Matthew EHSV

Commentary & Notes

1:1¹ ^{^}תּוֹלְדוֹת tōldōt.

1:1† ^{^}See note 1:21†.

1:17† ^{^}These generations are, in the first division of names:

1. A̓v̱raham
2. Yitsḥaq
3. Ya‘aqōv̱
4. Yehūdah
5. Perets
6. Ḥetsrōn
7. Ram
8. A̒mmi̱nadav̱
9. Naḥshōn
10. Salmōn
11. Boa̒z
12. Ō̒v̱ēd
13. Yishai
14. Daυid

In the second division of names, three kings are intentionally omitted after Yōram: A̕ḥazyahū, Yōa̕sh, and A̕matsyah.

1. Daυid
2. Shelōmōh
3. Reḥav̱a̒m
4. A̕v̱iyah
5. A̕sa̕
6. Yehōshaphat
7. Yōram
8. Ū̒zzi̱yah
9. Yōtʰam
10. A̕ḥaz
11. Yeḥizqi̱yahū
12. Menashēh
13. A̕mōn
14. Yō̕shi̱yahū

The third division of names:

1. Yeḳoniyahū
2. She’alti̱’ēl
3. Zerūbbav̱el
4. A̕v̱i̱hūd
5. E̕lyaqi̱m
6. A̒zzōr
7. Tsadōq
8. Yaḳi̱n
9. E̕li̱hūd
10. E̕la̕zar
11. Mattʰan
12. Ya‘aqōv̱
13. Yōsēph
14. Yĕshūa̒

1:21† ^{^} יֵשׁוּעַ Yĕshūa̒ is his name, and the meaning is “Yăhwēh is salvation.” Of the many languages in the world that Christians speak, nearly every one thinks that Mĕssiah’s name was properly translated from the Greek Ιησους into their own language. But the translators were not working with the original texts. For example, the 1611 King James Version translators were working with a very late Greek text called “Textus Receptus,” and they translated his name “Iesus.” Later this was changed to the “Jesus” spelling.

It is now known, however that the oldest manuscripts did not have Ιησους. Rather they contain something that scholars call nomina sacra. The nomina sacra uses only the first and last letters of the Greek word Ιησους, i.e. Ις It appears like this !is%. The ancient Greek letter sigma, i.e. S, looked like the English letter C. The nomina sacra are inflected for different case endings. Thus for Yĕshūa̒ we have !is% !iu% !in%. In Matthew 1:1 the text would appear like this: biblos genesews !iu% !xu% !uu% dauid uiou abraam. The words with overlines (!iu% !xu% !uu%) are called nomina sacra, standing for Yĕshūa̒ Mĕssiah and Sŏn, in the phrase, “The scroll of the generations of Yĕshūa̒ Mĕssiah, Sŏn of Daυi̱d, son of A̕v̱raham.”

The first thing to notice about the nomina sacra is that they are not normal Greek. They are coded symbols or abbreviations. The nearest thing to it would be Jews who write G-d because they either don’t want to write God or they are expressing a preference for the Hebrew E̕lōhi̱m. Similarly Lord is written L-rd. The reason for the nomina sacra in the Apostolic Writings is two fold. First it is a mark of divinity. It only occurs with divine names and titles. Second, it is an indication that the actual Hebrew name or title should be understood or even pronounced in place of the nomina sacra symbols.

For this reason, anyone who claims that “Jesus” is the correct translation of the Greek is not telling the truth. The Greek does not indicate a non-Hebrew pronunciation. It does indicate a common Greek rendition of the name, but it stops short of endorsing it by spelling it out. All the vowels are omitted. The nomina sacra is telling us that one can pronounce the Greek if they must (or any other language), but that Hebrew is preferred, because the names and titles of the Almĭghty are native to Hebrew. Anyone who claims that the Apostles translated the divine names and titles, including Yĕshūa̒, into Greek, with the idea that Greek or any other language should supplant the Hebrew, is failing to tell you that in the original texts, the Apostles did not translate any divine name or title into Greek. Rather they did what Jews do. They left only so much of the Greek as necessary to indicate to a Greek speaker who was meant by the name or title, but they left the vowels out, and put a line over the top, pointing to divinity, and the Hebrew version of the name.

Yĕshūa̒ is a short version of Yehōshūa̒, which has the same meaning, much like Dan being a short version of Daniel. Among honest and studied scholars, these facts about Messiah’s name are certain and non-controversial. However, there are large numbers of people who “know” for certain that Messiah’s name was pronounced Yahusha, Yahushua, Yashua, or some other strange variant, and more than a few teachers who create divisions by teaching error and passing a false condmnation on what is true. For the sake of the misled and the deceived victims of these false teachers, it is necessary to show the truth step by step, line by line, fact by fact.

The infix of a waw וּ /ū/ between the second and third root letters of the verb root ישׁע /ysh‘/ is the means of making a passive participle in Hebrew. The passive participle is a typical way of turning a verb into a noun. The verb root ישׁע /ysh‘/ means “save” or “deliver.” The passive participle expresses “the quality of being saved,” or “the quality of being delivered.” The noun expressed, therefore, is “salvation,” or “deliverance.” The feminine passive participle appears as יְשׁוּעָה yeshūa̒h in Hebrew and the masculine passive participle as יָשׁוּעַ yashūa̒. This may be seen as the regular pattern of the passive participle in other verbs also like, שׁמע (hear) as שָׁמוּעַ (something heard, a report, message) and שְׁמוּעָה. Also בקע (break up, split) as בָּקוּעַ and בְּקוּעָה.

Anyone who deletes the waw וּ /ū/ between the second and third root letter, and thus ends up with *Yahusha or any form lacking it, is ignorant of the fundamental facts of the Hebrew language. Whoever reads this, and does not know it, may correct themselves, and stop listening to the false teacing. Whoever teaches this, and does not listen, changes from an ignorant teacher to one who is stubbornly causing division.

יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshūa̒ occurs 29x in the Hebrew Bible in the books of 1Chron., 2Chron., Ezra, and Nehemiah, spelled exactly as I have given it here. Further the High Priest is called by this name, and also the same High Priest is called Yehōshūa̒ (cf. Hag. 2:4: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן־יְהוֹצָדָק; Ezra 10:18: יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן־יוֹצָדָק). This shows that even before Messiah that Yehōshūa̒ and יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshūa̒ were alternate forms of the name of the same person.

Messiah’s name, though, is not just a masculine passive participle, yashūa̒. The beginning of the participle has been modified into a theophoric prefix. The ya of the participle yashūa̒ has been replaced to indicate the meaning of the divine name. Ya by itself is only part of the passive participle. Leaving the passive participle unmodified as yashūa̒ simply means “salvation” and never “Yăhwēh is salvation” in Hebrew. Therefore, if a term like yashūa̒ is used as a name, it ommits the theophoric prefix, and denies any connection to the more formal version of Messiah’s name: Yehōshūa̓, which contains the same theophoric meaning, and is the reason that Mōshēh modified “*Joshua’s name.” The יְהוֹ־ Yehō-, יֵ־ Yē- and יוֹ־ Yō- prefixes all stand for the divine name at the beginning of “theophoric” names. At the end of names the divine name is indicated by a suffix: ־יָהוּ -yahu, ־יַה -yah. The divisive teachers claim, 1. there were no vowel points in the original Hebrew, and 2. The Jewish scribes added in corrupt vowel points to all forms of the name. Essentialy what they do is cry “conspiracy!” to anything they do not like, and then they say, “now listen to my speculation!”

Why do they think they know better than the Jewish scribes on this, beyond just making up something different to be contrary? The only half way good answer that is given, is that archaeological sources show different pronunciations of the divine name and theophoric prefixes. But, this argument is circular. If today’s contrary teachers leave a record of usage of incorrect names, then in a few millenia someone may dig up the incorrect names, and then conclude that they are more correct than the Bible names. At the most all the archaelogical sources prove is that some people thought other pronunciations were correct. They do not prove the other pronunciations really are correct. They may be correct for those people, but they are not correct according to the oral memory handed down by the Jews.

In order to follow the divisive teachers, one has to assume 1. The Jewish oral tradition behind the vowel pointing of names in the Hebrew Text is corrupt, and 2. That other ancient sources are correct. The problem is that Jewish corruption in this case cannot be proved. It is merely speculation. Secondly, they are a long ways from proving that the naming practices of the people mentioned in their archaeological sources were correct, or even that they were among the faithful, and of sound doctrine. So once again, they are speculating that an unknown and unvetted source is more reliable than the Hebrew Bible. And they themselves are teaching many other unsound doctrines.

They may counter claim that Jewish Scribes were not doctrinally sound and vetted. But that does not prove the Scribes were wrong in their vowel pointing of theophoric names.

The correct principle here is that the Jews are right unless proved otherwise on the transmission of the Hebrew text. There are indeed cases were it may be proved otherwise that the Jewish consensus is mistaken, but not in the case of how to put the vowel points into theophoric names. And not in the case of promoting name variants that cause division, and then condemning the way the Jews put in the vowel points. This does not apply to the divine name. In this case the Jews admit the divine name vowel points are not those of the divine name, and it may also be proved inductively from the Hebrew bible and well known rules of Hebrew grammar that the vowel points in the divine name are meant for saying Adonai and Elohim in place of the name. The pronunciation of the divine name as Yăhwēh is not controversial either, except among a stubborn and divisive minority.

Charging the Jews with conspiracy to suppress the divine name in theophoric names using part of the divine name begs the question of why they did not suppress it at the end of names, namely those ending in -yah ־יָה, and -yahu ־יָהוּ. If there was a conspiracy, then why is Elijah’s name not *ē̓li̱yehō to make sure the conspiracy suceeded? Hebrew words, when they are separate often undergo a modification of pronunciation when combined to form a name. For instance אֵל ē̓l means “Gŏd.” But when it is used as a theophoric prefix, it changes to אֱל־ e̓l, and when part of the word “Almĭghty” אֱלֹהִים e̓lōhi̱m it likewise changes. Even common words, when forming compounds undergo modification, e.g. יוֹם yōm “day” and שְׁלִישִׁי sheli̱shi̱ “third”, go together to form שִׁלְשׁוֹם shilshōm “third day.”

So what is it with these teachers. They are almost always non-Jews, and almost always view their own speculations as more valid than Jewish tradition. On the contrary, the largest part of Jewish tradition is more valid than all their speculations, and their animus against it is an overreaction and misuse of the known errors in Rabbinic tradition. Their implied reasoning is that 1. Rabbinic tradition is wrong, 2. All Rabbinic tradition is wrong, 3. All Jewish tradition is wrong. 4. Therefore they can question any Jewish tradition and substitute their own doctrine for it.

Such reasoning skips one very important step. Do not all people accept the traditional or customary truth unless it is proven wrong? Like a little child learning from their parents, so also we must learn from the historical tradiction. And it is not wrong unless it is proved wrong. If something is wrong, and no proof of it remains, then whose job is it to bring the proof to light? It is Gŏd’s job to do that. But we should not speculatively reject that which is regarded as true unless it is proved otherwise. The burden of proof lies on the side of the speculator against the received tradition. And if the speculator continues to speculate without proof, then the speculator is being divisive and a divider of the flock, and should be rejected as a heretical teacher. A heretic is one who causes divisions, or who creates a party spirit or clique. A heretic assumes what the truth is (his truth), and then creates a following by creating hatred against those who have the truth and disagree, and gathers a following of followers deceived by him or her.

So Jewish tradition says that Messiah is not Yăhwēh. But the Torah proves otherwise (cf. Zech. 12:10; Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:6; Isa. 7:14.). Jewish tradition has the holy days on the wrong days. Older Jewish tradition has it on the right days, and Scripture agrees. In both these cases, we have proof that the current tradition is wrong, and therefore are free to believe the truth, without contradicting the principle that it should be received unless proved otherwise. And if there is no proof that a matter is wrong, then it is up to Gŏd to bring the proof to light so that we may turn and repent of the error.

Sometimes these false teachers “provide” the necessary proof by donning the mantle of a prophet or by taking the position of a dogmatic authority. But they are no prophets and no authorities. They are just spiritual terrorists, and judgmental bigots accusing the brethren, and deceiving others by smooth talk. Satan himself will don the garb of a righteous person and orthodox teacher just to teach one error! Beware then, and know that we should learn to discern the truth independently from human authorities, even those claiming to be prophets.

As is usually the case, a discussion with others shows that I ought to include a few more remarks. The oldest tradition on Messiah’s name comes from the Septuagint transcription of the name of the high priest ישוע בן יוצדק Yēshūa̒ ben-Yōtsadaq (Ezra 10:18) as Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ιωσεδεκ, and the same is put for יהושוע בן יהוצדק Yehōshūa̒ ben-Yehōtsadaq (Hag. 1:1): Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ. The transcription Ἰησοῦ is put for both the long form and the short form of the priest’s name, but it is evidently taken from the short form ישוע. Likewise the transcription Ιωσεδεκ corresponds to the shorter form of the surname יוצדק. What we may learn from this is that the prefix Ιω- corresponds to both Yō- and Yehō-, and that the combination Ιη- corresponds to Yē- and Yehō. This is because the eta in Greek η transcribes the tsere vowel in Hebrew, e.g. יִשְׂרָאֵל = Ισραηλ. The old Greek version (ca. 250 BC) is telling us that the first vowel in Messiah’s name is a tere. This vowel change is to indicate that the prefix יֵ Yē- is theophoric, and has the meaning of Yăhwēh. On the other hand the qamets and pataḥ are transcribed from Hebrew into Greek by the alpha α. This is evidenced by the Greek transcription of A̓v̱raham: אַברָהָם = Αβρααμ. This is also seen in the transcription of יֵהוּא Yēhū̓ (“Yăhwēh is he”) in 1Chron. 2:38 as: Ιηου. This was the same name as the king of Yisra’ēl that eliminated Ba‘al worship from the kingdom.

Also there are some who try to spell Mĕssiah’s name, “Yeshu.” If it is coming from the pen of a Rabbi or other person that has not affirmed faithfulness to Yĕshūa̒ it is likely that it is the Talmudic shorthand. “According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) the name is generally believed to be an acronym for י = Yimaḥ ש = Shĕmo ו = Wezikhro = meaning, May his name and memory be stricken out. The oldest works in which references to Yeshu occur are the Tosefta and the Talmud, although some scholars consider the references to Yeshu to be post-Talmudic additions” (Wiki Yeshu). So clearly we want to avoid imitating this.

Also there are some people who pick up the Hebrew noun for salvation יְשׁוּעָה: yeshuah, spelled with an "h" on the end. I have sometimes seen people use this form to avoid making a confession about Yĕshūa̒. They use to to make a confession about the Almĭghty and yeshuah (salvation) which is not a confession about Mĕssiah Yĕshūa̒. Many have tried every clever way to make the faithful that they agree with them on essentials of the faith, when really they do not.

2:2† ^{^}rising: or Branch, Jer. 23:5; Zec. 3:8, 6:12 צֶמַח = Ἀνατολήν. Isa. 4:2 צֶמַח = ἐπιλάμψει; Jer. 33:15 צֶמַח. They saw his star in the Branch.

2:6† ^{^}Micah 5:2.

2:15† ^{^}The source of this prophecy is Num. 24:8: “God brings Him out from Egypt.” But the wording is from Hos. 11:1 because it alludes to Num. 24:8. See also Num. 23:22, 24:7.

5:17† ^{^}You should not think that I come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. There are several ways that lawless teachers twist Mat. 5:17-19 to fit their preconceived theology, but all of them have to “think” that the Law was abolished to even begin their re-explanation of the text.

5:17‡ ^{^}I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. Somehow this means abolish to lawless interpreters. Indeed, one sense of fulfill is that Yĕshūa̒ is the anti-type to many types in the Law and the Prophets. But it takes a leap of deceptive reasoning to conclude that the presence of the anti-type abolishes the type teaching about Mĕssiah. Such interpreters are merely trying to hijack the meaning of the type in Messiah, and then they discard the evidence, which is the type. This would be like a creationist who says he believes in creation and then proceeds to erase all the evidence leading to that conclusion. It is often the case that those discarding the types pointing to Mĕssiah, who are trying to keep only the message, end up perverting the message and the meaning of the cross as well! This is becaue they have cut themselves adrift, and do not seek to keep the divine Law in memory or practice, but having rejected it, they hope reap its benefits with no obligation to it.

But they are ignorant of the fact that failure to practice the Law leads to ignorance of the Law, and ignorance of the Law leads to ignorance of Mĕssiah, and makes it all the easier for some Gnostic heretic to teach them lies that will destroy them.

5:18† ^{^}So I say amēn to you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, one yod or one serif will by no means pass away from the Law. Have heaven and earth passed away yet? No they have not. Lawless teachers think they have found the magic exception in the last words of this verse, which I have re-punctuated to introduce vs. 19, “until all is accomplished.” These interpreters imply that all was accomplished at the cross, and then substitute this endpoint for the other end point, “until heaven and earth shall pass away.” Rather what Yĕshūa̒ means is that until everything that can happen and shall happen in this heavens and earth does happen, the Law will not pass away.

The obligation to fulfill the Law, of course, does not go away because it is fulfilled, or when it is fulfilled. The commandment to love Yăhwēh is fulfilled every day, and the fulfilling of the obligation today does not remove the obligation to fulfill it tomorrow, the next day, or at any point in time.

Anyone who condemns his brother in Mĕssiah in their heart, after hearing that his brother testifies that Mĕssiah paid the penalty so we may be forgiven when we fail to be perfect, and who condemns him for not knowing the good news of Messiah, because they also call for faithfulness to the divine commandments, this person is a hater, and the truth is not in him (or her), and they neither know Mĕssiah nor the good news.

There are of course some people who speak hateful language from indoctrination in lawless theology who may not actually have hate in their hearts. It is not our job to sort out what is in another person’s heart. It is only our job to give the above warning when we hear condemnatory language.

The solution of the lawless to the sin problem is to get rid of the law that makes something a sin. The Scriptural solution is Mĕssiah to pay the penalty for sin, and to retain the law. This is the way we have forgiveness, and the Law is still effective to define and promote sanctification and holiness.

5:19† ^{^}It is remarkable how often this verse is ignored as necessary context to the preceding verses.

5:20‡ ^{^}The lawless teachers say that Yĕshūa̒ is calling for perfection here, or else be condemned. But then how do they explain the salvation of those He was speaking to? They cannot. Yĕshūa̒ was rather speaking of hypocrisy, the binding of law and tradition on others, and in the public square, to appear holy before men, but then failing to abide by the same standard one has set in private, or in the heart. Yĕshūa̒ describes the righteousness of the Perūshi̱m in the parable of the tax-collector and in Matthew 23.

5:26† ^{^}κοδράντην: quadrans. A copper coin valued at 1/64th denarius. A denarius was 3.9 gr. silver under Augustus, and 3.4 gr. silver under Nero.

5:31† ^{^}This is not exactly what the Law said. The Law only mentions a bill of divorce “a scroll of being made cut off” in conjunction with a very particular and detailed case where divorce and remarriage result in the wife acting like a prostitute (Deut. 24:1-4). Messiah’s remarks are aimed at the interpretation of the school of Hillel which held that one could divorce for almost any reason whatsoever, and that with any reason in hand, and a bill of divorce, then the parted two where able to remarry and feel like good moral people. The text here, then, is framed the way a Pharisee of the school of Hillel would state it, that the sole condition of ending a marriage was to issue the writ of divorce on the basis of almost any excuse. So when the school of Hillel is being taken to task, it must be understood that that they taught divorce for trivial reasons.

5:32¹ ^{^}Fornication here means a prohibited relationship. For example, if a man and woman are simply sleeping together with out an attested marriage covenant, then it is fornication. A certificate of divorce is not necessary for separation and then subsequent marriage to another as the cohabitation was illegal in the first place. Or in the case of a prohibited relative, separation does not require a certificate of divorce. Except for these reasons, the man that dismisses his wife without making a legal end of the marriage with a certificate of divorce causes here to commit adultery if she remarries. Even today in Jewish separations the woman is often left in limbo without a certificate of divorce.

5:32‡ ^{^}See previous note on “trivial reason” which must be supplied from the context of Yēshūa̒’s legal opponents. In the case of prostitution, dismissal of a partner for a trivial reason was not adultery because they are not married in the first place. If either partner has not agreed to a marriage covenant, then the couple are prostituting themselves. This is also called shaking up, fornication. One fornicating partner may dismiss the other, and then get married to someone else. In that case, the subsequent marriage is not committing adultery. Adultery carries the death penalty because a solemn covenant is breached. The penalties for prostitution vary from death (cf. Lev. 21:9-if done by a priest’s daughter; Deut. 22:21-if done while in the father’s house) to relatively minor in the case where a man has simply seduced a woman and they are shacking up without being married, to none in the case of trade prostitutes (cf. 1Kings 3:16). Paul identifies prostitution as a sin (1Cor. 6:15-18). Excepting fornication from the adultery charge is an important exception since it is not covenant breaking. But it is only noted in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

Yēshūa̒’s aim is to identify trivial divorce within a legitimate marriage as adultery, that is if either spouse remarries. Generally, it is thought that adultery is only when a man takes another man’s wife. But a man who dismisses his wife, and marries another woman, even if it is not another man’s wife commits adultery according to Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18. The scripture only permitted two wives if the needs and position of the first are secured. Dismissing her for a trivial reason and marrying another therefore is adultery, a breaking of the marriage covenant. (While two wives are permitted in Scripture, obtaining a second wife in cultures where only one is allowed in the marriage covenant is sin because it is covenant breaking, though it does not break the whole covenant, but only part of it, enough for it to be a serious sin, and the sinner will bear his iniquity.)

Since divorce cannot be for trivial reasons, and since the exceptional clause is not limiting a legitimate cause for it to a fornicating spouse, then what are the legitimate reasons for a divorce? In the case of a wife. 1. If the husband does not provide her food, clothing, or marital rights (cf. Exodus 21:10) 2. The husband fornicates or commits adultery 3. He is an unbeliever and will not consent accommodate the believer (1Cor. 7:15), or allow any children to be raised in the faith (1Cor. 7:14). All these things are legitimate grounds for divorce. In the case of a man, he may divorce if 1. the wife withholds marital rights, 2. The wife fornicates or commits adultery, 3. She is an unbeliever who will not live in peace.

If a husband or wife divorces for a lesser cause, i.e. a trivial reason or any other evil cause, then they have broken the marriage covenant. The wronged party may therefore write a legitimate bill of divorcement, and be free to remarry. The spouse needs only make a reasonable effort to deliver the bill of divorcement. The Tōrah does not exhaustively legislate all situations, and proper rulings are often based on principle. The Rabbis believe a wife cannot issue a writ of divorce. I don’t agree. A case may not be mentioned, but clearly the situation does, and so the principle may be derived from the example case for men.

The case in Matthew 5:32 is that of a wife who wants a divorce and compels her husband to dismiss her. She then marries another. The reason it is so stated this way is that Matthew was written to Jews, and according to the Rabbis a wife could not divorce. Only a man could. The wife had to ask for a divorce. The Rabbinic failure is a failure to reason the principle of scripture for the case of women. Mark and Luke both mention the opposite case from the woman (Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18), Mark more clearly so. The only way a wife can commit adultery by divorce is if she seeks one from her husband for a trivial reason, and then marries another.

Does the term “dismiss” or “release” ἀπολύων mean to send away without a writ of divorcement? A sending away without a legitimate writ of divorce made a second marriage defacto adultery in the eyes of the law, but it is not perfectly clear whether the term only means “release” without a writ. In favor of its meaning excluding the writ, we have the actual writ mentioned in vs. 31., which is a different word. It is certain that the school of Hillel advocated the use of a writ of divorcement. But for the trivial reasons they were issued, it is all the same to Messiah as if there were no bill of divorcement, and therefore his language may be framed so as not to recognize the existence of a trivial bill of divorce, by referring only to the “sending away.” The argument of a frivolous bill of divorcement is therefore framed as if there was none in the eyes of the law, but only a sending away. The sending away is not a legitimate bill of divorcement legally dissolving the marriage, but being sent away is certainly a non-frivolous (i.e. a legitimate) reason for wronged party to make the dissolution legal with their own writ of divorce before remarrying. If an abandoned party gives a legitimate bill of divorce, then the other spouse is also protected from the adultery charge upon remarriage, but not from the iniquity of covenant breaking.

6:5¹ ^{^}I was persuaded at one time that Amēn should come at the conclusion of a matter, but Yĕshūa̒’s usage breaks this rule. In any case, it is just as sensible as an opening remark, to solemnize a matter before stating it.

5:34¹ ^{^}in general: The original means don’t make a habit of oaths. Yĕshūa̒ is not saying that an oath is never to be taken, and in fact the Torah orders an oath before Yăhwēh in the case of a suspected thief. An oath clears the suspect of wrongdoing.

5:37† ^{^}The double affirmation or double negation was sufficient confirmation of one’s word for ordinary purposes.

5:39† ^{^}The law of retaliation is for the judge to administer, not for the victim. Yĕshūa̒ is saying the victim should go out of his way to show that he is not retaliating. Then his heart will be in the right place. Turning the other cheek is a principle, not a literalism meant to put the victim back in harms way.

5:40† ^{^}Yĕshūa̒ is speaking of relatively minor disputes here...small claims, as is clear from the example of the shirt and coat.

5:41† ^{^}This is a case where one is in exile and is forced into some servitude by the authorities. Give more than they ask.

5:42† ^{^}The giving here means to lend something that someone wants to borrow that you yourself do not need while the other is borrowing. It also means to give food to a hungry person who asks for it. The people of the world act on the principle of never lending or giving.

6:22† ^{^}Yĕshūa̒ is speaking of generosity here. One should spend their wealth for the kingdom and not hoard it for self. A good eye is a Hebrew idiom for generosity.

6:30† ^{^}A good example of “tomorrow” (מָחָר, מִמָּחֳרַת) meaning “hereafter,” or “in time to come.”

7:23‡ ^{^}And then I will confess to them, ‘I never acknowledged you! Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’‡ Some say, “We are saved by grace. Obedience to His way has nothing to do with salvation.” According to this, once a person is “saved,” then obedience has no impact on his salvation afterward. If someone takes the statement seriously, then they will feel free to practice lawlessness. Lawlessness is a willful or serious rebellion against Mĕssiah’s commandments that can in no way be characterized as fidelity to Him.

The reason that Christians make statements like the above is that they have been indoctrinated into a theological system that started in Gnosticism, and then was refined by Augustine and John Calvin. They teach that whatever man does or decides has no effect on a person’s ultimate salvation. To further distance any involvement of man from salvation, they claim that “faith” is caused by Gŏd alone, and that ultimately the saved are saved on the basis of predestination, which is supposed to be a decision of Gŏd made in a timeless eternity concerning each individual. They fanatically teach this doctrine so much so that even Christians who are discovering obeying Mĕssiah’s laws mindlessly keep professing their false doctrine.

John writes that it is necessary to remain in Yĕshūa̒’s word by keeping his commandments, and by this we affirm our faithfulness to Him. (John 15; 1John 2:3). The word “faith” is a false doctrine when it is perverted to mean “believe only.” True faith is fidelity and faithfulness. In fact, the best Greek Lexicon defines the word πιστις to mean “faithfulness,” (BDAG 3rd edition) and further πιστος as “faithful.” It is plain to see that the verb form πιστευω means “affirm faithfulness.” So faith and believing are theological redefinitions of the original meaning, which is “faithfulness,” and “affirming faithfulness” (to Mĕssiah). One does not affirm faithfulness to him by disobedience.

How then do we explain Paul who said that salvation is by grace which is not from us. This is not hard; Paul also said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, and Yĕshūa̒ also said he who endures to the end will be saved. The explanation is that Paul is talking about being saved from the penalty of sin and being forgiven. Pagans cannot obey unless this is done first. Working out salvation means remaining in it by faithfulness, by keeping his commandments, and not returning to lawlessness.So the point is that salvation is two parts. Being saved, you have been saved as a free gift. So our status is saved. But to stay in that status requires us to remain in his word, and remaining in his word requires both decision and actions that are part of confirming our faithfulness to Him. Therefore, when Paul says that salvation is not from you he is not talking about the obedience necessary to remain in salvation. But he does not neglect it either. He included that with the term “faithfulness,” for which the reader should see the commentary on Ephesians 2:8.

The faithful are not made perfect by understanding this, but they become aware of the danger of lawlessness, and that the good news of Mĕssiah does not justify lawlessness, and that the lawless will not be saved. Paul says that the lawless will not inherit the kingdom of the Almĭghty.

8:12† ^{^}Thither will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Thither is the accurate sense, but it is ambiguous, meaing “in that place,” or “unto that place.” The weeping and gnashing of teeth to occur between the sentencing and the execution of the judgment, and are not an indication of eternal conscious torment.

8:17† ^{^}Isa. 53:4.

9:2† ^{^}Faithful determination (πίστιν), is not just “faith” or “belief” but acting in support of the goal also.

9:13† ^{^}Hosea 6:6: כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא־זָבַח וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים מֵעֹלוֹת.

9:16† ^{^}It is hard to correct someone set in their beliefs with the full truth. It is harder still to give new truth to those who are set on their own piety. It will just ruin them, or they will ruin what is put into them.

9:18¹ ^{^}or, “and worshiped him.”

9:24† ^{^}He refers to the second death here, and the fact that her non-physical spirit is not destroyed, but is only sleeping. The text could also be explained by the conjunction, ‘unless she sleeps.’ But many people believe that both the body and the spirit are destroyed in the first death. This is not so, and needs to be corrected. Referring to death as a sleep conveys the hope of resurrection.

9:28¹ ^{^}or affirming it faithful.

9:29† ^{^}There is a strong hint here of more support in the blind men than just that he could do it. They saw, though blind, what other men could not. But apparently they could not support him on obeying his orders to them. The scribes and Pharisees believed that blindness was a personal sign of Gŏd’s curse on those afflicted with it, and this may be one more reason why they could not keep quiet.

10:6‡ ^{^}The disciples would take this to mean non-Jews at first sight, but Yĕshūa̒ saying is cryptic since he mentions the “lost sheep of the house of Yisra’ēl” who mixed with the nations. What he really means is to avoid those nations nearby Yisra’ēl which are opposing them, after the model of the seven nations of Canaan which were to be eliminated. This does not mean they were to be entirely forbidden, because he did testify to the Samaritans and the Canaanite woman. But, by no means were they to make them a priority. There was trouble enough with the Samaritians, as we see from the book of Acts, who had a propensity to promote their own religious sectarianism. While they may have avoided non-Jews on this mission, the ultimate orders include the nations far off.

10:17¹ ^{^}or, councils, houses of judgment, the bēi̱t-di̱n.

10:29† ^{^}body and soul: this is the second death. The soul also is to be destroyed ● Gēi̱hinnōm: the valley of the sons of Hinnōm. This was the garbage dump outside Yerūshalayim where a perpetual fire was kept burning. It is a figure of the lake of fire, into which the wicked are cast to be consumed and annihilated after the last judgment.

10:29† ^{^}asses: A copper coin of uncertain value not more than 1/16th denarius, or 0.2 gr. silver.

11:4‡ ^{^}The answer is affirmative because the question was not met with denial (as Yōḥanan had answered the same question when put to him), but with Yĕshūa̒ enumerating the signs of the Mĕssiah.

11:10† ^{^}Mal. 3:1. Matthew adds commentary, ‘before your face,’ and ‘of you’ to explain that the Father is addressing the Messiah, as in Psa. 110:1. The Almighty talks to the other personality of himself in the Hebrew saying ‘before Me,’ but Matthew explains this to mean ‘you.’

11:11‡ ^{^}A̕mēn, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen one more popular than Yōḥanan the Immerser, but he who is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he.”‡ Yōḥanan was so popular that he is the only prophet that his enemies were generally afraid to speak against even after Herod murdered him. See Mat. 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 20:4. The terms μείζων Ἰωάννου are literally “greater than Yōḥanan,” and the sense meant is more popular than. Even years later Paul ran into followers of Yōḥanan who had not heard about Yĕshūa̒. See Acts 18:25. As for actual greatness, Mōshēh and Ē’li̱yahū outrank Yōḥanan, but niether Mōshēh nor Ē’li̱yahū were popular with the mass of the people. He who is “less” refers to Mĕssiah. Yōḥanan remained more popular than Mĕssiah for quite a long time. But he said he must decrease and Mĕssiah must increase. Yĕshūa̒’s words are a warning and rebuke that people are not actually listening to Yōḥanan’s witness for Yĕshūa̒. The people were waiting for the kingdom militant and this is what most of them expected Yōḥanan was announcing. That is why he was popular. But the Almĭghty’s plans for the kingdom made it necessary for Mĕssiah to die first, and then be raised, and then for the message to be preached to all nations. And then the kingdom will knock over the kingdoms of the world. But not until then.

The reason the translators and the theologians (aka Scribes and Pharisees), have not understood these words is that they insist in assuming a dispensational break between Yōḥanan and Yĕshūa̒ where Yōḥanan is not part of the spiritual kingdom, and Christians are. Therefore, they say the least Christian is greater than John because they assume John was not part of the kingdom, whereas Christians are. This put down of the Jewish faithful before Yĕshūa̒ is false doctrine, and fits into the antinomian agenda to put down the Law and the Prophets. Their position is clearly staked out in the commentaries. I hope you can see that the explanation I have given fits the context and that theirs does not.

11:15‡ ^{^}The remark in ( ) is commentary. “Until now” means until the time either Matthew or Luke wrote this remark many years after the resurrection, and then the other copied his source. See also Luke 16:16. Suffers violence: There was a lot of persecution of the faithful up to the time the evangelists wrote. And violent men seize it: Also false teachers and movements tried to infiltrate the faith. This is put into this context, because the first false teachers were those who believed John the Baptist was a prophet, but they did not listen to his testimony. And part of the reason, no doubt was the doubts that John had when he was in prison. Although John was told by the Spĭrit to say, “Behold the lamb of the Almĭghty who takes away the sin of the world,” his understanding of Isa. 53 and the need for Mĕssiah to die first was obscured, like that of Yĕshūa̒’s disciples. Like other Jews, John expected the kingdom to come soon with the Mĕssianic subjection of the nations, not realizing that the mission of salvation to the nations came first.

Therefore, false teachers generally had a vision of messianic militancy, and this they wove into their eschatological visions, which they used to give their audiences hope. But violence is the domain of violent men. And Yĕshūa̒’s mission through the Spĭrit was to softly call to the house of Yisra’ēl among the nations after his resurrection to quietly encourage them to return to the Almĭghty before the day of Yăhwēh. If John had doubts, and I think he was humble enough to be satisfied with Yĕshūa̒’s answer before being murdered, then the most sincere of his followers would also be satisfied, but not the majority. The majority probably rejected Yĕshūa̒ because he did not measure up to their expectation of the conquering Mĕssiah.

John was like Ēli̱yahū. Ēli̱yahū too expected a glorious reformation to occur in response to his work. But it did not. He ended up running away from Jezebel who wanted to murder him, and then doubting himself, until the Almĭghty told him it was not time for the kingdom to be established, and told him to anoint Elisha before he was taken up to heaven. The Spĭrit was not in the fire or the earthquake, or the wind, but in the still small voice. So then, the kingdom advances by the still small voice, and not by violence.

12:1† ^{^}This was a habit of the disciples after the Passover. The argument is pulled together at one time. Luke 6:1 connects it to the “second-first Shabbat,” which was the first Sabbath after Passover. See Luke 6:1.

12:4† ^{^}Daυi̱d let the priest to believe that his young men were his regular company. They were not. They were in fact those of his men who chose loyalty to him when the king chose injustice, and who agreed to flee with him.

12:7† ^{^}Hosea 6:6.

12:8† ^{^}Adŏn: or, Master of the Sabbath, an expert on the Sabbath.

12:21‡ ^{^}Isa. 42:1-4a; Isa. 11:10. See Isa. 42:1-4 notes.

12:33† ^{^}He said this because they were judging him bad, yet his actions were good.

12:40‡ ^{^}As “Yōnah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights,” so will the Sŏn of Man be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”‡ Yōnah 1:17; Yōnah 2:3, “heart of the seas”; Yōnah 2:6, “the earth with its bars shut behind me forever.” Heart of the earth is a composite of Yōnah 2:3 and 2:6. Heart of the seas corresponds to the suffering of Mĕssiah, and “the earth with its bars” to his time in the grave. Heart of the earth corresponds to both his suffering in Yerūshalayim and his time in the grave. See also 1Sam. 30:1, 12, 17. Yĕshūa̒’s aim here is not to refer to just Yōnah 1:17, but to the whole theme in Scripture of the third day.

12:45‡ ^{^}The unclean spirits were probably what was left of those Nephilim (Giants) destroyed in the Deluge. They lost their bodies, but because they were offspring of the sons of God (cf. Gen. 6), as hybrids, they retained the angelic abilities described by Yĕshūa̒ to wander through dry places. They retain the ability to link up with the flesh, which they seek as a more agreeable way to exist, but they have to compete with humans and other evil spirits to achieve this.

If one sweeps the lies (or belief system) of an intellectually dishonest man away with the truth, then seven more lies, or deceptive ideologies will enter into him, and he will be worse than before. So also it will be with this generation.

13:12† ^{^}Whoever holds fast to the little truth they have will be given more.

13:14† ^{^}Isa. 6:9.

13:15‡ ^{^}Isa. 6:10.

13:35† ^{^}Psa. 78:2.

13:58† ^{^}or “faithfulness, loyalty.”

14:24† ^{^}stadia: a stadium is 606.75 feet.

14:30† ^{^}Yahweh: or A’dŏnai̱.

15:9† ^{^}Isa. 29:13.

15:11† ^{^}defile: to contaminate by sharing or association with the unclean. See Mark 7:15-19 for a full explanation. The short explanation is that ritual impurity was not a sin unless connected with the Temple. Therefore, to risk ritual impurity did not defile the conscience or heart. Washing hands is a prudent measure for health reasons. Neglecting it is not a sin with respect to the laws of ritual purity or clean and unclean food.

16:4† ^{^}sign of Yōnah: see Mat. 12:40.

16:8† ^{^}But Yĕshūa̒, aware of this, said, “You men of little reliability, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?† He found he could not rely on his disciples to pickup on a simple figure of speech, and they lacked the fidelity to remember that Yĕshūa̒ could solve the bread problem.

16:16† ^{^}בן אלהים שׁל החיים

16:21† ^{^}Codex Bezae and important old Latin texts read, “after three days” (D⁰⁵-V a-IV b-V c-XII e-V ff²-V g¹-VIII bohairic, || Mark 8:31 || Luke 9:22 (D05 it Marcion-Epiphanius: μεθ ημερας τρεις, μετα ημερας τρεις, τρ. ημερ. Marcion-Tertullian: μεθ ημερας τρεις, Marcion-Adamantius: μεθ ημερας τρεις. Itala break down: ff^2. l q = post tres dies, b post dies tres, c e post triduum, a Tert post tertium diem. Dates: Adamantius 300/350. Epiphanius 403. Tertullian †p. 220. Marcion (85-160), pub. around 144.)

Mark 8:31  A nar    Luke 9:22 A quo       Mat 16:21 A nar
μετα τρεις ημερας   μεθ ημερας τρεις D    μετα τρεις ημερας D

Mark 9:31  A quo    no parallel           Mat 17:23 A quo
μετα τρεις ημερας                         μετα τρεις ημερας D

Mark 10:34 A quo    Luke 18:33 N quo      Mat 20:19 N quo
μετα τρεις ημερας   τη ημερα τη τριτη     τη τριτη ημερα

Luke 24:7  N Angel quo τη τριτη ημερα
Luke 24:46 N Yĕshūa̒ quo τη τριτη ημερα
Acts 10:40 N Peter quo [εν]τη τριτη ημερα D* l t: μετα την τριτην ημεραν
1Cor 15:4  N Paul nar τη ημερα τη τριτη
John 2:19  N Yĕshūa̒ quo εν τρισιν ημεραις
  John 2:20  hostile witness εν τρισιν ημεραις
  Mark 14:58 hostile witness δια τριων ημερων
  Mat  26:61 hostile witness δια τριων ημερων
  Mark 15:29 hostile witness εν τρισιν ημεραις
  Mat  27:40 hostile witness εν τρισιν ημεραις
Mat 27:63 hostile witness μετα τρεις ημερας

A study of Mark 9:31 and 10:34 will show a huge mss shift from “on the third day” to “after three days” with the advent of the age of textual criticism, so that now the critical texts have “after three days” vs. the Byzantine Text. This trend shows that we cannot count on similar readings in the parallel texts to be “on the third day.” I have marked “A” the cases where I think “after three days” should be adopted, and N where it should be rejected. My explanation for Luke 18:33 and Mat. 20:19 is that Mark is the prior text, and that Luke and Matthew composited Yĕshūa̒’s words from more than one context, and so put “the third day.”

17:1‡ ^{^}And after six days Yĕshūa̒ took with him Peter and Ya‘aqōv̱ and Yōḥanan his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves.‡ After six working days, i.e. on the Sabbath. The text is an allusion to Exodus 24:16. See Luke 9:28, which measures the time period from Friday night to Sabbath day, or Sabbath day to Sabbath day.

17:13‡ ^{^}An incredible number of teachers assert that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy in Malachi, and that Elijah will no more come, and this despite Yĕshūa̒’s statement, “Ēli̱yahū is going to come and will restore all things!” (vs. 11): Ἠλίας μὲν ἔρχεται καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα·. By this time John the Baptist is dead, yet Yĕshūa̒ says, “Ēli̱yahū ... will restore all things!” The Greek uses the future tense: ἀποκαταστήσει, “will restore.” So clearly, when Yĕshūa̒ speaks of John being Elijah, he does not mean that he is Elijah the prophet, or that Elijah will not come as prophesied. What he means is that one near enough like Elijah came that even if Elijah did actually come, they would not receive him! So by saying Ēli̱yahū where he means Yōḥanan, Yĕshūa̒ is making the point that from Gŏd’s point of view they have rejected Ēli̱yahū in rejecting Yōḥanan. Because they did not listen to Yōḥanan.

Yĕshūa̒ uses the same type of figure, or parable with the sheep and the goats (Mat. 25:33). And he puts himself into the parable as “I”, whereas the reality is that he means the least of his brothers. So also when he says Elijah, he means John the Baptist.

The Hebrew text in Malachi says, “Elijah the Prophet,” (אֵלִיָּה הַנָּבִיא, Mal. 4:6/ 3:23) and that the translators literally understood Elijah in the Greek version is clear, because they rendered it, “Elijah the Tishbite” (Ηλιαν τὸν Θεσβίτην).

17:23‡ ^{^}Codex Bezae, the Itala, sinaitic Syriac, and Bohairic read “after three days.” The Itala gives an early check against the Greek because it was translated early before the Greek manuscripts were altered.

17:24† ^{^}The temple tax was collected starting on the 15th of Adar. This episode took place in the two weeks after Adar 15, and shows that an extra year is required in the chronology of the ministry (AD 30 to AD 34). The extra year is AD 33.

17:27† ^{^}And when you open its mouth, you will find a stater. Take that and give it to them for you and me. Is the “Temple Tax” a tradition, or a commandment? Why did Yĕshūa̒ give an ornery response concerning the collectors when the issue came up? A stater is a coin sufficient to pay the temple tax for two. It was made of nearly pure silver, 14 gr, 94% Ag. It was a little more than 4 di̱nars, or 4 days wages (@ 1 di̱nar/day), or 2 di̱nars per person. Originally the tax was only supposed to be collected when a census was taken (cf. Exodus 30:13-16), as atonement money, which was put into the Temple treasury. It was not collected on any regular basis in Yisra’ēl in ancient times as evidenced by the Levites reluctance to obey the command of the king (cf. 2Chron. 24:6), even when the need for revenue came up to repair the Temple. It, appears then, that the intent of the law was not to create a revenue raising mechanism, but to discourage census taking. A census would not be taken lightly if everyone had to pay for it. This is would work so long as the need for a census was democratically determined. But starting with precedents set by the kings of Judah, and the Temple authorities after the Babylonian exile, the census atonement money was turned into an annual tax for the purposes of raising revenue.

Furthermore, it appears that there is no penalty in the Law for not passing by the census attendants. It only prescribes the money to be collected if the person submits to be counted. And submitting would be reasonable if an actual census was being taken. But it was turned into a tax, where money was simply dropped in a chest, and no demographic data was taken. The Scripture does give an example of this, describing what the king ordered and what the people did, but this does not make it law to describe what happened. For census taking purposes, an annual collection was absurd, by the standards of many nations, and the amount was exorbitant for an annual collection. If one made $15/hour, then the collection would equal about $250 year, or $500 per married couple.

Based on the original intent of the Law, the annual temple tax was clearly an abuse of the Law for raising as much money as possible. If just a million citizens are over the age of 20 then that is 250,000,000 per year. Based on the number of men over 20 in Yisra’ēl, there were about 600,000 men. Add to that women, and the total is 1.2 million. Men over 50 were excluded. So the number is low. If you think about it over a ten year period the Tabernacle would collect 2.5 billion dollars worth, which is far in excess of any money needed, not to mention collecting it for the lifetime of everyone from 20 years till death. A more reasonable census cycle would be sufficient for Temple upkeep. As for general funds and support of the personnel. The tithe was supposed to be used for that.

Yĕshūa̒ therefore had a very negative opinion of the frequency of the collection of the Temple tax. It was motivated by greed, which motivates princes over their subjects, and not the legitimate need for a census. Yet, he paid it anyway so as not to run afoul of the princes, implying, that given the abuse of the system, it would not be lawbreaking not to pay the tax every time it was collected. But he paid it so as not to offend them. Yĕshūa̒’s argument implies that the tradition should be corrected. It implies that a real census should be taken, and the tax collected only when a real census is taken, for the reasonable purposes of a real census.

18:10† ^{^}vs. 11 is omitted by the most ancient manuscripts and testimony.

18:15‡ ^{^}And if your brother sins against you, go and reprove him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother.‡ A person repents most easily of a personal offense if they are shown it in private. This text is not an absolute law for all cases of offense. If someone makes a public error, then they may be corrected in public, especially if they are teaching error. Or if they make a slanderous accusation or have accused you of error in public, then a public response is allowed. I have seen cases where false teachers have rebuked people for not coming to them in private concerning their teaching, when their teaching is an offense to all, and just to the person. However, it is best not to escalate a situation too steeply, and when the good of the faithful is not benefited by it, it would be best to let it go.

18:17† ^{^}pagan. Greek: ὁ ἐθνικὸς. See Friberg. Hebrew: goy.

19:5† ^{^}Gen. 2:24.

19:9‡ ^{^}unlawful union: a ‘certificate of divorce’ is not necessary in the case of prohibited relationship. See Mat. 5:32. adultery: This is because the first marriage covenant is not legally ended without a ‘certificate of divorce.’ Merely sending away the wife is not enough to legally end the covenant. Many Jewish men sent (and still do send) their wives away without giving them a proper divorce.

19:12‡ ^{^}I suppose that the term eunuch also refers to certain persons who have decided not to get married, and who have the ability and gift of not being married. The extension of the term eunuch to include voluntary celibacy for the ancient usage of term is reasonable. See Friberg’s Lexicon where celibate is admitted as the sense in Mat. 19:12. Yĕshūa̒ is saying that if one is able to be celebate, than one should consider a place for it, either after failed marriage or in the first place, for a season, or permanently.

19:16¹ ^{^}Supplied from Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18. Mark and included the word “Good” because Mark (and Luke) is only including the part of the argument about only the Almĭghty being perfect (distinguished). The word good can be understood in a superlative sense in Greek, i.e. for the “best,” (most excellent, perfect, distinguished) versus that which is merely good. This distinction is critical to understanding the text, and to harmonizing the accounts. It is a distinction that those believing the total depravity doctrine cannot see.

The point in Mark and Luke about the Almĭghty being the only one who is perfect has often been leveraged by heretics denying the deity of Yĕshūa̒ to imply that Yĕshūa̒ is denying he is perfect. But Yĕshūa̒’s point is academic and he is speaking in the third person about himself. There is no actual denial from his lips. There is merely a question, and its point is to show the young man that for him perfection is not what you base your salvation on.

19:21‡ ^{^}While he makes the point against perfection, Yĕshūa̒ also makes the point for total commitment, affirmation of faithfulness, and confirmation of faithfulness. The Rich man had not committed his wealth to the Almĭghty. This is likely why he felt the lack in his life and the Spĭrit was pricking his conscience, yet he was also confused by a doctrine of perfection. As the Greek philosophy goes, there can be no change if something is perfect. It can only change to something imperfect. The Rich man must abandon his position of perfection in order to be free to change is imperfection for the better. But he was stuck because he thought his entrance into the kingdom depended on his perfection.

19:16² ^{^}See Luke 18:18 and Mark 10:17: κληρονομήσω, expansion of σχῶ.

19:17¹ ^{^}Supplied from Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19. That is, exceptionally good, or the best. The young man felt a lack, but he thought he needed to be perfect, and was wondering what was missing.

19:17ᵅ ^{^}Thayer’s Lexicon: “αγαθος...in general denotes, ‘perfectus, ... qui habet in se ac facit omnia quae habere et facere debet pro notione nominis, officio ac lege” (Irmisch ad Herodian), excelling in any respect, distinguished, good. The Hebrew טוב appears to be used at times to mean the “best,” or the “most excellent.” The text might also be rendered, “No one is distinguished except the Almĭghty alone.” The English “good” has the fault that if only one is good then no one else is good in any respect, and that is a false doctrine. Slater’s Lexicon, “1. a. adj. distinguished.” So we see how a very slight nuance in a Greek word can be perverted by a false doctrine when mistranslated.

19:17² ^{^}Supplied from Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19.

19:24¹ ^{^}Aramaic Primacy argues that “camel” should be rope, but the Aramaic word does mean “camel” as well as “rope.” The Greek word only means “camel.” That the Aramaic is derived from a Greek original can be easily seen, “תֻּוב דֵּין אָמַרנָא” (Peshitta with Hebrew) = “πάλιν δὲ λέγω.” The Peshitta here copies the Greek syntax by calquing the Greek word δε with דין.

20:19† ^{^}The three days are three calendar days from dawn to dawn. The parallel passage in Mark 10:34 says, “after three days,” and this is with respect to a literal day, i.e. dawn to dusk. Yĕshūa̒ rose at the end of the night after the third literal day, but it was still the third calendar day. There is no mss. support for “after three days” here in this parallel text. The explanation is that Matthew was not making an exact quotation. He was supplying the sense from one of the other times Yĕshūa̒ said, “the third day” (cf. John 1:19; Luke 24:46.) As far as we know, Yĕshūa̒ only indicated the third day before his resurrection in types and figures, but when he spoke literally, he says, “after three days.” Matthew has filled in the sense from a post resurrection statement.

21:2‡ ^{^}The day was a Sabbath. It was March 20, AD 34; Nisan 10. Riding is not prohibited on the Sabbath, but the Rabbis who prohibited it were afraid that the rider would go past the Sabbath limit. See 2Kings 4:22-23 where the pious woman was expected to use her donkey only on a Sabbath or new moon.

21:5† ^{^}Isa. 62:11; Zech. 9:9.

21:13† ^{^}Isa. 56:7; 60:7; Jer. 7:11.

21:16† ^{^}Psa. 8:3.

21:42† ^{^}Psa. 118:22. Isa. 28:16

21:43† ^{^}The kingdom was taken from the house of Yehūdah and given to the house of Yisra’ēl (a.k.a. the nations).

22:44† ^{^}Psa. 110:1.

23:3‡ ^{^}All accordingly, whatsoever they should say to keep, do and observe, but do not be doing according to their deeds, because they are speaking, and not doing. It has often been suggested that we have to obey all the rulings of the Rabbis from this passage. In the first place, the Pharisees are not today’s Rabbis. And in the second place no Jew at that time, or today, agrees that they have to follow all the rulings of all the Rabbis! If they say so, they they have particular Rabbis, or a particular party in mind. And all the Rabbis were not Pharisees. Not all the Rabbis were agreed on proper observance.

Some have tried to solve the problem they see in Matthew 23:3 by suggesting that the so called Hebrew Matthew (The Even Bohan) reads, “Whatsoever he says [i.e. Moses],” rather than “they say.” The problem with this is that we do not have the original Hebrew Matthew, and that the one that many appear to promote as original, was in fact a translation made from Greek, as George Howard, himself admits. And in fact, there are copies of the Even Bohan that read “they say,” so even there the reading “he says” is uncertain! It should not escape our notice that a chief promoter of this theory is Nehemiah Gordon, a voice of the Karaite sect of Judaism, whose ideological roots go back to the Tsaddūqi̱m. Of course they would not want to consider the Pharisees generally right. In their view the Tsaddūqi̱m were generally right. But in the view of Yĕshūa̒ the Tsaddūqi̱m were wrong, and did not acknowledge the power of the Almĭghty.

Every teacher is required to justify their teaching by citing or quoting the Torah passage that backs up the teaching. If they do not justify what they say this way, then they are not sitting in the seat of Moses, nor can they inherit his authority. If they do not say what Moses said, then they are not speaking according to Moses. The Pharisees had the advantage of knowing thoroughly what was in Torah. And this does not mean backing up their teaching by tradition, the Mishnah, or the Talmud, which in any case did not exist then. There were only the traditions of the elders, which wasn’t the seat of Moses, and which Yĕshūa̒ had already overruled them on.

The people who listen bear the responsibility of picking Torah teachers that sit in the seat of Moses, i.e. who teach accordingly, i.e. what Moses taught. If the teachers do not teach Moses, then they are not sitting in the seat of Moses. They are only pretending to sit in his seat to deceive someone. The scribes are listed first because they are responsible for explaining the text, and Biblical Hebrew (a function that traditional Judaism has almost completely given up to Christian scholars or more liberal Jewish ones), and then the Pharisees next, because their practical teachings were the closet to correct. Yĕshūa̒ makes no mention of the Tsaddūqi̱m or the Essenes, or the Synagogue of Alexandria, or the Hellenistic Jews. These all claimed to interpret Torah, and they all disagreed with the Pharisees on parts of the Torah, because they had differing philosophies.

So then the statement, “The scribes and the Perūshi̱m sit on the seat of Mōshēh,” is meant to exclude these other parties as the parties to be assumed correct. And the instruction to do what they say means to favor them and not the naysayers in the other parties. I should point out that the Tsaddūqi̱m were wrong on 1. denying the resurrection of the dead, 2. denying the existence of demons and angels, their belief in fate or predestination, and their teaching that Shavuot was counted after the weekly Shabbat. The Pharisees made none of these mistakes.

“The scribes and the Perūshi̱m sit on the seat of Mōshēh;” It does not say “have seated themselves.” They sit there because they were always right with respect to the other parties that were not Pharisees in the cases where they disagreed. Now Yĕshūa̒ is not saying that obedience is required to a particular sect of Pharisees should it turn out that one sect disagrees with another. That matter is not here discussed. And of course, there are the matters which He himself overruled them, because in teaching traditions or commandments of men, they were not sitting in the seat of Moses. Yĕshūa̒ was in every way the peer and equal of any Pharisee on understanding and teaching Torah. And he was fact bringing his emissaries up to their level and beyond it. The Nazarene movement, therefore, may be considered the reformation of the mistakes of the Pharisees.

We must guard against imputing the views of post Second Temple Judaism onto the Pharisees. Yĕshūa̒ was not generally endorsing the views of the later Rabbis in Mat. 23:3. Rather he was naming the most correct party at that time. And in fact, on the question of whether certain passages are messianic, the later Rabbis have often explained them as not, especially after Rashi. We also have to keep in mind that by the time of the book of Revelation, Yĕshūa̒ had a new opinion of the Synagogue, and that was that it was the Synagogue of Satan. This was because they, by that time, had added a host of anti-Messiah interpretations to their commentary on Torah.

We can refer to the historic first century positions of the Pharisees as opposed to non-Pharisees, (realizing that the emissaries and Yĕshūa̒ himself overruled them on points,) as a default guideline to understanding the Torah.

On the other hand, for modern Rabbinic methods, Kabbalah, Talmud, Mishnah, methods of interpretation, there is no mandate to obey this. And in fact the methods of conservative Christian scholars, and the linguistic and Hebrew studies of conservative Christian scholars, in the cases of differences with the Rabbis, are generally more correct! So we have to realize that the situation has changed. Judaism has driven far from the positions of the Pharisees, though it does not want to admit this.

Note: unlike the scribes of Yĕshūa̒’s day, modern Judaism does not generally decide the meaning of the text on the basis of language, but on the basis of what tradition says the language means! On this score, Orthodox Judaism has departed from the position of the Pharisees. One can expect more liberal Jewish Scholars, and conservative Christian scholars to defer to the the meaning of Biblical Hebrew to decide a matter, without recourse to post Second Temple Traditions.

So then, to heed Yĕshūa̒’s directive here, we have to inquire what exactly did the Pharisees of his time teach on particular matters of Torah. This is not always easy to find out.

Another imperative point that we have to realize is that the oracles of the Almĭghty have been successfully delivered to non-Jews, which is the house of Yisra’ēl, namely non-Jews who are now faithful in Mĕssiah. The house of Yehūdah, therefore, no longer has a monopoly in the teachings of Scripture.

Jewish interpreters regularly redact post second temple interpretations and positions back to the first century. Rabbis also often claim to know Hebrew better than Christian scholars, but this is not really true. The frequency of Hebrew among Christian scholars is less, but the number of scholars is far more. It should never be presumed that a Jewish scholar is correct because he is Jewish, or correct because he is a Rabbi. That age is long gone.

Matthew 23:3 is often used to impute a presumption of absolute authority to the Rabbis. Believe me, any human teacher that presumes to have absolute authority is a dictator from the devil, and anyone arguing a position like this only does so because they already agree with a dogmatic position of the party they are trying to promote. A proper teacher will convince you with the evidence, and will not invoke authority unless the evidence has first proved the case. The Pharisees, who are not today’s Rabbis, are to have their positions heeded, as the starting position, not because they had absolute authority, but because they were generally the most right. Their teachings, however, are subject to the same standards of evidence and confirmation as any other teachers.

Of course Yĕshūa̒’s words presume the validity of Torah (cf. Matthew 5:17-20). For the Pharisees could not be wrong on this, and have earned his endorsement over other sects of Judaism. There were even some sects that rejected Torah, i.e. Gnostic Jews and some Hellenistic Jews. Also on calendar matters the Pharisees are presumed correct. For they could not have gained a general endorsement from Yĕshūa̒ if they had not been. And this must be so, because on every point were their teaching was incorrect in any important way, the evangelists counter it with Yĕshūa̒’s teaching or correction.

In anyone thinks Yĕshūa̒ was granting absolute authority to the Pharisees’ teaching, then this is really an intellectually dishonest position in light of his warning to watch out for the leaven of the scribes and the Pharisees. If someone thinks the text does not allow for this, then the honest position is to assume the right position and presume there is an unsolved problem in the text. I have noted before that their teaching must be according to Moses. One does not sit in Moses seat because he presumes to the position or claims to the position, but only because he actually teaches what the position requires, and according to that we must do and observe.

23:5‡ ^{^}But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men, because they make wide their guardians, and make great the tassels of their garments.‡. Guardians renders the term Phylacteries, which are the little prayer boxes containing select scriptures worn by Jews. The term “phylacteries” (φυλακτήρια) only occurs in the Scripture here. It means guardians or defenses, and has a superstitious connotation. It is not used in the LXX in Exodus 13:16; Deut. 6:8 or Deut. 11:18. The LXX takes the passages metaphorically, “it will be tranquilly fixed before your eyes” (ἔσται ἀσάλευτον πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν). The word ἀσάλευτον means firm, unmovable, enduring, not agitated, tranquil (LSJ). The LXX idea is that the commandments should be meditatively fixed in the mind. The term φυλακτήρια, is a departure from the LXX, and first occurs here in Matthew. It is nowhere used in contemporary literature to describe the prayer boxes Jews use. (The LXX version of the Torah (five books) was fixed about 250 B.C.) There the LXX ἀσάλευτον gives a sensible interpretation of the Hebrew text, which reads “and as circlets between your eyes” (וּלְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ), which is to say that the commandments should always be before your mind (eyes) as a circlet or bangles. The selection of the term φυλακτήρια by Matthew for his Greek version appears to represent a Hebrew word different than the one used in the Torah. The term “phylacteries” literally means guards or guardians, and can be taken in the sense of an amulet or charm. This would correspond to a Hebrew term like לְחָשִׁים (charms, amulets).

See Deut. 6:8. The Jewish superstitious use of prayer boxes like charms is illustrated from the following sources, “Originally tefillin were worn all day, but not during the night (Men. 36b). Now the prevailing custom is to wear them during the daily morning service only (comp. Ber. 14b). They are not worn on Sabbaths and holy days; for these, being in themselves "signs," render the tefillin, which are to serve as signs themselves (Ex. xiii. 9, 16), unnecessary (Men. 30b; 'Er. 96a). In those places where tefillin are worn on the week-days of the festivals (see Holy Days), and on New Moons, they are removed before the "Musaf" prayer (Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 25, 13)” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906).

“The sanctity of tefillin is very great (comp. Shab. 49a; Masseket Tefillin, toward the end; Zohar, section "Wa'etḥanan," p. 269b). As long as the tefillin are on the head and on the arm of a man, he is modest and God-fearing and will not be attracted by hilarity or idle talk, and will have no evil thoughts, but will devote all his thoughts to truth and righteousness (comp. Men. 43b); "Sefer Ḥasidim," § 554). Therefore, every man ought to try to have the tefillin upon him the whole day (Masseket Tefillin, l.c.; comp. Sifre to Deut. v. 9); for only in this way can he fulfil the commandment. It is related that Rab (Abba Arika), the pupil of our holy teacher (R. Judah ha-Nasi), was never seen to walk four cubits without a Torah, without fringes on his garments ("ẓiẓit"), and without tefillin (Suk. 29a, where R. Johanan b. Zakkai and R. Eliezer are mentioned; comp. Meg. 24a, where R. Zera is mentioned). Although the Law enjoins the wearing of tefillin the whole day, it is especially commendable to wear them during prayer. The sages say that one who reads the Shema' without tefillin is as if he testified falsely against himself (Ber. 14b, 15a). He who does not lay tefillin transgresses eight commandments (Men. 44a; comp. R. H. 17a); for in each of the four Biblical passages there is a commandment to wear tefillin on the head and on the arm. But he who is accustomed to wear tefillin will live long, as it is written, 'When the Lord is upon them they will live'"” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906).

The superstitious wearing of objects to ward off evil was widespread in ancient times. “The tefillin have been connected with magic, as the name "phylacteries" primarily indicates” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906), “The etymology of the term—from the Greek θυλακτήριον, itself derived from θυλάσσειν (= "to guard against evil," "to protect")—indicates the meaning, in the Hellenistic period, to have been "amulet" (an object worn as a protection against evil)” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906).

“Comparison with Ex. xiii. 9, 16, where the same terminology is employed, suffices to demonstrate that in Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18 the writer expressed himself figuratively, with allusion, of course, to a popular and wide-spread custom. It is plain that a sound construction of the Deuteronomic passages must reject the interpretation which restricts the bearing of the phrase "ha-debarim ha-elleh" (Deut. vi. 6) to the immediately preceding Shema', or of "debarai elleh" of Deut. xi. 18 to the preceding verse. In the phraseology of Deuteronomy, "these my words" embrace the whole book, the Torah, and it would have been as impossible to write the whole book on one's hand as it was to carry the sacrifice of the first-born (Ex. xiii.) as "a sign on one's hand." Prov. i. 9, iii. 3, vi. 21, vii. 3, and Jer. xvii. 1, xxxi. 33 illustrate in what sense the expressions "write" or "bind" in this connection are to be taken. As a matter of fact, phylacteries as described by the Rabbis did not come into use before the last pre-Christian century; the Samaritans knew nothing of them” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906). [Note: the article is overly critical at points in my opinion; I have omitted such statements.]

Yĕshūa̒’s main criticism is the motivation for making Tefillin wide and tassels long, which is to be seen by men. I do not directly see him charging the users with making a charm or amulet out of the phylacteries (though at times, it seems they were used this way, and where it is so, the charge sticks), but a suggestion that the evil of wanting to be seen by men as equivalent to the evil of superstitiously making a charm or amulet out out of either Tefillin or Tzitzit. I think we should take this much from the use of the term guardians or defenses. Doing it to be seen by men is just as bad as superstition.

The tzitzit commandment is not a metaphor, but to be taken literally, as the purpose of the tassels is to remind one. The prayer boxes, however, are a misinterpretation of the commandment. I do not recommend them for non-Jews or for Jews not part of a traditional Jewish culture. The Jews who do use them are entitled to their tradition which is harmless where there is no superstition or intent to show off before men. And no Jew who uses them should be condemned for doing the tradition. And if they say it is a mandatory commandment to meditate on the commandments according to the tradition then they should be gently corrected.

Vincent’s Word Studies states, “They [tephillin] were reverenced by the Rabbis as highly as the scriptures, and, like them, might be rescued from the flames on a Sabbath. They profanely imagined that God wore the tephillin. The Greek word transcribed phylacteries in our versions is from φυλάσσω, to watch or guard. It means originally a guarded post, a fort; then, generally, a safeguard or preservative, and therefore an amulet. Sir J. Cheke renders guards. They were treated as such by the Rabbis. It is said, for instance, that the courtiers of a certain king, intending to kill a Rabbi, were deterred by seeing that the straps of his phylacteries shone like bands of fire. It was also said that they prevented all hostile demons from injuring any Israelite.”

Clarke’s commentary cites the Targum, “The third use of them appears from the Targum, on Sol 8:3:: His left hand is under my head, etc. ‘The congregation of Israel hath said, I am elect above all people, because I bind my phylacteries on my left hand, and on my head, and the scroll is fixed to the right side of my gate, the third part of which looks to my bed-chamber, that Daemons may not be permitted to Injure me.’”

23:9† ^{^}And “Father” you (ye) should not call anyone. He is not prohibiting calling a natural father, “father,” or “my father,” as one who has begotten offspring. “Father” is this sense is a relational term. What is being prohibited is the use of Father as a title of honor among mere men or the followers of Mĕssiah. Its use as an honorific title in the relational meaning is prohibited.

...from among yourselves upon the earth, because One is your heavenly Făther.. By wording it this way Yĕshūa̒ is excluding himself from the prohibition. The Greek runs, “μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν,” ye may not call of ye, or from ye. This means that it is allowed to call Yĕshūa̒ “a Father” in a honorific and relational sense, just as it is allowed to call him Rabbi. |The| Father, as a distinct person, who is Yĕshūa̒’s Father and our Father is not the same as the relational use of the term Father. He is |the| Father, who is in heaven. Because One is your heavenly Făther. The text runs: εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος. The key phrase is an adjective and a noun: heavenly Father (ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος, NA27). Heavenly means pertaining to heaven, which does not necessarily mean “in heaven.” Other Greek texts incorrectly go: ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· the one in the heavens, and this would exclude Mĕssiah from being technically “a father” in a relational sense to humankind, since it is stated that there is One heavenly Father. The Sŏn is called “everlasting father” in the relational sense in Isa. 9:6. But this is not saying he is the person of The Father. The phrase, “heavenly Father” in this usage is relational, and in my opinion is the same as saying “heavenly Almĭghty,” which collectively addresses the Făther, the Sŏn, and the Holy Spĭrit. However, such a distinction, while technically correct, is practically confusing. The term Father has been chosen to designate the unseen Almĭghty who remains in heaven, but the term Sŏn has been chosen for the manifest Almĭghty who became flesh (cf. John 1:18), and Yĕshūa̒ clearly wanted to emphasize his position as the Sŏn of man.

23:14† ^{^}Verse 14 omitted by best texts: 14 “Woe to you, scribes and Perūshi̱m, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.” Comfort states, “This verse, not present in the earliest manuscripts and several other witnesses, was taken from Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 and inserted in later manuscripts either before or after 23:13. This kind of gospel harmonization became especially prevalent after the fourth century” (New Testament Text & Translation Commentary).

23:35¹ ^{^}Codex א* omits, “Son of Berechiah.” This Zechariah was the son of the High Priest Jehoiada. See 2Chron. 24:20-22. The addition was a very early mistake like the one in Luke 3:36 and Luke 24:21.

23:38† ^{^}The house of Yehūdah and the Temple.

23:39† ^{^}Psa. 118:26. “From now on” = “after this time (his first coming).”

24:30† ^{^}cf. Zec. 12:10-14: families of the land. Dan. 7:13-14.

24:31† ^{^}great shōfar: Lev. 25:9.

24:34† ^{^}See notes on Mark 13:30.

24:36‡ ^{^}But concerning that day or time no one has come to know, not even the messengers of the heavens, nor the Sŏn, but the Făther alone.‡. The word “hour” in Greek (ὥρας) may take on the general sense of “time” as in English, so I have translated it that way. The Făther may not have set an exact hour at all. He may have only set a general time frame, or day, and have left which year or which Jubilee it will come on undetermined. But whatever he determines, he is not fully telling.

The words “concerning that day or time” (Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας) do not just refer to the timing of matters. It refers to the exact matters themselves. Only the Făther knows the details, such as he has determined in advance, that will take place, and he has only given us a very rough outline in Prophecy.

Anyone who has studied Scriptural Chronology as long as I have, knows that man cannot pick an exact date. The Almĭghty has contingency plan A, plan B, plan C, and plan Z ready to go, and none of the plans contradict his overall plan, such as he has pre-determined. Which contingency is carried out depends on the human response to his efforts to redeem man. If humankind proves the more evil, then he has plans for every degree of it. The Făther cannot be outsmarted, outguessed, or out maneuvered by good or evil. But if we pray in the name of his Sŏn Yĕshūa̒, whose days are from everlasting to everlasting, he will listen to our requests and include them in his plans.

There are many false prophets, and false teachers, who have gone out into the world saying Mĕssiah will come in a year, or two years, or three years. There are many more who make their focus on speculating or suggesting possible dates, and mix up their teaching with their eschatological predictions, and every doom and gloom report from the news they can get their hands on. My friends, this is the yellow journalism of religion, with its gotcha headlines, that appeal to the fleshy desire for Apocalypse Now, and feed false hopes to the hopeless, who really need to understand the good news or actually be delivered from oppressors. My goal is to point us back to what has already been fulfilled in prophecy concerning chronology and history, and concerning Mĕssiah’s first coming, so that we may have confidence that our affirmation of faithfulness to Him is based on rock solid and unshakable truth. The past has happened only one way. We can dig it up. We can discover history, and using Scripture we can understand it. And understanding it, we may be delivered by the truth.

Every minister is allowed to speculate a bit, if they call it what it is, but anyone who makes it their focus, and neglects the historical foundation, and the certain truths of the past, which should lead us to the good works of delivering the confused, the lost, and the hopeless. Such a person avoid. They are a fruitless tree making more victims. And our mission is to deliver the victims from the mouth of the wolf so that they may really understand the good news of Mĕssiah and that he is asking us to confirm our faithfulness to him by obeying his commandments.

It is precisely because false prophets led the Church astray into revision of history concerning the times and seasons of the Scripture, which have already taken place, that the Church is in such trouble. And they did it for fleshly reasons, political reasons, and unjust financial gain based on their lies and ability to fool people into supporting them. People can only be delivered from the modern descendants of these deceivers by patient teaching, and above all giving them all the facts, and teaching them to think correctly for themselves, and how not to be followers of men without becoming cynics and skeptics. Yĕshūa̒ has a glorious future planned for those who heed his words, and refuse to follow false prophets.

Daniel Wallace thinks the words, “nor the Sŏn” should be omitted from this passage. Wallace says the parallel words in Mark 13:32 were inserted into Matthew’s text. He points out that the omission does not change the meaning, because the words “the Făther alone” exclude the Sŏn from knowing in any case. Still, the words enjoy considerable support including Codex Bezae and the Itala. I don’t accept Wallace’s argument that Matthew’s theme required him to omit the words, and it appears that the omission from half the texts is theologically motivated, even though ultimately it does not succeed.

The Făther disclosed a much larger part of his plan to the Sŏn in the book of Revelation, and to us also.

24:41‡ ^{^}Taken in death, as all lawless evil doers are removed from the kingdom.

24:44‡ ^{^}For this reason you be prepared too, lest the Sŏn of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think he will.‡ Some people think that building a bomb shelter and stocking it with all the goods money can buy is what it means to be prepared. Or that figuring out when he is going to come is preparation. Do not be deceived! As prudent as these things might be in the right circumstances, they are not what Yĕshūa̒ meant by preparation. He meant doing the will of the Almĭghty, keeping his commandments, delivering the lost, and saving the victims of every form of evil. The one who is not found doing is will is the one who is not prepared. And his coming will catch them off guard if death does not first catch them at the end of a disobedient life. For everyone who dies not having done his will will awake to find that he has come for judgment.

24:51† ^{^}Who is the evil slave. The evil slave is the one who listens to the false prophet, who says that He is coming right away, and then the evil slave is prepared for a physical apocalypse that is not yet coming, and then when the false prophet proves false, then the evil slave says in his heart, “What is the use of it all?” Because that one has not learned a love of the truth, they conclude the Master is never coming, and turn to faithlessness, or in their fleshly desire for apocalypse they find another false prophet and loose their focus on Mĕssiah, and fail to do his will. But the one who loves Mĕssiah will do his commandments, and will confirm their fidelity with obedience.

25:4† ^{^}They who have the extra oil are those who constantly rely on the Holy Spĭrit to sanctify them, and allow the Spĭrit to do so through his commandments, abiding in the word of Mĕssiah.

25:30† ^{^}ἐκεῖ means either “thither” or “in that place.” It could mean on the way to that place, or it could mean in that place standing in line, so to speak waiting for one’s turn to be cast into the lake of fire. The text does not say how judgment will be carried out in all cases.

25:46† ^{^}Then these will depart for eternal excision, and the righteous for eternal life.† I meditated and studied this verse last Shabbat, and discovered something I have not seen before, mainly because the Greek dictionaries try to steer the user away from the solution, in favor of the false doctrine of eternal conscious torment. Here it is. The word κόλασιν may be looked up in Thayer’s Lexicon (Strong #G2851): “κόλασις, -εως, ἡ, (κολάζω), correction, punishment, penalty:” Most users stop at this point and think that the word means one of the three options given. However, after many years of study, I have realized that one must look up the verb form of a word to really understand what it means. Thayer has listed this for us: κολάζω. Some dictionaries are reluctant to define this verb literally! (i.e. BDAG 3rd ed.) However, Friberg does: “16355 κολάζω 1aor. mid. ἑκολασάμην; strictly cut off, lop, trim; hence prune, trim; figuratively in the NT, middle punish, chastise, keep in line (AC 4.21); passive be punished (2P 2.9) [page 234, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Friberg, ©2000; Baker Books.]” Liddell points us in the direction “Prob. from κόλος, akin to κολούω.” Turning to the first word, we find that the word refers to a dehorned animal, and to the second verb we find “cut short, dock, curtail, prune, cuts off”; In Middle Liddell, “to cut short, dock, curtail. II. to cut off, disappoint.” In Autenrieth, “cut short.”

Therefore, κόλασιν is simply a noun form of a verb that means “to cut off;” All the other meanings are derived from various ways of cutting off. As a noun the word means “excision.” Now this is very interesting, because the Hebrew language refers to punishment in exactly the same way. The verb לִכְרֹת liḳrōt (infinitive form) means “to cut off.” We find the sense used for a penalty in Gen. 17:14, “And will have been cut off that soul from its people.” Likewise in Exodus 12:15 for anyone who eats leaven, “And that soul shall have been cut off from Yisra’ēl.” See also Exodus 30:33, 38; 31:14; Lev. 7:20. There are many usages of the word, including whole nations (Deut. 19:1), and for captial punishment (Exodus 31:14; Lev. 20:3, 5, 6,). A sin of rebellion with a high hand results in being cut off (Num. 15:31). So then, to figure out what Messiah was saying, we need only find the noun of that verb: כְּרִיתָה keri̱tah (from Reuben Alcalay). The construct form is כְּרִיתַת keri̱tat, “cutting off of, excision of.”

The sense of the phrase here in Matthew is, “an excision of everlastingness,”; The Hebrew often puts a construct for an adjective relationship, so the sense is “an everlating cutting off.” The Greek is literally “an everlasting excision.” It may be also noted that the Hebrew idiom for cutting off is meant in the sense of “destroy” (verb), and accordingly the noun: destruction. Holladay lists the following terms for the Niphal “be cut down, felled, be cut off, be rooted out, eliminated, be extinguished, blotted out, removed, be excluded, be ruined.”

There is no need to debate over “everlasting” in Matthew 25:46. The word means that in both cases, the case for the righteous, and the case for the wicked. The word “punishment” in English is ambiguous, and slightly favors the inflicting of pain or suffering as the form of punishment. The English makes one think punishment must be iterative to be everlasting. Proponents of eternal conscious torment want everyone to think that the phrase means “everlasting punishing.” They have a point. The English seems to suggest that. However, I should point out that one should never let your opponent translate the text for you. The sense “eternal penalty” is better, and they must admit this is a sensible translation. However, this still does not connect us with the standard idiom for “penalty” in the Torah! The word to use is “excision, cutting off.” And now we have plenty of penalty context to understand that he meant an eternal cutting off, an eternal excision from life. Messiah means eternal death. He does not mean eternal conscious torment.

25:46† ^{^}וַיֵּלכוּ אֵלֶּה לִכְּרִיתַת עוֹלָםׅ וְהַצַּדִּיקִים לְחַיֵּי עוֹלָם׃

26:17† ^{^}Now on the day before Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Yĕshūa̒, saying, “Where do you desire we should prepare for you to eat the Passover?”† It has been supposed that the last supper was the official passover meal. It wasn't. It was a day in advance of the correct time for eating the Passover lamb (cf. John 13:1). The translation “on the first day of unleavened bread...” found in most Catholic and Protestant Bibles is incorrect, since this would make the text contradict John.

The resolution of the contradiction begins with understanding that the same problem occurs in Exodus 12:15, where the usual versions read, “On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses.” Everyone knows, however that to obey the commandment that no leaven be found in the house for seven days that the leaven must be removed before the first day. So it is plain that the usual translation of Exodus 12:15 contradicts Exodus 12:19. To solve the last supper contradiction, we first have to solve this contradiction.

The Exodus 12:15 translation is derived from a post 9th century AD Karaite vowel pointing of the Masoretic text. Apparently someone did not want Christians to know that the Hebrew word ראשׁון had two meanings, and so therefore, the scribes corrupted the vowel pointing with the effect of preventing Christians from having the solution key to the last supper, as the translations fail to distinguish two uses of the word.

What I should add here is that in pre-exilic Hebrew, I believe rōshōn (headmost, former), and rishōn were distinguished in speech, but then as time went on the meanings fell together into just rishōn, and rōshōn dropped out of use to make a distinction. One can explain the matter simply by the various senses of rishōn, but I think it unlikely that the switch in sense in Exodus 12:15 happened without a slight difference in speech. And we do have the components, rōsh and the archaic Aramaic ending -on.

The word ראשׁון may be vowel pointed רִאשׁוֹן rishōn, or רֹאשׁוֹן, rōshōn. The latter is correct. Rōshōn is based on the Hebrew word Rōsh + ōn. The word רֹאשׁ (rōsh) means “head,” and the ending וֹן ōn is an archaic Aramaic ending borrowed into ancient Hebrew. It makes a word intensive or superlative. So the meaning of rōshōn (רֹאשׁוֹן) is “headmost”! And Exodus 12:15 really means, “On the headmost day you shall remove leaven out of your houses.” The headmost day was regarded as the day of the sacrifice, before the first day of unleavened bread began. The first day of unleavened bread began with sunset at the end of the 14th day. The headmost day began with sunset at the end of the 13th day. Problem solved. And the Jewish people have always removed the last leaven on the 14th day before sunset.

Now with this clue in hand, we are ready to solve the last supper problem. The Greek word πρώτῃ used in Mat. 26:17 is understood in Greek the same as πρότερος, and if one looks this up in Liddell, Scott and Jones, one will see that the word has a superlative use, “foremost”, and a comparative use, “before, in front”; Anyone who does not believe this can look it up on the Perseus Collection Here. The force of the Greek text is “On the firstest day,” or “the first-most” day, just like the Hebrew in Exodus 12:15. I translate simply, “the day before Unleavened Bread.”

Other sources: before, or ‘ahead of’: See Exodus 12:15. Even with improper vowel points: בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, ‘on the day ahead’; רִאשׁוֹן: ‘earlier, former’ (HALOT); ‘previous’; ‘before’ (BDB 3a). So also the word here, πρώτῃ, ‘earliest’, ‘earlier’, ‘before’ (BDAG, 3rd, 1β). The context also confirms this meaning. It is too late to prepare for Passover on Nisan 15. to eat: all the preparation was done with the goal of eating the lamb when the daylight portion of the 14th day ended. Serious preparations usually began at the end of daylight part of Nisan 13.

”26:18† ^{^}keeping: There is no reason why these words might not be literally understood. “The Passover” meant the lamb that was kept in the house prior to its sacrifice (cf. Ex. 12:3), or the word may be translated ‘doing’ ποιῶ. As the word is present tense, keeping any part of Passover makes the statement true, including assisting the owner in the removal of the last leaven, which was part of keeping the Passover. The notion that keeping the Passover means only the eating of it on the first day of unleavened bread is an assumption that leads to misunderstanding the correct time of the feast. Also Yĕshūa̒ is only stating an intention, and it is understood that all intentions uttered by men, including the Sŏn of man, may be prevented by circumstances beyond one’s control. He submitted to the Făther his omnipotence and did not use it, and even asked for the cup of suffering to pass from him that night. From his limited human viewpoint, having surrendered any larger perspective, it was still possible that he might eat the full Passover. It did not become a certainty that he would be betrayed at that very night until Yehūdah decided to do it that night, and then he knew, because the Făther informed him. Even then he was hoping that another way could be found, though he knew one was not probable. But for one facing suffering and death, even the smallest hope is the basis for prayer.

26:19‡ ^{^}made ready: Not for supper, but selecting, inspecting, feeding, washing and grooming, the lamb before its sacrifice. See Luke 22:13. The lamb would not be killed until the next day, at which time Yeshua was also killed.

26:31† ^{^}Zec. 13:7. Matthew clarifies who does the striking by adding “I will.” He also expands “sheep” to “sheep of the flock.”

26:64‡ ^{^}Dan. 7:13; Psalm 110:1.

27:5† ^{^}Zech. 11:13, “And I threw it into the house of Yăhwēh.”

27:10† ^{^}Zech. 11:13.

27:46† ^{^}Psa. 22:2 (1). But Mishnaic Hebrew.

27:64‡ ^{^}It was Thursday, the day of the annual Sabbath after the preparation of the passover. The day is being reckoned on a dawn to dawn basis. The statement “after three days” with “on the third day” puts the limit at dawn on the Sabbath starting from Wednesday after noon. On the next day, they requested a guard “until the third day,” that is up to the third day counting from Thursday. So Thursday and Friday count for two days, and dawn on the Sabbath begins the third day from that point. So they are asking for the tomb to be secured until dawn on the Sabbath.

Month: I AVIV, AD 34   4173 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 1. Jub. Cyc: 8 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.501 A Q2: -0.493 G LG: 102m W: 1.068' AL: 20.8 AV: 20.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg

        I        II        III       IV         V        VI        VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
                                         ↑   │   1     │   2     │   3     │
     AVIV/NISAN                              │New Moon │         │         │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
     │   4     │   5     │   6     │   7     │   8     │   9     │  10     │
     │         │         │         │         │         │         │         │
     │         │         │         │         │         │         │         │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
     │  11     │  12     │  13     │ 14♦     │  15     │16-0-1   │17-1-2   │
     │         │         │         │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf   │         │
     │         │         │         │         │   1♦    │   2     │♦  3     │
     │         │         │         │         │         │         │         │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
     │18-1-3   │19-1-4   │20-1-5   │21-1-6   │22-1-7   │23-1-8   │24-2-9   │
     │         │         │         │7thULB   │         │         │         │
     │         │         │         │         │         │         │         │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
     │25-2-10  │26-2-11  │27-2-12  │28-2-13  │29-2-14  │
     │         │         │         │         │         │

The wanted the guard till the red diamond, “until the third day,” i.e. up to it, counting from when they asked at the blue diamond.

28:1‡ ^{^}Now the later of the Sabbaths, at the dawning on the first of the Sabbaths, Miriam Magdalene and the other Miriam came to look at the grave: The original manuscripts used by translators are completely accurate, however translators since about the 16th century have been indoctrinated with a steady diet of tradition on how to translate the word σαββάτων into the sense “week.” Σαββάτων (sabbatōn) means “sabbaths” in the ordinary usage of the word. It is used twice in this verse, but it is wrong to translate the first instance as “Sabbath” and the second as “week.” There is a perfectly sensible understanding of the text according to the literal sense, when we take the word Ὀψὲ opsē (later) into account.

Translators are also in the traditional habit of translating Ὀψὲ opsē (later) as “end,” “after,” or “evening.” The word means none of these things in the literal sense. Each of the above translations is derived from a misunderstanding of the chronology, and then forcing that misunderstanding back into the translation of the word. And then the readers are trapped in a classic case of circular reasoning proving the assumptions of the translators.

The word Ὀψὲ opsē means “late” in Greek, and may be used as an adjective, “the late man lost his place in line” or an adverb, “he came late,” or as a substantive adjective, “the late [one] was born after the first child.” The final example is exactly what we have in Matthew 28:1, “the late [one] of the Sabbaths,” which is the same in meaning as the later Sabbath.

Now that I have simply explained all the pieces of the text, the meaning can be made plain. There were two Sabbaths in the week of Messiah’s death and resurrection. The first was an annual Sabbath falling between Wednesday sunset and Thursday sunset (see Yōḥanan 19:31). The second was the regular weekly Sabbath between Friday sunset and Saturday sunset. Now the designation, “The later of the Sabbaths” makes plain sense. Matthew is indicating the weekly Sabbath after the annual Sabbath was already passed for the resurrection day.

The second clause in Matthew 28:1, “at the dawning on the first of the Sabbaths,” is parallel to the first clause, and indicates the same day, or the same time as the first clause. In order to understand how the second Sabbath of Passion Week is the first of the Sabbaths, we must understand Lev. 23:15. According to the Torah, seven Sabbaths are supposed to be counted starting immediately after Passover. Passover fell upon the first Annual Sabbath that year, and the seven Sabbaths that were counted began with the weekly Sabbath later that week. The first of the seven Sabbaths is accordingly called “the first of the Sabbaths.”

So then, Messiah was put to death on a Wednesday afternoon, and rose from the dead a little before dawn on the weekly Sabbath. This chronology makes sense out of the three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40; Yōnah 1:17; 1Sam. 30:12) as each daily offering (a type of Messiah) burned on the altar for a day and a night (Lev. 6:9-10). For a day for sacrificial purposes was counted from dawn to dawn. And this is the reason why the dawning of the Sabbath is mentioned, so that we know that it marks the point at which the third day would end, the point in time when the ashes of the third set of daily offerings would be cleaned out of the altar. Therefore, the resurrection of Messiah was just before dawn on the Sabbath, just before the third day ended.

The older translations, and the consequences: As pointed out the word Ὀψὲ means “late.” And it is used as a substantive adjective, “the late one of the Sabbaths...,” but since this contradicted the Sunday theory, the older translations render it “late on the Sabbath,” (Darby) or “end of the Sabbath” (KJV) or “evening of the Sabbath” (cf. Aramaic Bible in Plain English; YLT). This is before the unadvised translation “after” was introduced. Now “end of the Sabbath” causes a contradiction with Mat. 28:1b, “at the dawning” (τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ). For the end of the Sabbath, late on the Sabbath, or evening of the Sabbath, whichever variation you want, by no means is dawn. In order to justify re-interpreting dawn as the end of the Sabbath (which will be at sunset), the same phrase was introduced to Luke 23:54, καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν, which means “and a Sabbath was dawning.” Now the interpreters could say, see, dawn means sunset, since in that context there is no question the Sabbath was about to begin. But Codex Bezae lacks the phrase. And this means that dawn means dawn. The phrase in Luke 23:54 always was embarrassing to translators, as they sought circumlocutions to avoid making it say dawn, such as “drew on,” (KJV) or “was about to begin” (NAS; cf. ESV). Nowhere else in Greek literature is dawn used to mean dusk. It is clear why. The words mean lighting-up!

It was not until translators decided that Ὀψὲ must mean “after” that they got away from the contradiction. But this was at the expense of resorting to a rare, and questionable usage of Ὀψὲ from Hellenistic Greek. Thayer questions it. Liddell questions it, and so do the grammars. The sense after has earned the ignominious designation of improper preposition, or question marks in Lexicons and grammars.

However, some interpreters, realizing that Mat. 12:40 entails a Wednesday to Sabbath chronology did not understand that the “later of the Sabbaths” was the sense of the phrase, and therefore took it as the older translations did, indicating late on the Sabbath or just at the end of it. This renews the contradiction with Matt. 28:1b.

As an interesting aside, I noted the Jubilee Bible 2000 translation, “Now well along on the sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first of the sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” This actually gives the correct timing. Dawn on the Sabbath was about half way through the 24 reckoning of it, and so indeed well along. Perhaps the translators did not realize they were telling the truth for once.

I illustrate the substantive use of an adjective from Polybius Histories, book XXIX, 14, “Πρωτος δε των παροντων,” “The first one yet of the ones present” Compare also, “Πρωτος μοναστων, υστερος δε των δυο...” (Τα Νεαμονησια), “The first of the monastics, the later yet of the two.” These illustrations show that a definite article is not needed to substantivize an adjective. On the substantival use of the adjective see Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, pg. 294. The difference between an adverb and and adjective if often purely of function, and not form. For example, the late man (adjective). He came late (adverb). The late of the men (substantivized adjective use). The word first also is used as substantive, adjective and adverb without changing form. The first man. The first. He went first. What presents in Mat. 28:1 is LATE YET OF-THE SABBATHS. This takes very little Greek skill to fill this out to, “Now the late one of the Sabbaths...” This is proof by demonstration of the facts, and not authorities.

The compounded usage of οψε (οψι-) is shown in the word οψιγενης, late-born. See Perseus: οψιγενης. Also check out the main entry for οψε. Note A.3: ὀ. τῆς ἡλικίας late in life. This example shows that “late” is the lexical meaning, and that it is not dependent on a time of day or an hour. Also note the usage: “late in learning” which clearly is not a time of day either, and shows that the lexical sense is late.

Here is a useful quote for Sunday apologists who are certain that the Greek means “first day of the week,” and can mean nothing else. It comes from W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann’s commentary on Matthew. Under the name of these first rank scholars we have the following remarks on Matthew 28:1.

“The proliferation of recent studies on the calendar, both sectarian and orthodox, prompts us to add a note of caution here. The Greek phrase which we have translated the first day of the week and which is found in all four gospels (mia sabbatou or mia tōn sabbatōn) is not as obvious an indication of a particular “day” of a “week” as the English suggests. By the time we reach the Didache the plural sabbata certainly meant “week,” and the enumeration of the days certainly makes Sunday the “first day” of the week; cf. Didache, vi [SIC, viii]. But the notes of time in our gospels concerning the resurrection, together with the confused chronology of Holy Week, make it hazardous to say with any confidence whether the evangelists wished us to understand Saturday or Sunday at this point” (pg. 358, Matthew: A New Translation With Introduction And Commentary By W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 26)

The Didache is the earliest Greek source known for a reference to “the first day of the week” in Greek. Various dates have been proposed: “Although several scholars have assigned the Didache to the first century, and others have dated it to the third or even fourth century, most prefer a date in the first half of the second century. The dates fixed upon by critics for the composition of the Didache fall between the years 50 and 160. The work was probably composed between 80 and 110. The basis for such a conclusion is the fact that the liturgy and hierarchy which the author describes, are quite primitive; there is no trace in the work of a creed or a canon of the Scriptures, and no allusion is made to pagan persecution or Gnosticism. On the other hand, the writer is acquainted with the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke and entertains an obvious mistrust towards wandering Christian teachers who visit the communities. This state of affairs is characteristic of the end of the first century. Bryennios and Harnack assign, as the date, between 120 and 160; Hilgenfeld, 160 and 190; English and American scholars vary between A.D. 80 and 120.”

The relevant phrase is in Did. 8.1: νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρα σαββάτων καὶ πέμτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν. “Fragments of the Didache were found at Oxyrhyncus (P. Oxy 1782) from the fourth century and in coptic translation (P. Lond. Or. 9271) from 3/4th century. Traces of the use of this text, and the high regard it enjoyed, are widespread in the literature of the second and third centuries especially in Syria and Egypt. It was used by the compilator of the Didascalia (C 2/3rd) and the Liber Graduun (C 3/4th), as well as being absorbed in toto by the Apostolic Constitutions (C c. 3/4th, abbreviated as Ca) and partially by various Egyptian and Ethiopian Church Orders, after which it ceased to circulate independently”; it cannot be said with certitude if the Didache is older than Seder Olam (ca. AD 140-160). Nor can it be said with certitude if the Didache was not edited at some early point. What the Didache shows is that at some point the Church was interpreting σαββατων to mean week. It does not mean that such interpretation or usage should be transferred to the resurrection contexts, nor does it disallow σαββατων from having its normative meaning “Sabbaths” elsewhere.

Didache 14:1, “1. Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου” shows evidence that Yom Kippurim has been superficially replaced by a Christian term, i.e. (Sabbath of Sabbaths; cf. Lev. 23:32) had been turned into Lord’s of the Lord’s. As such, it is premature to claim it is a reference to the Lord’s day or Sunday.

The syntax of “first of the Sabbaths” can be explained by Josephus’ phrase, “second day of unleavened bread,” which is literally, “second day of the unleavens” (τῇ δὲ δευτέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων ἡμέρα, Jos. Ant. 3:250). The phrase is equally meaningful without the word “day,” as “second of the unleavens,” e.g. simply, “δευτέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων.” This is the second in the seven unleavened bread days counted during Passover. Likewise the resurrection day is the first in the seven Sabbath days counted during the 50 days to Shav̱ū‘ōt.

The typical LXX and NT phrase for the sabbath is “day of the Sabbaths” (ημερα των σαββατων). Josephus likes to put the word day after Sabbaths, but he puts the article first to hold the place, “τὴν τῶν σαββάτων ἡμέραν” (Ant. 13:12).

28:20† ^{^}Teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, and lo, I am with you all the days onward the end of the age.”† This passage is called the “Great Commission.” The previous statements in Mat. 5:17-20 and 23:1-3 need to be considered as part of the “all” that Yĕshūa̒ commanded them. And also Yĕshūa̒ was at Mt. Si̱nai̱, appearing in Exodus 24:10-11. He is one with the Făther and Spĭrit, and speaks as one voice with the Făther and Spĭrit. What he has commanded to his Jewish disciples, he now commands his Jewish disciples to teach to the nations. So the nations cannot say, “We are exempt, because we are not Jewish.” If the nations truly understood the mystery of the kingdom, they would know that they are not exempt.

Some of course will beg the question by assuming that he meant teach them what he commanded them to teach them, and that this means less than all, but only all of what he commanded them to teach them. But this would fail to note that he commanded them not to think that the law was abolished (Mat. 5:17) for them, and that it would then become necessary to classify not only who was a Jew or not, but who was an Israelite or not, in order to determine who was exempt, and who was not. This is made problematic by Gen. 48:19; Rom. 9:24-26; Eph. 2:11-19. How can non-Jews be fellow citizens of Israel without obeying the whole Law? Finally, the notion of exemption from the law for the nations begs the question as to how the law is to be divided up. And Christians have never agreed on this, some arguing the moral law is upheld, and others that only those laws repeated in the NT are upheld, but then it begs the question of which part of the NT, since clearly Matthew 5:17-20 is in the NT. So they reduce it further to Paul, and then finally some reduce it to nothing at all, since they think they only have to believe some facts to be saved. Did not Yĕshūa̒ pray that all of the faithful should be one as he and the Făther are one? The only way to unify Yisra’ēl is to agree that he meant there to be one law for his people. For the experiment with the other option has utterly failed.

Christianity would not have succeeded in running so far away from the Torah without 1) changing the facts of the death and resurrection, 2) reducing an affirmation of faithfulness to Messiah to believe only, 3) and then corrupting the word by misinterpretation and mistranslation. And these things can be demonstrated to the one who truly seeks. Probably one of the greatest arguments in support of Torah one can make is not to prove Torah should be kept, which the Scripture already says, but to show them all the ways they have been lied to by those who reject the Torah.

EHSV Matthew Notes

Notes by Daniel Gregg

Commentary & Notes