Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
12/11/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 22:1-22" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1099-1125). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew 22:1-14 is often called the parable of the wedding feast. Here Jesus describes a wealthy man who is rebuffed by guests invited to a wedding feast. After making extensive comments regarding the vocabulary and grammar of the passage, Gibbs observes the structure of the parable is uncomplicated (Gibbs 2018, p. 1104). However, the parable, as signalled by the verb tense in 22:2, specifically aims at the present situation of the reign of heaven, rather than its later fulfillment. It is significant that Jesus speaks the parable, along with 21:28-46, to the chief priests and other religious leaders.
Gibbs notes the multiple rejections described in the parable. In verses 2-7, guests refuse to come, while in 8-14, a guest fails to comply with a matter of decorum (Gibbs 2018, p. 1105). The refusal to attend the banquet, offensive enough in itself, is accompanied by abuse and murder of messengers. The host retaliates by sending an army against those invited. This immediately separates the events from any semblance of normalcy.
The parable can be readily seen as describing Jesus as the groom and all those invited to believe him as the bride. The guests, then, may have been invited to be part of his collected followers, but in their rejection of his call, they show their enmity to the celebratory nature of Christ's kingdom (Gibbs 2018, p. 1106). The rejection of the invitation has no good excuse. Gibbs sees the mention of destruction of the city of those who reject the invitation to be a clear prediction of the sack of Jerusalem in the year 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1107). Gibbs specifically rejects the view that this parable refers to the Jews being replaced by Gentiles. Throughout Matthew, Jews remain God's chosen people. The problem here is with their leadership (Gibbs 2018, p. 1108).
The wedding feast remains ready. In Matthew 22:8-9 the king still intends that his hall should be filled with guests. Those who were not worthy of the invitation had been shown as such by their refusal. Any who would honor the invitation, then, are worthy (Gibbs 2018, p. 1109). As the feast unfolds, a man who was not dressed appropriately is forcibly removed, to be cast away. Gibbs sees this as indicative of God's requirement that his son should be honored by all. Good and evil people alike are called. Yet those who persist in refusal to honor the Son will be removed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1110). In light of this parabolic event, Gibbs asks how we should understand the symbolism of the wedding garment.
Gibbs summarizes common views of the wedding garment from Matthew 22:11-12. He finds no evidence for a claim that people in the culture would possess something readily recognized as a garment for a wedding (Gibbs 2018, p. 1110). Rather, we may well assume a reference to festive clothing rather than everyday work clothes. A second common assertion is that the host would supply particular clothing which this person had rejected. Again, there is no particular support for this idea (Gibbs 2018, p. 1111). Many commentators suggest that the wedding garment serves as a symbol of being clothed with good works, baptism, faith, or the Holy Spirit (Gibbs 2018, p. 1112). This, however, may well be an example of reading presuppositions from later concepts into Matthew's narrative. Gibbs suggests a more useful way to pursue the question may be to consider the meaning of the lack of the garment. Based on the earlier portions of the parable, the unworthiness is related to opposition to the Son and a rejection of him (Gibbs 2018, p. 1113). Therefore, Gibbs concludes that although this man had accepted the invitation on some level, he was evidently rejecting the Son in some way. Therefore, he was cast out of the celebration (Gibbs 2018, p. 1114). All were invited. Yet not all responded in lasting faith. The conclusion of the parables of 21:28-22:14 is that Jesus is the one in whom we must trust for any hope.
From Matthew 22:15 on, a series of traps are set by the chief priests to ensnare Jesus in his words. Verses 15-22 describe a question of whether it is legitimate to pay taxes. Gibbs urges his readers to resist the urge to take Jesus as actually answering his opponents' questions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1118). As the question is not deserving of an answer, Jesus' actual answer is that God deserves all our honor. The Pharisees are acting in a treacherous way. Jesus responds to the treachery rather than to the question (Gibbs 2018, p. 1120).
Gibbs observes that the nature of the verbal trap in Matthew 22:15-22 is not clear (Gibbs 2018, p. 1121). It is possible that the question intended to ask Jesus to reject Roman taxation, thus being a revolutionary, or that alternatively, Jesus would accept Roman taxation, thus being a traitor to his nation and the temple. While this is entirely possible it still remains in the realm of speculation.
Jesus' reply to his questioners in Matthew 22:18-22 acknowledges their intent to entrap him (Gibbs 2018, p. 1123). The coin presented was widely used and well known. All would know whose image was on the coin. Jesus' response leaves the Pharisees to deal with the theological question of whether anything does not belong to God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1125).
Though we normally try to have a complete chapter in a Wednesday post, we'll cut this one off here to continue next week.
12/11/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 22:1-22" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1099-1125). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew 22:1-14 is often called the parable of the wedding feast. Here Jesus describes a wealthy man who is rebuffed by guests invited to a wedding feast. After making extensive comments regarding the vocabulary and grammar of the passage, Gibbs observes the structure of the parable is uncomplicated (Gibbs 2018, p. 1104). However, the parable, as signalled by the verb tense in 22:2, specifically aims at the present situation of the reign of heaven, rather than its later fulfillment. It is significant that Jesus speaks the parable, along with 21:28-46, to the chief priests and other religious leaders.
Gibbs notes the multiple rejections described in the parable. In verses 2-7, guests refuse to come, while in 8-14, a guest fails to comply with a matter of decorum (Gibbs 2018, p. 1105). The refusal to attend the banquet, offensive enough in itself, is accompanied by abuse and murder of messengers. The host retaliates by sending an army against those invited. This immediately separates the events from any semblance of normalcy.
The parable can be readily seen as describing Jesus as the groom and all those invited to believe him as the bride. The guests, then, may have been invited to be part of his collected followers, but in their rejection of his call, they show their enmity to the celebratory nature of Christ's kingdom (Gibbs 2018, p. 1106). The rejection of the invitation has no good excuse. Gibbs sees the mention of destruction of the city of those who reject the invitation to be a clear prediction of the sack of Jerusalem in the year 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1107). Gibbs specifically rejects the view that this parable refers to the Jews being replaced by Gentiles. Throughout Matthew, Jews remain God's chosen people. The problem here is with their leadership (Gibbs 2018, p. 1108).
The wedding feast remains ready. In Matthew 22:8-9 the king still intends that his hall should be filled with guests. Those who were not worthy of the invitation had been shown as such by their refusal. Any who would honor the invitation, then, are worthy (Gibbs 2018, p. 1109). As the feast unfolds, a man who was not dressed appropriately is forcibly removed, to be cast away. Gibbs sees this as indicative of God's requirement that his son should be honored by all. Good and evil people alike are called. Yet those who persist in refusal to honor the Son will be removed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1110). In light of this parabolic event, Gibbs asks how we should understand the symbolism of the wedding garment.
Gibbs summarizes common views of the wedding garment from Matthew 22:11-12. He finds no evidence for a claim that people in the culture would possess something readily recognized as a garment for a wedding (Gibbs 2018, p. 1110). Rather, we may well assume a reference to festive clothing rather than everyday work clothes. A second common assertion is that the host would supply particular clothing which this person had rejected. Again, there is no particular support for this idea (Gibbs 2018, p. 1111). Many commentators suggest that the wedding garment serves as a symbol of being clothed with good works, baptism, faith, or the Holy Spirit (Gibbs 2018, p. 1112). This, however, may well be an example of reading presuppositions from later concepts into Matthew's narrative. Gibbs suggests a more useful way to pursue the question may be to consider the meaning of the lack of the garment. Based on the earlier portions of the parable, the unworthiness is related to opposition to the Son and a rejection of him (Gibbs 2018, p. 1113). Therefore, Gibbs concludes that although this man had accepted the invitation on some level, he was evidently rejecting the Son in some way. Therefore, he was cast out of the celebration (Gibbs 2018, p. 1114). All were invited. Yet not all responded in lasting faith. The conclusion of the parables of 21:28-22:14 is that Jesus is the one in whom we must trust for any hope.
From Matthew 22:15 on, a series of traps are set by the chief priests to ensnare Jesus in his words. Verses 15-22 describe a question of whether it is legitimate to pay taxes. Gibbs urges his readers to resist the urge to take Jesus as actually answering his opponents' questions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1118). As the question is not deserving of an answer, Jesus' actual answer is that God deserves all our honor. The Pharisees are acting in a treacherous way. Jesus responds to the treachery rather than to the question (Gibbs 2018, p. 1120).
Gibbs observes that the nature of the verbal trap in Matthew 22:15-22 is not clear (Gibbs 2018, p. 1121). It is possible that the question intended to ask Jesus to reject Roman taxation, thus being a revolutionary, or that alternatively, Jesus would accept Roman taxation, thus being a traitor to his nation and the temple. While this is entirely possible it still remains in the realm of speculation.
Jesus' reply to his questioners in Matthew 22:18-22 acknowledges their intent to entrap him (Gibbs 2018, p. 1123). The coin presented was widely used and well known. All would know whose image was on the coin. Jesus' response leaves the Pharisees to deal with the theological question of whether anything does not belong to God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1125).
Though we normally try to have a complete chapter in a Wednesday post, we'll cut this one off here to continue next week.
RSS Feed