, a big crowd arrives with swords and clubs, and with Judas in the lead.  There is the incident with the ear.  Jesus' point is that his 11 don't need to defend him, because he can defend himself if he chooses.  But he is there to do God's will and to make the prophet's "whole", not to defend himself.  All his sleepy disciples run away.

Jesus is taken to the palace of Caiaphas - where the conspirators had gathered.  The whole council was calling witnesses - in the dark of night, and likely from the rabble they had recruited for the arrest and so not really a trustworthy bunch, nor were they used to associating with such high personages as chief priests, elders, and council.  Yet they all rubbed shoulders that night to condemn an innocent man.  No two witnesses agree.  Even though they are all anxious to please by giving false testimony, they just don't give it the same way.  So they ask Jesus himself whether he is the Christ, the Son of God.  He does not just say "Yes".  He rarely answered their questions directly.  But he makes a reference to OT scripture that says the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of Power, and come on the clouds.  This prophesy was of the Messiah, coming as Conquering King.  They recognized the prophesy, and correctly interpreted it as Jesus saying He was the Christ.  If you believe he is wrong about that, then the claim was blasphemy.  But if it is true...they should have fallen to their knees.
2022 - In the Greek, Jesus' answer to Caiaphas, when Caiaphas asks him if he is the Son of God,  is exactly the same as his answer to Judas when Judas asked "Is it I".  Jesus says, "You have said it yourself".  It is again the aorist tense.

They refuse to believe the answer and begin to abuse Jesus physically, and to seek a "sign", a little game of "who slapped you" with the Son of God.  I cannot imagine what awaited them...

Peter denies, three separate times, as Jesus said he would.  He vehemently denies Jesus, and his choice of harsh language seeks not only to deny Jesus but to identify himself with the assembled conspirators.  If he is one of them, he will be safe.

Matthew Chapter 27
Takes up right after Peter's denial of Christ.  A narration of events.

As morning comes - the morning after the Passover was eaten, the religious elite come up with a plan to get Jesus put to death.  Their plan is to let Rome do it.  So they gather up, and deliver Jesus to Pilate, governor at the time.  

3 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, [Mat 27:3 ESV]
He changed his mind, but there is nothing here of repentance.  He didn't weep bitterly as Peter did, and it doesn't say he prayed.  He went back to those he conspired with, as if returning the money would wash off the blood.  They are not at all sympathetic to his change of heart.  They essentially laugh at him.  He threw down the money, and went and hanged himself.  Not a lot of details here in Matthew.

Then this verse:
6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." [Mat 27:6 ESV]
But it was ok for them to turn money that was already in the treasury to blood money?  Such hypocrisy is hard to fathom.  How did they not see that the guilt was on them no matter what they did with the silver. (Zec 11:12,13)

2022 - This verse:
"11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."" [Mat 27:11 ESV].  Here is that phrase again.  In Greek, σὺ λέγεις.  Soo lego, or something like that.  This is now the third time that Jesus has used this phrase.  The first two times it was aorist tense, meaning that no particular time was in view.  Those were translated "you have said it yourself".  This time, it is in the present tense.  More like "you say so yourself".  In Mt 26:25, Jesus says this to Judas.  Perhaps the aorist is used because it was always intended that the Son of Man would be betrayed.  In Mt. 26:64, Jesus says this to the High Priest, and the aorist is used.  It was always that Jesus would be betrayed by his own people.  But...is there a prophecy anywhere that says the High priest would do so?  And the last time, in present tense, Jesus says it to Pilate.  He was no one.  He was not "prophesied"...or was he?  Jesus said several times that he would be handed over to the Gentiles.  In all three cases, the phrase is used in the narrative of events, as Matthew tells the story.  Matthew was there when Jesus spoke to Judas, but not when he spoke to the High Priest or to Pilate.  So no clue there.  Perhaps the aorist was used because both Judas and the High Priest already knew the answer to the question.  Pilate though, was perhaps still undecided about what he would believe about Jesus.  
2022 - It is also interesting that Jesus answered Pilate's direct question, but would not answer the charges by the chief priests and elders.

2024 - Perhaps aorist is used because the betrayal is something a lot bigger than a moment...or because the betrayal was spread over time, and was not just a single event.
2024 - Looking at various translations I fine "Thou sayest", "it is as you say", "you said it", "you have said so", "you say so", "you yourself say it"...What I am trying to understand is whether Jesus answer is a direct answer - in which case either yes or no would have been much simpler - or he is answering in this odd way because he has never in his whole life ever claimed to be king, but he knows that at his NEXT appearance, he most certainly will be.  Perhaps THIS also explains the aorist tense!  It is also likely that Pilate had reports from various places - the religious elite not least of all - that there was this man wandering around Galilee proclaiming a kingdom, and Pilate himself had wondered aloud if he claimed to be a King, perhaps suggested that only a would be King would proclaim a kingdom.  In this case, Jesus was saying "I do not say I am king, but YOU have said I am".  I have just always been fascinated by Jesus' answers as he was tried.  "You have said so" is not really a defense, but it is an answer that implied his own innocence.  And we can fairly easily make the case that this is exactly how Pilate understood it.  He states three times that Jesus has done nothing wrong.  I prefer, then, the translations along the lines of "You have said so" to the NASB95 translation that says "It is as you say", especially when  in the present tense.  This would be an admission of guilt, basically saying "Yes, I am King of the Jews".  Pilate would have had no problem condemning one who claimed authority that Rome had not granted.

When the Jews recite their charges against Jesus before Pilate, Jesus makes no defense whatever.  Matthew says "not even to a single charge".  This silence at such a time amazes Pilate.

Pilate offers to free either Jesus or Barabbas.  Barabbas was even less deserving of release than others who were in prison at the time.  Even the religious elite would likely have been glad that Barabbas was finally locked up and slated for execution.  Pilate does this on purpose, to make them squirm.  We know this from this verse:
18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. [Mat 27:18 ESV]
Also, during this interval, Pilate's wife sent him word that she'd had a dream about Jesus, and she urges Pilate to leave him alone.  Pilate asks again who they want  him to free.  The elite have persuaded the crowd to ask even more loudly for Barabbas.  Pilate sees the irrationality of this, and asks why they want Jesus crucified, since he has done nothing at all that can be considered criminal?  This just incites the crowd, and they grow more frenzied, bordering on riotous.  Pilate wants to avoid riots.  So as a gesture, Pilate washes his hands, and the people say let his blood be on us.  Pilate releases Barabbas, and before sending Jesus to the cross, Pilate goes ahead and has him scourged.  There is definitely still blood on Pilate's hands too.  

The Roman soldiers take time to mock Jesus, to put the thorny crown on his head, and to spit on him before they put his own clothes back on him and lead him off to be crucified.  The cruelty involved here...mocking a man about to die.  Jesus submits to it, though it comes from Gentiles, and not from his own people.

Matthew doesn't tells us anything about Herod's part in all this. He just leaves that all out.  Matthew puts it all squarely on Pilate, the Governor at the time.

Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross.  He doesn't volunteer...it says they compel him to do it.  When they get to Golgotha Jesus is offered gall mixed with wine.  MSB says gall just means bitter.  In Mark, we're told there was myrrh mixed into the wine, and myrrh is a narcotic.  That is why Jesus refused.  He wanted his full faculties for the hours to come.  For instance, per MSB, he needed to be conscious to minister to the thief who would ask forgiveness.

The way Matthew writes it, Jesus was crucified first, and they had sat down to watch.  They cast lots for his clothing.  Only then were the two thieves crucified on either side of him.   The chief priests, scribes, and elders themselves come and mock Jesus as he is on the cross. But Matthew doesn't mention the Pharisees here.  They are not mentioned as being present - at least not so far in Matthew.  But what guilt did the mocking of these other "officials" of the Temple bring upon Israel?  

The robbers crucified beside him join in with those mocking Jesus, as if they are with the "good guys", following the elite instead of the Messiah.  Do they represent those who are good at religion though they miss the entire point?  Those who are in the church building but not part of the church of God?

Three hours of darkness, from noon until three.  Matthew records Jesus saying "My God, my God, why  hast thou forsaken me?" from the cross.  And these people around the cross, rather than trying to ease his suffering, try to prolong it by offering him sour wine so he will live longer and perhaps Elijah will come.  They are more interested in seeing a "ghost" than in showing mercy.  Truly heartless.  

2023 - 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" [Mat 27:54 ESV].  Footnote 6 in TCR ESV says "or a son".  I looked in BLB and there is no definite article in the statement of the guard(s).  Further, it is "they said".  I have always thought there was a single centurion that made this statement.  I have seen movies about how this centurion was converted and believe.  If there was no definite article, and this is something the guards just sort of all decided, then none of them believed.  They were superstitious, the believed gods could cause signs, and they believed this is what was happening.  But as I read it now, they equated Jesus' father with any other god in the Roman pantheon.  They did not see Jesus as the only son of the one true God.

Jesus dies on the cross.  Matthew does not mention the thief who repents.  The veil is torn.  The earth shakes, rocks split, dead rise from their tombs.  Many rise.  They walked into town, and a lot of people saw them.  The Bible says nothing further about them.  Who were they?  Why were they raised?  As a sign?  Jesus said there'd only be the sign of Jonah.  Matthew tells us they were saints that were raised.  It wasn't just random resurrections.  I have never thought to try and put this resurrection into consideration when reading apocryphal verses.  Could this be a fulfillment of some of those?

Here's something interesting:
56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. [Mat 27:56 ESV].  Mary's sons, James, Joseph, and Jesus.  I think there may also have been a Simon that it names, but still...It's a practical argument that Mary had other children after Jesus.  2022 - Or this is another Mary.  James and Joseph were surely common names.
2023 - This is about three women.  Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less (Little James, not John's brother), and Mary the wife of Zebedee and mother of Big James and John.  This gets more clear as we read about Jesus being laid in the tomb and about the morning of his resurrection.
2023 -If you look at vs 55, just before this verse, it talks about many women "looking on from a distance".  So this group was not at the foot of the cross.  Jesus' mother was all the way up on the hill, near the soldiers, right at the very cross.  These others were significantly further away.  This is likely also the reason that Jesus' mother did not follow the "funeral procession".  My guess is that John took Mary home with him after Jesus died - she would have been too distraught to take that long walk to the tomb - and that is why she is not mentioned as being there either at the burial or at the resurrection.

Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus' body.  He wraps Jesus in nothing but a linen shroud, lays it in the tomb, and rolls the stone in front of it.  No burial spices are mentioned.  Mary Magdalen and the other Mary were there when the stone was rolled into place, watching.  Does it say "the other Mary" because this was not Jesus' mother, but perhaps Lazarus' sister?  Hmm...You would also wonder, in vs 56 above, why they wouldn't identify Mary, his mother, instead of Mary mother of James and Joseph.  We know his mother was there, from other gospels.

There was no guard that first night.  (2023  - Not sure I'm right here...in fact, pretty sure I am not.  The whole concept of a "day" beginning at sundown tends to confuse me.  In the Bible Study note labeled "After Jesus' Burial", I conclude that the religious elite got their Roman guard after sundown on Friday - so actually on the Sabbath - but that would have been the first night - they maybe just arrived kind of late.))   The next day, this verse:
63 and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise.' [Mat 27:63 ESV]  The Pharisees are mentioned here.  They weren't at the cross, but they are here now, making sure they don't look bad later.

They most certainly knew that Jesus claim to rebuild the temple in three days was a reference to himself.  They accused him of meaning the real temple, and claimed that it was a crime to even say it.  Yet they knew he was speaking figuratively.  The elite manipulated the ignorance of the crowd.  The elite were the "press" of that time.  Pilate gives them soldiers to guard the tomb for three days.

Matthew Chapter 28
Short chapter.  Only 20 verses.
"Toward the dawn" after the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary come to see the tomb.  This was very early, before sunup, but perhaps with light starting to show in the sky.  They had enough light to find their way, but the sun was not up.
2021 - The "other Mary" is the mother of the apostle called "James the less", to distinguish him from John's brother.  This "other Mary" is married to Clopas, a variant name of Alphaeus.  
MSB has a long note on these women at Matt 27:56.  Just so I will have it in here somewhere,  it says this, paraphrased:  
Mary Magdalene is mentioned also in Lk 8:2.  The other Mary is called Mary the wife of Clopas in Jn 19:25, and was with Mary the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross.  Pretty clear that the wife of Clopas was at the foot of the cross in this account.  We know she was the mother of James the less from Mk 15:40...which says she was looking from a distance.  (My note, now MSBs:  So...I think there are a lot of Mary's, and I think we ought to study this out because this is the kind of thing someone might bring up to say the NT can't even get right who was at Jesus crucifixion nor who exactly came to the tomb.  How can they be cited as witnesses to the cross and the resurrection if we aren't even sure who they were?  My guess is that there are a lot of theories about who was who.  Also some indication that this was Mary's sister...but two Mary's in the same family?  I wonder if the way the Greek is constructed untangles these identifications but English, and inserted commas that were never in the original text, make it very confusing.  Mark also tells us that Salome was with them - both at the cross in Mark 15:40, and at the tomb in Mk 16:1, so MSB note includes her also.)  Back to MSB, Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee - James and John.  
(There is no reference for how we know she is their mother.  I did a word search and only found her name twice in the NT, once at the cross, once at the tomb, but nothing about who her sons were.  So where did that information come from?  I did a word search on Zebedee, and one on "James and John" and nowhere did I find a connection to Salome.  So...I don't know how MSB knows.)  

2024 - I knew I remembered an earlier reference to this.  Here are some verses:
56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. [Mat 27:56 ESV]
40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. [Mar 15:40 ESV]
So the way we know that Salome was the mother of James and John is from these two verses which all describe the same moment in time.  They are together in the Harmony, and Lk 25:49 is also there, but is more generic and does not even specifically name the women.  
This also tells us that in this verse:  20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. [Mat 20:20 ESV], It was Salome who made this bold request of Jesus.  James was killed by one of the Herod's in Acts, so it is likely she was alive to grieve that son, but John would have outlived her surely.

Jn 15:26 says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also present at the cross.  While the Bible doesn't say so, it is possible that this Mary the wife of Clopas was at the foot of the cross with Mary for a while, but could not bear to stay until the end.  With all the cruelty, reviling, gambling for his clothes, passersby snarling at him while he was on the cross, and so on....any of these events could have been the last straw that made this other Mary walk away and join the other women who were further off.  Maybe it was due to some action John took when Jesus said "Behold thy mother".  Maybe John moved over, put his arm around Mary, and this induced the other Mary to go and join the other women.  This makes some sense.  This feels "real".
So that is 50 minutes on vs 1.  Moving on...

There is an earthquake and an angel rolls back the stone, and then sits on the stone.  The angel does this even with the guards right there.  They see this angel and are afraid of him.  They go into some sort of stupor, as if they are dead.  As it reads, the angel then tells the women that Jesus is no longer there, and invites them to come and see where he used to be.  Then the angel tells them to go and tell his disciples he is risen.  They will see him in Galilee.  
2022 - Here is the wording:
"2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it." [Mat 28:2 ESV].  As constructed in English, the earthquake seems to be a consequence of the actions of the angel.  Surely a great earthquake is appropriate to mark the resurrection of the Savior of the world.  This earthquake would have been felt by the residents of Jerusalem, rousing them from their beds and giving them something to talk about.  Everyone in the city would remember that early morning shake.  When the story of that morning, and of the resurrection was told later, the earthquake would have been a reminder to all of that specific day.  

2021 - It is amazing the things that you can miss.  The way this account reads, that stone was rolled back as the women approached.  Those guards were still standing there guarding that tomb as the women approached.  Then this earthquake happens, and is either used by the angel to make the stone move, or the earthquake accompanies the angel's rolling the stone away.  That stone over the door of the tomb was still there.  The seal was still there until these women arrived.  
The angels message is that "He is not here..."  We all know about that one.  The angel instructs them to go tell the disciples he is risen.  To tell the disciples he will go ahead of them to Galilee, and see them there.  As they are on their way, Jesus himself meets these women.  His first earthly appearance post-resurrection is to these women.  Jesus repeats the instruction to tell the disciples he will see them in Galilee.  Why then does he also see them in Jerusalem???  MSB note says that just because the message sent said you will see me in Galilee that did not preclude Jesus from seeing them before then.  The references to each appearance are in the MSB note on vs 7.  MSB says that Jesus "supreme" post-resurrection appearance, where more than 500 people saw him, was in Galilee.  And that is why it was important to send this message.
2022 - Matthew tells us what the angel looked like.  Note that the angel looked "male".  He was unmistakable, appearing as lightning in bright white clothing.  Fear of this supernatural being sent the guards into a stupor.  They were so scared they couldn't function.  But the women were not so frightened.  The angel speaks to them directly, and tells them to come and look.  Matthew does not tell us what they did next - whether they went and looked or asked more questions or just turned and ran for the city.

2022 - Note this phrase in verse 7:  "...behold, he is going before you to Galilee."  That "you" is a plural.  These women are included with the disciples they were sent to inform.  Jesus would go first to Galilee, and then the rest of "you", all of you, plural you.  So it was not just the 12 who were to go to Galilee.  It makes sense that Jesus' appearance in Galilee was to be a memorable event.  Many disciples were going to see him there, including some who weren't quite sure it was really him.  This doubting lends a bit of realism to the narration.  Matthew could have written that all who saw him believed and were convinced of his resurrection, but doesn't having some doubters present make it seem more like a narration of actual events rather than a fictitious account?  The angel should be seen as announcing the "public" appearance of Jesus, post-resurrection.  There are also a number of more private, intimate appearances to smaller groups, and we get glimpses of these from various gospels.  None lists them all.

2024 - Here is all of vs 7.  There is a lot more here than I have noticed before...or at I haven't fitted things together before:
7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." [Mat 28:7 ESV].
First, it never made sense to me that the message to the women was "go tell them I will meet them in Galilee".  I always thought you had to look at this as "well, he did meet them in Galilee, but that doesn't mean he couldn't ALSO meet them 10 times BEFORE they got to Galilee.  And that is still true...but it seems an odd message to send if that was the plan.  Until you really look at what the angel says.  I think the first key here is that he didn't say "tell his apostles" or "tell the twelve", but tell his disciples.  His disciples were a much larger group, and none of Jesus appearances near the tomb or in Jerusalem included a group that we might generically call "his disciples".  If you look at the appearances of Jesus before he went to Galilee, there are six.  Besides the women at the tomb and his 11 apostles he also appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.  All these appearances are very limited in so far as "witnesses to his resurrection" are concerned.  So the message that says tell his disciples he will see them in Galilee is about Jesus presenting himself to all his followers.  Matt 28:17 tells us that some of those who showed up in Galilee to see him still doubted - so this Galilee appearance was not about convincing those closest to him, but about a LOT of witnesses.  So now, I think of the angel's message as "tell everyone I'll see them, together, in Galilee, as I said before".  
As I read the passages about this, Jesus told them this not in the upper room, where there were only Jesus and the 12 present, but afterwards, out at the Mount of Olives.  He tells them they are all going to abandon him, but that he will see them in Galilee.  We know from Mark 14:51 - or it is very much implied - that Mark was there in Gethsemane when the mob arrived.  I Mark was there, it is possible that a number of other disciples were also there, and heard Jesus say he would meet them in Galilee.  I have always wondered if Judas went by Mark's house first that night, to see if Jesus was there, and that's how Mark knew something was up.  And it is certainly possible that in Gethsemane, it was only the 11 and Mark.  But there is room for there to have been more.
I think Jesus phrasing in Matt 26:31, "you will ALL fall away", implies at least to some extent that there were more than 11 people there.  


On their way to see the disciples, Jesus meets them and says "Rejoice", and they fall to the ground and hold onto his feet and worship him.  Jesus also tells the women to tell his disciples he will meet them in Galilee.
2022 - No...in ESV Jesus wants the women to tell his "brothers" to go to Galilee.  Surely we see from this that Jesus had more than 11 people in mind for this appearance.  That large 500 plus crowd that would see him was important because it included so many people beyond just the 11, who might be expected to fabricate a story of his resurrection.  I think it would be impossible for even 11 to maintain such a fabrication, but for 500 to do so?  Even the doubters would testify to seeing someone who looked A LOT LIKE Jesus in person in Galilee.

The guards go and tell chief priests "all" that happened.  They assemble the elders, consult, and pay a large sum of hush money to the guards.  In exchange, the guards will lie and say the disciples stole Jesus' body in the night as they were sleeping.  These priests and prominent citizens promise to keep the guards out of trouble.  
2022 - Vs 11:  "While they were going..."  So Matthew wants us to know that "some" of the guards went to the city concurrently with the women going back to the city.  It is interesting that some of the guards stayed at the tomb.  It is possible the guards passed the women on the way back to town.  How many roads could there be?
2022-The guards tell their story only to the chief priests.  Once these have heard the report, they summon "the elders" and talk the whole thing over.  This would have taken more than a little time.  There were no cell phones.  Messengers would have to be sent to the various elders, early in the morning while they are probably still at home, though some may have been at work already, and then the elders would have to get dressed and make their way to the meeting.  Surely by the time the soldiers are paid off to keep silent, it was well up into the morning, if not nearly noon.  During this time, the women would have reached the place where the 11/brothers/disciples were assembled and told their own story.  Peter and John would have had plenty of time to run to the tomb and check for themselves before the elders paid off the guards.  

2022 - This verse:
"15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." [Mat 28:15 ESV].  What story?  The story that the disciples came and stole the body, or the story that the elders paid off the guards to lie about the body?  A Greek scholar might be able to tell which story is referenced here, but in English, we cannot tell.

Matthew skips over the Jerusalem appearances of Jesus, and moves straight to Galilee.  He says the disciples go to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus told them to meet him.  

2022 - NO!  That is not what it says!  How can I still be so inaccurate after reading this so many times!?!?!?  What it says is that "the eleven" went to Galilee, to the mountain.  They knew which mountain, because Jesus had identified it in advance.  We don't know if this was something he'd told them before the crucifixion, or something he told them in one of his Jerusalem appearances.  The point though, is that they set off for a very specific place in Galilee.  A know destination.  I think it is clearly implied that the 11 went as a group.  If I were a disciple, and I'd been there when the women told their story and said the brothers were to come to Galilee, I think I'd have tagged on to the 11 when they headed for Galilee.  So it may well have been the 11, and about 500 more people, who made their way to this mountain.  I previously though that only the 11 were on that mountain, but that doesn't seem like a "necessary" interpretation.  The 11 went, so did lots of others.  They may all have know which mountain Jesus had in mind, and it may be that the 11 were in their own group, and that there were a lot of other groups.  They could have arrived at different times, even on different days, but at some point, Jesus does appear to them all, on that mountain.  That how I read it now.  I think you must read it that way because of that last phrase in vs 17 - "some doubted".  In the Jerusalem appearances, the 11 were all convinced beyond a doubt - even Thomas.  So the doubters were not of the 11.

Jesus' appearance cooking fish for breakfast is not mentioned in Matthew.  The apostles see him there at the mountain, and worship him, but some still doubt.  Matthew does not tells us who these were.  Still doubting at the mountain appearance, even though all but Thomas believed in Jerusalem, and then Thomas himself believed?  Perhaps it was some of the 500 that still didn't believe.  Plus, the way it reads, it was the 11 only that saw him on that mountain.  

Matthew records the great commission, but gives us no details about where it was spoken or anything else.  
2022 - Yeah, it was on the mountain.  There's no reason at all to put it any place else.  
2022 - This verse:
"18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." [Mat 28:18 ESV].  Had Jesus ever said anything like this before?  I don't believe so...and I think this means that it was only after his resurrection that the Father passed all this authority on to Jesus.  When this happened, I believe that the "Kingdom of God"/"Kingdom of heaven" was initiated.  I think at this time - today, in the church age - the kingdom is spiritual in nature.  But at the second coming, Jesus will establish his physical earthly kingdom, and he will rule over it with an iron rod as an earthly king.  So as I read the next three gospels, I will look at the "kingdom of heaven" as a reference to the church age, from resurrection to second advent...or at least from resurrection to rapture.  That is probably more accurate.

So in Matthew, Jesus' only appears to the two Marys while in Jerusalem.  He gives us no details of what went on during the trip to Galilee, or about what happened when they saw Jesus.  He seems almost deliberately discrete about it all.  Why would this be so?  MSB says that just because he said he'd see them in Galilee didn't mean he wouldn't see them before that.  

MSB says the note on Luke 24:34 lists all Jesus' appearances after the resurrection.

Some doubted...but there may have been a lot more than just the 11 there to see him in Galilee.  MSB note says 1 Co 15:6 says that over 500 saw him in Galilee.

Still...Matthew's account of the post-resurrection time seems very succinct.  Matthew was, I think, in Jerusalem the rest of his life.  I think I'm right about that.  He wold be writing only to the Jews local to Jerusalem.  He would be writing before 70 AD.  So the Jews in Jerusalem would already know about Jesus' appearances there.  They likely had talked to most, if not all of the apostles and found out about those appearances.  They didn't need to be told the details of those appearances, so Matthew only included the one appearance in Galilee.  And we aren't really all that sure about when this was, because it does not seem to be the ascension.  Matthew says nothing of that...again, was it because the Jews in Jerusalem were very familiar with that already?
I have been hanging my hat on this assumption.  Just went and did some reading.  Very little is known about Matthew after the gospels.  We have no real idea how he died or where.  This paragraph, from https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78115/how-did-the-apostle-matthew-die  is a good synopsis of all the items I read:
Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St. Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia, and Syria.
I do like that Irenaeus and St. Clement both keep him in Jerusalem, at least long enough to have written his gospel.  If this is right, then all my conclusions work out.  So I will say that my speculation about where he was, and the influence his location had on what he chose to record, is at least very plausible.
2021-Have spent very much time on Matthew.  Reading right through Mark, and will start with Mark next year...

​