Talk:Matt 27:1-25

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

Verses 27:1-5[edit]

Hi visorstuff, I tried editing this part you wrote.

Verses 3-10: The the chief priests and elders refused to take the money back, or place it in the treasury, (yet that is likely where the money came from) so they used it to purchase something for the people.

Then I realized that it was a bad idea for me to edit it because I think I don't fully understand what you are saying. What do you think is ironic about them refusing to put the money in the treasury but then buying something for the people with it?

I think it is ironic in two or three ways that they got the money from the treasury to pay for the bribe, but wouldn't put the money back as it was used to condem a man. Second, they were worried that the money was dirty as it was the reason of Judas' suicide so couldn't take it back, however, they then used this money "for the people" - which is the same as using the money from the treasury. The money might have just as well come from the treasury. Third the field was purchased for who had no home at death - don't we all? Did that money purchase the field or did it purchase a "resting place" for all those who die and homeless (each of us). And this was done because the money was exchanged for the blood of Christ (or the blood of Christ gives us all an eternal home or resting place) there are a number of irionies. I know i'm not explaining well, but that's the thinking.... -Visorstuff 00:19, 30 Mar 2005 (CEST)

Verses 6-10[edit]

Hi Visorstuff, I ended up moving your comment that ended with a question mark into the questions section. Did you mean this to be more of a question? Or do you prefer this in the exegesis section? If you mean it to be exegesis I may have misunderstood you. --Matthew Faulconer 07:09, 28 Mar 2005 (CEST)

Either way is fine with me. Looks good. -Visorstuff 00:09, 30 Mar 2005 (CEST)

Verses 11-15[edit]

Visorstuff, Can you explain what you mean by the following?

Does Pilate consider this both an acknowledgement and a denial of the accusations?

--Matthew Faulconer 07:25, 28 Mar 2005 (CEST)

In today's society if one does not speak or offers a "no comment" about something, it is often viewed as an admission of guilt, yet at the same time, in a court room, not testifying on your own behalf ("pleading the fifth") is seen as a denial of the accusation, but doen't want to appear flustered or guilty during quesitoning or that people don't respond to riduculous charges against them - (for example, the Church has never officialy come out and said that Mormons don't have horns - because it is riduculous, yet they have clarified the position on abortions, mountain meadows massacre and other topics).

I think Pilate saw Christ's non-response as both a denial of the accusations that the chief priests stated (why speak if they think i'm guilty, I'll just be silent as they are not worth answering these ridiculous charges - "fifth ammendment" scenario) and as a acknowledgement (I won't comment as they are right, I am king of the Jews. I won't comment becuase it's riducualout to believe that i'm citing insurrections against casear - the "no comment"/"ridiculous" scenario). Hope that makes sense. -Visorstuff 00:29, 30 Mar 2005 (CEST)

Verses 16-20[edit]

Visorstuff, not sure if I got this one quite right either. Happy re-editing.

It seems ironic also that his wife tells Pilate she "suffered many things" because of Christ when Christ atoned for our sins to alleviate suffering.

--Matthew Faulconer 07:36, 28 Mar 2005 (CEST)

I think this is very interesting quote. How can anyone suffer because of Christ? Even Peter and Paul were happy to "suffer" in the name of Christ (although this is more persecution, not the emotional suffering as Pilate's wife had). Why? His atonement alieviates suffering. We suffer a minimal amount of what we really could because of the atonement. -Visorstuff 00:35, 30 Mar 2005 (CEST)