Questions about Matthew

[jr001]

Hi

I hope I've posted this in the right section, but I have been reading Matthew and there are several parts I don't quite understand and was hoping some Christians could help explain to me. There are quite a few questions though and some of them are probably pretty simple, but any guidance will be really appreciated.

In Matthew 15:21-28, a Canaanite woman asks Jesus for help for her daughter but at first Jesus refuses to help, why wouldn't he help the girl?

Matthew 16:19 I'm not too sure I completely understand what Jesus is saying: '...whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' (Also why doe he say 'loosed' and not lost? (I know it is a translation but there must be some reaon for this?))

Matthew 16:28 I don't understand: 'Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 17:5-6 I wondered why the disciples would be terrified when the Lord spoke to them?

Jesus also cures someone with epilepsy by getting rid of the demon, but surelly this doen't mean that everyone who has epilepsy has a demon in them, or am I just taking it too literally?

Matthew 18:5-6 Another part I don't understand: 'Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'

Matthew 18:21-22 I understand Jesus' explanation of how we should forgive those ho do wrong to us, but I don't understand the significance of the 'seven' and 'seventy-seven times'.

Matthe 19:10-12 When His disciples ask if it i better not to marry Jesus doesn't really answer the question (well at least He doesn't give a yes or no answer). So I don't really know how Jesus feels about marriage, I know it is preferable for a man and woman to marry to be a one and to have children, but then Jesus speaks about eunuchs and says 'Let the one who is able to receive this receive it' so does He think that those who are celibate are "better" (for want of a better word) than thoe who chose to get married.

And also (I know this might be better on a different thread so will create a ne one if necessary) but what if one was to divorce their spouse and then chose to spend the rest of their life celibate would this be acceptable? Because Jesus says we can't really get divorced as we will always be seen as married in the eyes of God, so if we remarry we commit adultery, but if we remain celibate but are not married on paper, then is this allowed?

And finally in Matthew 20:16 He says 'So the last will be first, and the first last.' But I don't really understand what this means?

I know there a lot of questions here! Any guidence on any of my questions will be so appreciated though as I have so many questions (this is just a snap shot lol), and am not sure where else to turn to for answers.

Claire

 

[paul1149]

In Matthew 15:21-28, a Canaanite woman asks Jesus for help for her daughter but at first Jesus refuses to help, why wouldn't he help the girl?

He was trying to draw her in. He wanted to help her from the get-go, but not from a distance, but through intimate relationship. See this blog post for a reflection.

Matthew 16:19 '...whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' (Also why doe he say 'loosed' and not lost? (I know it is a translation but there must be some reaon for this?))

It's a matter of authority. Jesus is saying that we function as His regent on earth. When we proclaim His will, heaven is backing us up. Bind and loose are set up as opposites. Loose is to unshackle. Essentially we bind evil and loose its captives.

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

This is generally accepted as referring to the Transfiguration which soon follows.

Matthew 17:5-6 I wondered why the disciples would be terrified when the Lord spoke to them?

Mere flesh in the physical presence of God? I dare say we all would be terrified. Many times this is the case, even in the NT. But each time the Lord or the angel says 'fear not'.

Jesus also cures someone with epilepsy by getting rid of the demon, but surelly this doen't mean that everyone who has epilepsy has a demon in them, or am I just taking it too literally?

No, it doesn't mean that all sickness is actively caused by demons. Sin is loose on the earth and at work in our fallen nature.

Matthew 18:5-6 'Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'

The key here is "in my name". Jesus is saying the least thing we do, when we do it for Him, will be rewarded. That is because He highly values the least of us. That is the same reason for the warning He goes on to give.

Matthew 18:21-22 the significance of the 'seven' and 'seventy-seven times'.

He playing Peter's query back to him, extrapolated for emphasis. Essentially "love keeps no count of offenses". We should not let keeping score get in the way of forgiveness.

Matthew 19:10-12 When His disciples ask if it i better not to marry Jesus doesn't really answer the question (well at least He doesn't give a yes or no answer). So I don't really know how Jesus feels about marriage, I know it is preferable for a man and woman to marry to be a one and to have children, but then Jesus speaks about eunuchs and says 'Let the one who is able to receive this receive it' so does He think that those who are celibate are "better" (for want of a better word) than thoe who chose to get married.

Very often Jesus "doesn't answer the question" on man's terms. Here he affirms marriage, but offers an alternative way. If you're called to singleness, this is the best way for you. But not everyone is, so God is fully in marriage also.

And also (I know this might be better on a different thread so will create a ne one if necessary) but what if one was to divorce their spouse and then chose to spend the rest of their life celibate would this be acceptable? Because Jesus says we can't really get divorced as we will always be seen as married in the eyes of God, so if we remarry we commit adultery, but if we remain celibate but are not married on paper, then is this allowed?

I would suggest a separate thread, because there are many aspects involved. I would say, though, that remaining celibate does not justify getting a divorce.

And finally in Matthew 20:16 He says 'So the last will be first, and the first last.' But I don't really understand what this means?

It's a very provocative parable, but essentially it refers back to Peter's query in 19.27, where he compares his sacrifice to that of others. Jesus is saying that salvation is a free gift, totally unearned by even the best of our works. It is to be received with humility and gratefulness, as it always is undeserved.

HTH. Blessings,
p.

 

[jr001]

He was trying to draw her in. He wanted to help her from the get-go, but not from a distance, but through intimate relationship.

It's a matter of authority. Jesus is saying that we function as His regent on earth. When we proclaim His will, heaven is backing us up. Bind and loose are set up as opposites. Loose is to unshackle. Essentially we bind evil and loose its captives.

This is generally accepted as referring to the Transfiguration which soon follows.

Mere flesh in the physical presence of God? I dare say we all would be terrified. Many times this is the case, even in the NT. But each time the Lord or the angel says 'fear not'.

No, it doesn't mean that all sickness is actively caused by demons. Sin is loose on the earth and at work in our fallen nature.

The key here is "in my name". Jesus is saying the least thing we do, when we do it for Him, will be rewarded. That is because He highly values the least of us. That is the same reason for the warning He goes on to give.
He playing Peter's query back to him, extrapolated for emphasis. Essentially "love keeps no count of offenses". We should not let keeping score get in the way of forgiveness.

Very often Jesus "doesn't answer the question" on man's terms. Here he affirms marriage, but offers an alternative way. If you're called to singleness, this is the best way for you. But not everyone is, so God is fully in marriage also.

I would suggest a separate thread, because there are many aspects involved. I would say, though, that remaining celibate does not justify getting a divorce.

It's a very provocative parable, but essentially it refers back to Peter's query in 19.27, where he compares his sacrifice to that of others. Jesus is saying that salvation is a free gift, totally unearned by even the best of our works. It is to be received with humility and gratefulness, as it always is undeserved.

HTH. Blessings,
p.

Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I can see that Jesus would want a more intimate relationship with His believers, this shows His personality exactly!
Yes I can see now the differences beteen bind and loose and therefore the choice of words, thank you.
What is the transfiguration though?
I asked my husband if he would be scared if God spoke to him and he said the same as you that anyone would. I didnt think I would be scared but actually if God parted the clouds to speak to me I think I would wet myself. lol.
Okay I see what you mean that e shouldn't keep count of our losses in order to forgive, other wise we haven't truely forgiven the person. But what is the significance of the number 7 and 77 or are these just random numbers?
Yes I understand the celibacy and marriage differences now too.
I might make a different thread about divorce, though you have pretty much summed it up that celibacy isn't a compromise in order to get divorced. I have been realy fortunate to have a member go into detail with me about the bibe and divorce and I see now why God doesn't want us to be divorced.
And yes I understand the final quote now too!
Your answers have been a great help, thank you for taking the time to reply

 

[paul1149]

You're welcome, JR. Seven is a biblical number of completion, which is probably why Peter chose it. So its multiplicative emphasis here perhaps dramatizes the need for our forgiveness to be absolutely complete.

The transfiguration is the scene where Jesus is on the mountain and begins to radiate glory and is in intimate communion with the Father. The three apostles got a foretaste of how Jesus will appear in the coming kingdom, thus fulfilling Jesus' words just prior.

 

[paul becke]

JR, I'm sure I couldn't have answered most of those questions as helpfully or as succinctly as Paul did, but I do have a different take on your first question - about the Caananite woman.

On the face of it, Jesus seemed to respond to the woman's appeals and the disciples urgings in quite an offensive manner, comparing the woman with a house-dog. But I believe he was testing her faith - not necessarily because he doubted it; I doubt that - but in order to demonstrate the importance of faith to the onlookers. That woman was not going to let the most offensive ploy on Jesus' part put her off persuading Jesus to cure her daughter. Basically, she wasn't 'taken in'. She 'saw through him'.

Like many such passages, incidents such as this one, which bring out Jesus' humanity, his 'littleness' in being one of us, rather than his miracle-working divinity, tickle me no end.

An even funnier incident occurred, when another woman seeking a cure, though for an issue of blood she, herself, suffered, touched the hem of Jesus' garment, rightly convinced that, by doing so, she would be cured.

And because in becoming truly man, it meant that Jesus had somehow preternaturally accepted to be born with a human intelligence, necessarily limited in some ways, and built up by experience, just as our intelligence is. So, we are told that he asked who had touched him, as he had felt virtue/strength being drawn from his body? Seeing the crowd, as we are told the disciples did, thronging around them on all sides, I think it was Peter who asked how he could ask such a question, hemmed in like that on all sides.

You know.. had it been anyone but Jesus, it's easy to imagine one or two of his disciples furtively looking at each other and rolling their eyes, when they heard him ask that question; just like when he was astonished that Thomas and Philip hadn't realised that he and the Father are one, when it took the Fathers of the church more than a century and a half to work out the basic nature of the Holy Trinity - nor had Peter and Philip yet received the Holy Spirit, if I recall correctly!

However, I also get the distinct impression - and this certainly seems to be the case with this Caananite woman - that the people could read Jesus's heart like a book, no matter how roughly-spoken he was, and that he was quite habitually. They were all too familiar with what the psalmists complained about, and which they were familar with from the many of the respectable, religious leaders of their day: honeyed words disguising wicked behaviour.

There always has to be a certain amount of 'give and and take', when we address any matter with others and they wish to respond. Not so with Jesus. I don't believe you will find anywhere in world literature anyone as roughly-spoken or plainly-spoken, generally, as Jesus, the reason being that he was in full possession of the truth, and it was necessary for him to make it clear at all times that he was not interested in debating with people. It was always 'take it or leave it'. He had a limited amount of time, and the opinions of others, unless solicited by him, would have simply been an endless distraction, as well as detrimental to the unique, indeed, divine authority of his own teachings. They were never mere opinions.

It seems likely, too, that those same, hypocritical religious leaders could read Jesus' heart, just as well as the 'ordinary' people, but what they read they didn't like at all.

 

[Radagast]

Okay I see what you mean that e shouldn't keep count of our losses in order to forgive, other wise we haven't truely forgiven the person. But what is the significance of the number 7 and 77 or are these just random numbers?

Really 77 means "every time." The actual number comes from Genesis 4:24, where the opposite attitude is described.

 

[Radagast]

Also why doe he say 'loosed' and not lost? (I know it is a translation but there must be some reaon for this?)

"Loosed" means "untied" or "unbound."

Jesus speaks about eunuchs and says 'Let the one who is able to receive this receive it' so does He think that those who are celibate are "better" (for want of a better word) than thoe who chose to get married.

He doesn't say celibacy is better, or is for everyone, but he does say the celibate deserve respect.

but what if one was to divorce their spouse and then chose to spend the rest of their life celibate would this be acceptable?

Sometimes living separately is necessary. However, the New Testament does give grounds for divorce in some circumstances (Matt 19:9, 1 Corinthians 7).

 

[asiyreh]

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

Here's Paul writing to the Thessalonians about the problem you have above...

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-4

 

[timf]

I'm not too sure I completely understand what Jesus is saying: '...whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'

1. Binding and loosing. This is an often misunderstood part of scripture. Some take it to mean that the apostles had the authority to make laws and forgive sins. This is also used by some denominations to substantiate apostolic succession. There are some denominations that use this to elevate pastoral authority to declare what people should do.

There are two things that need to be considered when looking at this verse. The first is that the term "binding and loosing" was an already established phrase in Jewish circles having its origins back when Moses appointed judges to help him. It had come to mean the interpretation of the 613 Mosaic laws in their application.

The second element is that the verses in English do not carry with them the verb tenses in the Greek. Wuest does a pretty god job bringing over the verb tense information to the English however, it is often at the expense of making the English a little more difficult to follow.

Matthew 18:18 Assuredly, I am saying to you, Whatever you forbid on earth, shall have already been forbidden in heaven. And whatever you permit on earth, shall have already been permitted in heaven. - Wuest

What Jesus is saying is not a revelation of the power they will wield, but a declaration of their responsibility to not exceed their authority and a caution to make sure that their declarations are consistent with what is in heaven.

 

[Radagast]

There are two things that need to be considered when looking at this verse. The first is that the term "binding and loosing" was an already established phrase in Jewish circles having its origins back when Moses appointed judges to help him. It had come to mean the interpretation of the 613 Mosaic laws in their application.

That's not what it means.

The second element is that the verses in English do not carry with them the verb tenses in the Greek. Wuest does a pretty god job bringing over the verb tense information to the English however, it is often at the expense of making the English a little more difficult to follow.

Matthew 18:18 Assuredly, I am saying to you, Whatever you forbid on earth, shall have already been forbidden in heaven. And whatever you permit on earth, shall have already been permitted in heaven. - Wuest

What Jesus is saying is not a revelation of the power they will wield, but a declaration of their responsibility to not exceed their authority and a caution to make sure that their declarations are consistent with what is in heaven.

No, Jesus is not saying that. The ESV, for example, gives "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" and "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven" as possible translations, but they mean the same. Since I read Greek, I can confirm that your interpretation does not match what the Greek says.

 

[timf]

Since I read Greek

Perhaps you still have something to learn.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Helvetica]
Furthermore, the Expositor’s Bible is more technical. Pointing out these verses contain what are called “future periphrastic perfects”.

“In 1938 J.R.Mantey…argued that the perfects in all three instances must have their normal force. The finite perfect in John 20:23 must be rendered “If you forgive anyone his sins, they have already have been forgiven”; and when the perfect participle is given it’s full force in the Mathean passages, the periphrastic future perfect in 16:19 becomes “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven’(similarly for 18:18)”

Regarding Jewish tradition;

Binding and loosing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/FONT]

 

[jr001]

You're welcome, JR. Seven is a biblical number of completion, which is probably why Peter chose it. So its multiplicative emphasis here perhaps dramatizes the need for our forgiveness to be absolutely complete.

The transfiguration is the scene where Jesus is on the mountain and begins to radiate glory and is in intimate communion with the Father. The three apostles got a foretaste of how Jesus will appear in the coming kingdom, thus fulfilling Jesus' words just prior.

Okay yes I understand now. Thanks for your help

 

[jr001]

JR, I'm sure I couldn't have answered most of those questions as helpfully or as succinctly as Paul did, but I do have a different take on your first question - about the Caananite woman.

On the face of it, Jesus seemed to respond to the woman's appeals and the disciples urgings in quite an offensive manner, comparing the woman with a house-dog. But I believe he was testing her faith - not necessarily because he doubted it; I doubt that - but in order to demonstrate the importance of faith to the onlookers. That woman was not going to let the most offensive ploy on Jesus' part put her off persuading Jesus to cure her daughter. Basically, she wasn't 'taken in'. She 'saw through him'.

Like many such passages, incidents such as this one, which bring out Jesus' humanity, his 'littleness' in being one of us, rather than his miracle-working divinity, tickle me no end.

An even funnier incident occurred, when another woman seeking a cure, though for an issue of blood she, herself, suffered, touched the hem of Jesus' garment, rightly convinced that, by doing so, she would be cured.

And because in becoming truly man, it meant that Jesus had somehow preternaturally accepted to be born with a human intelligence, necessarily limited in some ways, and built up by experience, just as our intelligence is. So, we are told that he asked who had touched him, as he had felt virtue/strength being drawn from his body? Seeing the crowd, as we are told the disciples did, thronging around them on all sides, I think it was Peter who asked how he could ask such a question, hemmed in like that on all sides.

You know.. had it been anyone but Jesus, it's easy to imagine one or two of his disciples furtively looking at each other and rolling their eyes, when they heard him ask that question; just like when he was astonished that Thomas and Philip hadn't realised that he and the Father are one, when it took the Fathers of the church more than a century and a half to work out the basic nature of the Holy Trinity - nor had Peter and Philip yet received the Holy Spirit, if I recall correctly!

However, I also get the distinct impression - and this certainly seems to be the case with this Caananite woman - that the people could read Jesus's heart like a book, no matter how roughly-spoken he was, and that he was quite habitually. They were all too familiar with what the psalmists complained about, and which they were familar with from the many of the respectable, religious leaders of their day: honeyed words disguising wicked behaviour.

There always has to be a certain amount of 'give and and take', when we address any matter with others and they wish to respond. Not so with Jesus. I don't believe you will find anywhere in world literature anyone as roughly-spoken or plainly-spoken, generally, as Jesus, the reason being that he was in full possession of the truth, and it was necessary for him to make it clear at all times that he was not interested in debating with people. It was always 'take it or leave it'. He had a limited amount of time, and the opinions of others, unless solicited by him, would have simply been an endless distraction, as well as detrimental to the unique, indeed, divine authority of his own teachings. They were never mere opinions.

It seems likely, too, that those same, hypocritical religious leaders could read Jesus' heart, just as well as the 'ordinary' people, but what they read they didn't like at all.

Thank you for your brilliant interpretation. Yes you really get a sense of Jesus' personality in Matthew (I'm sure you do with the rest of the Gospels too but I haven't got that far yet lol), you end up falling in love with Jesus when you read what He was like as a person, (as well as His teachings, and the small fact of being God lol), but this is why I couldn't stop crying when I read about his torture and murder, it was like reading about the torture and murder of your best friend

 

[jr001]

Thank you everyone else for your input

 

[paul becke]

Thank you for your brilliant interpretation. Yes you really get a sense of Jesus' personality in Matthew (I'm sure you do with the rest of the Gospels too but I haven't got that far yet lol), you end up falling in love with Jesus when you read what He was like as a person, (as well as His teachings, and the small fact of being God lol), but this is why I couldn't stop crying when I read about his torture and murder, it was like reading about the torture and murder of your best friend

Yes, the innocent suffering of others can be a heavy cross to us when we are reminded of it, and feel it with our heart, as opposed to just being aware of it intellectually. I can't - don't want to - imagine what it must be like to be a parent who has to watch their young child suffer grievously.

As regards the misunderstandings arising from the disparity between the level of Jesus' spiritual understanding and that of his apostles, and his resultant exasperation at it, the levity it prompts in me at times makes me feel I'm maybe being a bit irreverent, but I always do have difficulty in stifling loud laughter. I could never read aloud before other people from either the Old Testament or the New Testament, because of the rich vein of utter humanity in all its quirkiness, in them.

You know when you listen to your favourite comedian, you so want to laugh at his/her jokes, you sometimes laugh in anticipation - before hearing the full punch-line. Well, it's not an exact parallel, but something like it, when I recognise from the context that, any second now, Jesus is going to 'shoot down in flames' the hapless scribe, Pharisee, or whoever, who's trying to catch him out.

 

[asiyreh]

Ok so allot to think about Jr. You have a love for the knowledge of God in his Word. This is good. To thirst for this is like a welcoming letter for the indwelling of the holy spirit.

I'd just like to expand on a few things for the sake of your thread and continue your knowledge in these areas you have problems with.

Firstly Timf statement above in correct, there a very funny use of past and present tenses occurring in that verse. It does indeed seem to suggest that we are to correctly seek out and interpreted what is actually revealed in scripture.
We bind what is already bound. In fact the chief role of a prophet is to do just that, not necessary predict the future. This is confirmed with the behavior of the apostles when introducing contentious doctrines. Even Christ confirms this when he replies to Satan temptations - It is written... Christ refers us always to the Word. Bind what is bound.

Anyways the other thing is the Canaanite Woman. Understand the Jewish mindset here. The Canaanite's were the lowest of the lowest. These were people who would sacrifice there own children to Moloch on a pit of fire. But through faith this Canaanite woman was able to obtain salvation.

All throughout the bible we have these little interesting Macro codesMacro codes, little indicators pointing forward to Christ. Here Christ is pointing forward to his salvation message. Satan would be cast down and salvation would be offered to all who believe and receive Christ's offer of faith. Even the lowest of the low. All can receive a new heart in Christ, and this is The Good News aka the Gospel.

 

[Sketcher]

In Matthew 15:21-28, a Canaanite woman asks Jesus for help for her daughter but at first Jesus refuses to help, why wouldn't he help the girl?

The delayed response of Jesus was most likely to reveal the woman's great faith. He knew it, she knew it, but the Twelve would not have known it except for this episode, therefore we would not have known it.

Matthew 16:19 I'm not too sure I completely understand what Jesus is saying: '...whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' (Also why doe he say 'loosed' and not lost? (I know it is a translation but there must be some reaon for this?))

"Binding and loosing" is declaring what God already declared in Heaven. It found fulfillment in the Apostles' ministry, through the Holy Spirit. God declared it in Heaven, and spoke and acted through them.

Matthew 16:28 I don't understand: 'Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Some take that literally to be the transfiguration which happened in the next chapter, others take it to mean the kingdom coming through the Apostles' ministry.

Matthew 17:5-6 I wondered why the disciples would be terrified when the Lord spoke to them?

Probably the same reason that everybody in the Old Testament was afraid when God spoke to them. His glory is overwhelming, to the point of being terrifying. I'm glad he's for us rather than against us!

Jesus also cures someone with epilepsy by getting rid of the demon, but surelly this doen't mean that everyone who has epilepsy has a demon in them, or am I just taking it too literally?

A statement about demons does not make it a statement about epilepsy. Demons can cause the same symptoms, this doesn't mean the natural disease doesn't exist apart from them. Neither does the existence of the natural disease make demonic activity such as this impossible.

Matthew 18:5-6 Another part I don't understand: 'Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'

Jesus greatly cares about the people who come to him, including children. Children were not valued in that society as much as he valued them, so he added emphasis on the children.

Matthew 18:21-22 I understand Jesus' explanation of how we should forgive those ho do wrong to us, but I don't understand the significance of the 'seven' and 'seventy-seven times'.

Peter was imposing a limit that would have made him look good in that society. Jesus blew that limit away with the object less that there should not be a limit - after all, he has no limit.

Matthew 19:10-12 When His disciples ask if it i better not to marry Jesus doesn't really answer the question (well at least He doesn't give a yes or no answer). So I don't really know how Jesus feels about marriage, I know it is preferable for a man and woman to marry to be a one and to have children, but then Jesus speaks about eunuchs and says 'Let the one who is able to receive this receive it' so does He think that those who are celibate are "better" (for want of a better word) than thoe who chose to get married.

His disciples came from a culture where the man could divorce the woman at a whim - according to one school of thought, even for burning his food - but she couldn't freely divorce him. When Jesus gave his answer from the creation account (older revelation was considered greater back then, so when his opponents brought up Moses, Jesus upped the ante with creation) then of course this would have made his disciples uncomfortable. They in their minds at the time, lost freedom that they thought they had. The bit about eunuchs is empowering to single people, who were looked upon as not as good as the married people, but he also emphasized that it wasn't for everybody.

And also (I know this might be better on a different thread so will create a ne one if necessary) but what if one was to divorce their spouse and then chose to spend the rest of their life celibate would this be acceptable? Because Jesus says we can't really get divorced as we will always be seen as married in the eyes of God, so if we remarry we commit adultery, but if we remain celibate but are not married on paper, then is this allowed?

You can live single and celibate, but forgiveness is necessary and reconciliation is best.

And finally in Matthew 20:16 He says 'So the last will be first, and the first last.' But I don't really understand what this means?

In those times, people believed there was a direct relationship between blessing in this life and being favored by God. Jesus clearly taught that this is not always the case, not even most of the time. People expected those who were first in this life to be first in the life to come. Jesus with this teaching and others said that station in this life does not matter - and not only that, those who are faithful to him in this life and yet who are "last" will enjoy better treatment in the next life than they experienced here. Note that this doesn't mean that all rich and popular people are doomed to be last in the life to come, nor that those who are downtrodden get a free pass simply for being downtrodden. Faithfulness is both necessary and rewarded, no matter where you are in life. A lot of people needed to hear that.

 

[asiyreh]

Matthew 16:28 I don't understand: 'Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Some take that literally to be the transfiguration which happened in the next chapter, others take it to mean the kingdom coming through the Apostles' ministry.

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. John 12:32

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Mat 28:18

The son of man coming into his kingdom. Indeed many saw the beginning of that glorious age.

 

[Radagast]

Perhaps you still have something to learn.

Yes indeed, but perhaps not from you.

Both sides of your argument are conclusively demolished by reliable commentaries like Nolland's The Gospel of Matthew. You can't read too much into the use of the perfect participle, and Wikipedia is completely wrong in this case (surprise!).