1. Matthew 9:16-17. In the two parables here, what do the new patch and the new wine represent, and what is the lesson to be learned?

The new patch and the new wine represent the new covenant, the new life in the Spirit, the new way of living and thinking dominated by His teachings. These things are not able to be superimposed on an old life-style, or an old way of thinking and doing. The whole garment, the whole container, must be made new to hold such a strong portion of life.

In other words, this is yet another way of saying, You must be born from above. You cannot possibly do the things He is asking you to do unless you have a whole new set of spiritual organs. If any man is in Christ, He is a new creation.

2. Luke 8:47. Why was the hemorrhaging woman so terrified?

She was a good Jewess. She knew that an “unclean” person was never to touch anyone, especially a Rabbi! Faith had told her to do it. But conscience was still under Moses. Such a conflict of interests! But faith won, and touched, not only the hem of His garment, but the Heart of His ministry.

3. Mark 2:26. Who was high priest at the time David ate the show bread?

I Samuel 22:11 states that it was Ahimelech. Mark alone makes this comment about Abiathar. Certainly this young Jewish man, schooled in Israel’s history, would know that the presiding priest of the day was not Ahimelech’s son, but Ahimelech himself.

Solution possibilities:

1. Son worked with father and was considered an authority in his own right. Consider Annas and Caiphas in the New Testament. Caiphas the son actually took charge of the proceedings at Jesus’ trial. Annas was perhaps retired or just too old.
2. Abiathar would be David’s main priest soon enough, and Mark is simply anticipating Abiathar’s rise to that position.

4. Luke 6:11. Who were the Herodians? Would they have been friends of the Pharisees?

The Herodians were a political party, it seems, of loyalists to the Edomite King who was ruling over the Jewish people. The Jews themselves would give such a group any religious authority in the land, and here is where they differed from the Pharisees, who wanted a separate government under themselves.

Probably irreligious at heart, there was possibly a constant clash between these two groups. Yet they were in agreement about Jesus. He was a threat to the status quo, and would somehow have to be removed.

5. Matthew 5, Luke 6. Why are the two “Sermon on the Mount” Passages different?

Though both Matthew and Luke probably heard the same message, they recorded different parts of it. Probably neither of them recounted the entire sermon.

Some have noticed that while one message was indeed on a “mount” – more like a hillside – the other was on a level place. Those who study these things more deeply have discovered a place in Galilee where indeed there is a hill that part way down becomes level before it continues.

6. Luke 6:20, 24. Does Jesus make a difference between rich and poor or is he only talking of poverty of spirit?

It will be surprising to some to discover that in Luke Jesus talks simply of rich and poor, the words we use to describe plenty and lack of. And not “spiritually” so. Observation over the centuries verifies what Jesus is saying, and what He said again when talking about the “eye of a needle.” Namely, very few rich people are interested in our Gospel. They see no need for such things until the bottom falls out in their world. This is why the so-called “prosperity Gospel” (an oxymoron) is so dangerous. Jesus here blesses the poor, and today’s preachers bless the rich. Seems incongruous to me.

7. Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18. Which message about divorce is the one we should follow?

Matthew’s ruling is given in the midst of a detailed study of Old vs New covenant. Luke’s comment, recording a different time, place, and reason for speaking, is added on as an example of what He was talking to some other Jews about, namely that the Law will never pass away.

If unfaithfulness of a spouse is once given as a reason for separating from her, I cannot see where such a law could be abrogated here. Matthew is very specific. Luke speaks generally to a society that had abused divorce to the max. So, you leave her, you commit adultery. That’s how it was from the beginning.

But Jesus understands that there are situations beyond our control. What if the woman has already broken the covenant?

8. Matthew 5:42. We should give to anyone at any time?

I follow Ellicott’s helpful comments here.

First, God Himself does not give to everyone just anything he asks. He meets every need and abundantly, but knows how and when to withhold blessings also, and give what the person needs, not what he asks for.

Ellicott also mentions Paul’s injunction that if a man does not work, he should not even eat! Is this against Christ? No. The man asking God or you for food who will not lift a finger to earn it is being cursed and not blessed by your gift. Find a way to help that man, but do not make him a beggar!