The Matthew Gospel, which you refer to at point#1, was written by Jewish Christians. These were aligned with Jerusalem (James, Peter, John). They were very much in support of imposing the Jewish laws on to the Gentile Christians.
Paul, however, who was based at Antioch and had very little to do with Jerusalem, said that his Gentile converts had no need to obey the Jewish laws. Consider Galatians chapters 1 and 2 as well as 1 Corinthians, where they were told not to ask where the meat came from. The Jewish Christians did not know Paul by face, only by reputation.
The book of Acts, written by a person/group aligned with Peter (and hence Jerusalem) wished to make it appear that harmony existed between the two camps, papering over the chasm between Antioch and Jerusalem. The Book of Acts is religious reconstructed history and is not relied on by Bible scholars as being a reliable account.
FYI: 1 Peter and 2 Peter are accepted as having been written by an adherent of Paul's; the latter having been written about 150 CE, about 90 years after the deaths of Paul and Peter.
"A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text", and the context is not only grammatical but also that of contemporary culture, idioms, politics (religious and secular) and so on. The other matter is to understand how the bible came to be assembled, by whom, and when.
I suggest that at Matthew 22:29, the writers were putting words into Jesus' mouth against their Gentile brethren.
Doug