Category: Gibbs 2006 - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Divorce and Adultery

10/22/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
10/22/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 5:31-32: On Divorce." St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 290-296.

In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus speaks of divorce. Gibbs quotes a first century example of a write of divorce (Gibbs 2006, 290). The assumption in the document is that the woman will remarry. The term Jesus uses to describe the outcome, porneia, probably refers to a sexual relation with someone who is married to someone else. Of interest to Gibbs is the implication that the husband who issues the divorce provokes his former wife to endure adultery (Gibbs 2006, 291). He is the one guilty of the adultery.

The issue arises again at greater length in Matthew 19:3-12. In this briefer passage, Gibbs considers Jesus to be speaking specifically of the husband's responsibility. The concept is predicated on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, where Gibbs observes that it is permited for a man to divorce his wife but not to take her as his wife again (Gibbs 2006, 292-293).

At the time of Jesus' teaching there was a debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The followers of Shammai saw the reason for divorce as a woman's adultery, while Hillel took it to be "indecency," which could include any sort of indecorum. Gibbs concludes that the Hillel interpretation was the most accepted at the time of Jesus' statements (Gibbs 2006, 293).

Gibbs sees Jesus as affirming that marriage and divorce involve more than "a measure of protection and future security" (Gibbs 2006, 294). The divorce breaks the union created by God. For this reason, it could be seen as an act of adultery. Unlike adultery, Gibbs observes divorce causes more harm because reconciliation is no longer an option (Gibbs 2006, 295). Gibbs does not take the passage to mean that an innocent party to a divorce should be unable to marry. However, he does see the passage as a statement that divorce is seriously harmful by nature. For this reason, Jesus compares it to the grave sin of adultery.

One-Sided Adultery

10/15/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
10/15/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 5:27-30: On Adultery.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 286-289.

Looking at a woman with desire is a serious issue, one which can condemn a man, according to Matthew 5:27-30. Gibbs questions the interpretation of “so as to desire her.” The construction could indicate purpose, meaning that the guilt is only based on a prior intent. It could also indicate result, meaning that the man who looks at a woman and then finds himself desiring her is engaged in sin. Gibbs takes this to be the more reasoned understanding. We can be guilty even without premeditation (Gibbs 2006, 286).

The consequences of inner or outer adultery are severe - condemnation. For this reason, the treatment to stop such condemnation may be very severe. Gibbs summs it up by asking, “Which is better for you? To be resurrected and then cast with your body intact into hell’s eternal torment, or the resurrection to eternal life without an eye or a hand?” (Gibbs 2006, 288). Gibbs does acknowledge the serious different consequences of physical adultery, particularly in terms of broken earthly relationships which have severe side effects. Regardless, the life of purity is very important, in earthly and heavenly terms.

Murder and Reconciliation

10/8/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
10/8/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 5:21-26: On Murder.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 280-285.

Commenting on Matthew 5:21, Gibbs makes it clear that Jesus was not necessarily saying anything radically new. “The belief that anger deserves punishment just as much as actual murder does was found elsewhere in early Judaism” (Gibbs 2006, 280). Rather, Jesus is making observations about what his hearers might have heard and contrasting that with his correct interpretation. Others had also reached those conclusions.

The interpretation must also be tempered. For instance, Gibbs notes that while Jesus says not to call someone a fool, he himself uses the term of the Scribes and Pharisees (Gibbs 2006, 282). He seems rather to speak of a careless or angry and unthinking use of the idea.

Reconciliation is certainly a high priority. It does not replace an offering, but it can interrupt the process. It is important enough that failure to do so could rightly result in imprisonment (Gibbs 2006, 283).

The essence of the passage is clear. “The believer cannot pretend that the horizontal relationships that he carries on with his fellows are independent of his relationship with God. His vertical relationship with God must affect his horizontal relationships with his brothers” (Gibbs 2006, 284). Gibbs takes this to apply also to the approach to the communion altar.

The Sermon on the Mount as Overview

10/1/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
10/1/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “The Son of God Reveals God’s Original Intention in the Torah: Introduction to Matthew 5:21-48.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 276-279.

In Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus makes six statements in which he contrasts his word with something else. Gibbs finds that Jesus normally makes no disclaimers when citing the Old Testament. He also normally affirms God’s Law and Prophets, but occasionally disputes an interpretation. Gibbs takes that to be the sense in Matthew 5. Jesus is helping people understand the right implications of the Torah (Gibbs 2006, 277).

Gibbs does not see Matthew 5:21-48 as “case law” but rather as an overview of God’s Law. He does not think every possible situation is included here (Gibbs 2006, 277).

The first century context of Jesus’ words is very important. Gibbs observes that Jesus assumes the altar and sacrifice in Jerusalem were still in operation. The assumptions of a first century Jewish concept of marriage are in effect. Gibbs sees this understanding as essential to grasping the teachings correctly (Gibbs 2006, 279).

Jesus and Torah

9/24/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
9/24/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 5:17-20: Jesus’ Relationship to the Torah.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 263-275.

Gibbs notes that in Matthew 5:17-20 the overall logic of Jesus’ statements is made clear, in large part, through Matthew’s use of conjunctions. He draws an argument up with a series of statements which have significant logical connections (Gibbs 2006, 264). Gibbs considers Jesus’ statements in the passage to be predicated on an assumption that he has “unbounded authority about eternal things” (Gibbs 2006, 266). In this passage, Jesus teaches how his people are to consider their calling from God and how they are to live it out.

In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus does not abolish or repeat and expand on God’s Law and Prophets. His work is to fulfill the Old Testatment. Gibbs relates this statement to the earlier citations of the Old Testament, in which various events served to fulfill the Scriptures (Gibbs 2006, 267). Gibbs notes that “Mt. 5:18 is actually the only sentence in the NT that contains two subordinate clauses handled by the conjunction ‘until’” (Gibbs 2006, 268). Gibbs concludes that the clauses show both a continuity and a discontinuity with the Old Testament. The Word of God is sure, but when all things are fulfilled, our relationship with the Old Testament will undergo change (Gibbs 2006, 270).

Verses 19-20 remind Jesus’ disciples to consider the Torah as very important. All the commands are important. The person who minimizes some will be considered of little importance in God’s kingdom. However, Gibbs recognizes that person as included in God’s kingdom (Gibbs 2006, 271). The “great” in the kingdom of heaven, who are to be emulated, are recognized by their servanthood. Thus Jesus redefines our concept of greatness (Gibbs 2006, 272(.

Matthew 5:20 explains why obeying God’s Torah equals greatness (Gibbs 2006, 272). Gibbs takes “righteousness” here to have a different meaning than in 5:6 and 5:10. Here it seems to be something particular that the disciples do (Gibbs 2006, 273). At the same time, though, the difference between the disciples and the Scribes or Pharisees is specifically that the Scribes nad Pharisees are not following Jesus. In effect, the disciples’ righteousness is a result of their being Jesus’ followers. Their works flow from the relationship, rather than leading to the relationship.

Salt and Light

9/17/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
9/17/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 5:13-16: Summary of the Disciples’ Calling: Salt and Light.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 257-262.

In Matthew 5:13 and 14, Gibbs sees the pronoun “you” to be very emphatic, referring to “you” and no others. The disciples are those who have a specific “beneficial effect...on the world” (Gibbs 2006, 257). Gibbs is clear that the thing which could lose its flavor is not the salt, but the world. The emphasis is on receiving the seasoning, not becoming or remaining salty. Gibbs discusses the BDAG entry and the content at some length (Gibbs 2006, 258).

Gibbs notes that Jesus describes the disciples as salt and light, using the indicative mood (Matt. 5:13-16). This is their identity. It is not a matter of possibility (Gibbs 2006, 259). The metaphor, according to Gibbs, introduces the rest of the sermon. As an introduction, he suggests the metaphor should not be pressed too hard. It will be unpacked in the sermon (Gibbs 2006, 259). The images are general in nature. Their role is to be a blessing to the world. All Christians, in one way or another, fulfill that role by their nature, rather than by tremendous works of virtue. However, Gibbs affirms that Jesus calls his people “to lives of remarkable purity, faithfulness, piety, love, and generosity” (Gibbs 2006, 261). It is the nature of the Christian to live a life which is remarkable in some ways.

Blessed

9/10/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
9/10/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 5:3-12: Doorway to the Sermon: Blessings/Beatitudes for Disciples.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 234-256.

Speaking of the Beatitudes, Gibbs observes the predicate adjective μακάριοι in the front of each line for emphasis. He considers the word to have a very strong meaning in context, more like “saved” than “happy” (Gibbs 2006, 234). The concept of “poor in spirit” may well suggest economic as well as spiritual poverty. Gibbs suggests that God may well use physical trials such as poverty to bring about a spiritual dependence on him (Gibbs 2006, 235). Gibbs further notes the numerous clauses which are in the passive voice and do not express an agent. His opinion is that God is the unseen and unmentioned actor in these statements.

Matthew 5:10 uses a perfect passive participle for “those persecuted” (Gibbs 2006, 236). Gibbs makes it clear that the context does not suggest a continuous state of persecution but rather an act of persecution which has a lingering result (Gibbs 2006, 237).

Gibbs observes that the Beatitudes are “two groups of four blessings in the third person plural...followed by a final, much longer blessing in the second person plural” (Gibbs 2006, 237). Gibbs also sees that the Beatitudes can be understood as pairs, in which the first two have the first of the pair preparing us for the second of the pair, but the second two pairs working in the other direction (Gibbs 2006, 238).

Gibbs considers that Matthew 11:2-6 and Isaiah 61:1 are necessary context for Matthew 5:3. The passages in Matthew are the only theological uses of “poor” in Matthew. Both passages make eschatological promises (Gibbs 2006, 239). Gibbs observes that in Matthew 11 the people with various conditions of need are not spoken of as troubled by their condition. Instead, it is an objective recognition of need. This also extends to “the poor” in 11:5 and “the poor in spirit” in 5:3 (Gibbs 2006, 240). Gibbs takes this to indicate a status that lacks something needed, spiritual riches or ability. The pattern Gibbs concludes we must look for is one where Jesus provides what his people need. He includes in this forgiveness, baptism, the work of the Holy Spirit, the reality of the Sacrament, and belief on what Jesus would do (Gibbs 2006, 241).

Gibbs observes strong parallels between Isaiah 61 and Matthew 5:3-12. Matthew is likely portraying Jesus specifically as God’s servant, making promises (Gibbs 2006, 241).

In Matthew 5:4-6 Gibbs sees Jesus promising to fill empty humans (Gibbs 2006, 242). Here he considers the tenses of the verbs to be especially important. The present state leads to a future result (Gibbs 2006, 243). The present state, again, according to Gibbs, is a state of helpless inability (Gibbs 2006, 244). The future goal, in each instance, has to do with a fulfillment which comes through following Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 245).

Matthew 5:7-12 moves to future fulfillment in very clear terms. In verse seven the merciful will receive mercy. In verse eight the pure in heart will see God (Gibbs 2006, 247). Gibbs considesr that God is the one who gives mercy, as well as being the one who urifies hearts (Gibbs 2006, 248). Verse nine speaks of the one who makes peace. Gibbs notes that the adjective for a peacemaker is absent from Scripture (Gibbs 2006, 252). There is, however, a strong theme of peace in Matthew 10, where the missionaries let their peace be on the place they visit. Gibbs therefore sees the peacemakers of 5:9 to be those disciples who bring God’s peace around with them (Gibbs 2006, 253). Finally, those persecuted for righteousness are blessed. Gibbs is very clear that not all of Jesus’ people will expect or receive persecution, but those who do will be rewarded (Gibbs 2006, 254).

The close of the Beatitudes shifts to the second person, in verses 11-12. Gibbs sees this as a statement that the work of Jesus is not just a matter for analysis, but that it may apply to “you” specifically (Gibbs 2006, 255).

Followers of Jesus - Listening in

9/3/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
9/3/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 4:25-5:2: Narrative Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 226-233.

Regarding Matthew 4:25, Gibbs reminds the reader that crowds routinely followed Jesus. The crowd is distinguished from disciples, who are actually intent on learning from Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 226). Though the crowd would have been partly Jewish and partly Gentile, consistent with Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah, the areas mentioned here suggest a mostly Jewish crowd.

Gibbs considers the theological claims that Jesus is presented as the new Moses. He concludes that in Matthew 5:1 the evidence of intent is not strong enough. Matthew’s use of mountains rarely suggest a connection to Moses (Gibbs 2006, 227).

Matthew 5 begins the first of Jesus’ five major discourses recorded in Matthew. Gibbs considers it significant that the disciples here are separated from the rest of the crowd. While the crowd hears Jesus’ teaching and is amazed, it remains distinct from the group of disciples (Gibbs 2006, 228).

As he begins to comment on Matthew 5-7, Gibbs notes that these three chapters have historically received a tremendous amount of study and commentary. Gibbs’ intention will be to identify the key ideas as they fit into Matthew’s particular purpose (Gibbs 2006, 230). Gibbs will show the Sermon is based on a foundational blessing at the start, and that the other parts are ordered in light of and dependent on those blessings. The significant turn from the third person to the second person in the Beatitudes point to the need to receive Goid’s gifts as individuals (Gibbs 2006, 232). The concept of God for you is central to Matthew’s Gospel.

Preaching, Teaching, and Healing to Deliver God's Kingdom

8/27/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
8/27/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 4:23-24: Summary of Jesus’ Ministry.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 221-225.

In Matthew 4:23, Jesus “went around.” Gibbs sees the verb as inceptive in nature. He also asserts that the present participles “after a main verb of coming or going” likely show purpose (Gibbs 2006, 221). So Jesus’ purpose is to teach, preach, and heal.

The activities of preaching and teaching in Matthew are used in very similar ways. Gibbs does observe that perhaps preaching is aimed more at bringing a message to those in need of conversion (Gibbs 2006, 222).

Gibbs does note that in his opinion 4:25-5:2 serves as an opening bracket for the Sermon on the Mount, with a closing bracket at 7:28-8:1 (Gibbs 2006, 223). Matthew 4:23-24 thus serves to conclude the portion before it.

Gibbs sees the purpose of Jesus as saving people from sin. He accomplishes that purpose by preaching, teaching, etc. (Gibbs 2006, 224). This is the work of God’s reign in the world. Gibbs does observe that the biblical text is clear that not all sickness is demonic and not all is natural. We should expect the same kind of pattern in our world today (Gibbs 2006, 225).

The Beginning of Jesus' Actions

8/20/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
8/20/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 4:17-22: Jesus’ Proclamation Begins and He Calls Disciples.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 213-220.

It is at Matthew 4:17 that Jesus’ actual public ministry is taken up. Prior to this, Gibbs considers that Jesus is being introduced (Gibbs 2006, 213). Gibbs considers this transition to be of great importance, along with that found at 16:21. Here, Matthew says that Jesus began his work (Gibbs 2006, 214). Of note is the fact that Jesus’ preaching is described the same way as that of John. He is calling the lost to repentance and belief.

Gibbs reminds his readers again of the significance of the message of God’s reign approaching. The reign is the activity of God more than it is a group of people or an organization (Gibbs 2006, 215).

The call of the first disciples seems important. Gibbs notes that Matthew 4:18-21 and 4:21-22 have very strong parallelism. The two pairs of disciples are to be considered together. Furthermore, the powerful call of Jesus shows he is in command of the situation (Gibbs 2006, 216). It is significant that other rabbis would be sought out by their disciples but Jesus finds his.

Gibbs thinks some commentators make too much of the fact that the disciples leave their things to follow Jesus. He doesn’t see it as an immediate radical separation but as a gradual beginning to find they will always follow Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 217).

Gibbs explores the fact that these disciples were called as special disciples who would become apostles. They are presented as unique individuals. They have a task reaching to others. They physically follow Jesus from place to place (Gibbs 2006, 218). As a group, these apostles seem to play a special role and have a special relationship with Jesus.

Jesus, the Light of the World, for the Gentiles

8/13/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
8/13/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 4:12-16: Jesus, Immanuel, Prepares to Bring Light in Galilee.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 200-209.

As Matthew shows Jesus to be the promised light arising for the Gentiles, Gibbs notes that the quotation from the Old Testament is problematic. The passage in Isaiah in the Masoretic Text does not precisely line up with the wording in the Septuagint. There are some variant readings. Matthew’s use suggests that he was translating from Hebrew, and possibly from a manuscript tradition which we don’t currently have (Gibbs 2006, 201). Gibbs walks through the grammatical differences extensively. The overall thrust of the passage is retained in Matthew. “The light of Christ is not just shining upon Galilee of the Gentiles; it has risen and is shining for them” (Gibbs 2006, 203).

The brief mention of John the Baptist in Matthew 4:12 suggests to Gibbs that Matthew wants us to see the “vulnerability and weakness” of the humans who participate in Christ’s kingdom (Gibbs 2006, 203). Jesus’ withdrawal from Nazareth thus both suggests his desire to avoid being imprisoned before his time and his desire to shine God’s light on the Gentiles in Capernaum (Gibbs 2006, 204). We are reminded here that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us, and that he serves that role for all nations. Gibbs is clear that this, the end of the first major portion of Matthew’s Gospel, is not only concluding the material of the section, but also foreshadowing the end of the entire work in Matthew 28:20 (Gibbs 2006, 206).

Gibbs concludes the chapter with a review of the structure of this part of Matthew’s Gospel. A strong indicator that 1:1-4:16 is one unit is the shift of theme in 4:17, when Jesus “began” “from then.” This shows a new pattern of activity (Gibbs 2006, 207). Gibbs further notes that half of Matthew’s statements about fulfilling prophecy are in 1;1-4:16, as are two additional significant Old Testament quotations. The first and last quotations in this section are from the Immanuel material in Isaiah. This brackets the content of the section (Gibbs 2006, 208). The theme of the unexpected is also very prominent in 1:1-4:16. Gibs sees this as one of the ways Matthew sets this segment of the Gospel apart, introducing the idea of salvation planned by God in a way we would never anticipate (Gibbs 2006, 209).

Jesus' Temptation

8/6/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
8/6/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 4:1-11: Jesus, God’s Son, Overcomes Satan.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 187-199.

In the context of Satan’s temptation of Jesus, Gibbs observes that although the verb may be used with neutral connotations, in Matthew it is uniformly used negatively and that “Jesus is always the target of the temptation” (Gibbs 2006, 187). In this passage, Satan is referred to by three names - “the slanderer,” “the tempter,” and “the adversary” (Gibbs 2006, 188).

Gibbs notes that in Matthew 4:4, the future tense “will not live” “has a true indicative force . . . rather than the sense of an imperative” (Gibbs 2006, 189). The third person in thefuture rarely has imperatival force, though the second person does. Jesus’ responses to Satan use second person future indicatives as commands (Gibbs 2006, 190-191).

Matthew 4:1-11 and 26:36-46, the two passages of Jesus’ temptation in Matthew, provide the bulk of Matthew’s uses of the historical present. Gibbs views this as a way Matthew attempts to make these passages particularly vivid (Gibbs 2006, 189).

In Matthew 4:6 many6 translations view Satan’s words as a direct quotation of Psalm 91:11-12. However, Gibbs sees the word ὅτι “as introducing indirect discourse” (Gibbs 2006, 190). The statement is not a direct quotation, but a paraphrase which omits the idea that the angels will keep God’s people. Normally Matthew introduces direct quotations without ὅτι, using it only here.

Gibbs urges the reader and interpreter to disregard the potentially misleading chapter break at the end of chapter three. After the voice of God affirms Jesus’ baptism in 3:17, Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit of God (Gibbs 2006, 191). Jesus passes through the water and is led into the desert, just as Israel in the Exodus (Gibbs 2006, 192). In contrast to Israel, which was “tested,” Jesus is “tempted.” He proves himself to be the worthy Son of God.

Gibbs notes that Matthew 4:2-4 has a clear parallel in Exodus 16, where Israel, led into the desert, complains of hunger. The people of Israel were supplied with food but kept grumbling. Jesus, on the other hand, was not supplied with food, yet he never complained (Gibbs 2006, 194). The temptation of Jesus was that he should do something which Satan acknowledged he could, and which he later showed an ability to do, as he fed large groups of people. Gibbs emphasizes that Jesus knew that God had spoken - recently - in 3:17, and that Jesus acted as an obedient and trusting son.

The temptation for Jesus to throw himself down from the temple follows in Matthew 4:5-7 (Gibbs 2006, 195). Gibbs finds a typological application less clear than in 4:2-4. At issue is God’s power to protect his people. Jesus refuses to test the matter, confessing that we do not test God (Deuteronomy 6:16).

The final temptation, which Gibbs sees as the climax, is that Jesus should fall down and worship Satan (Gibbs 2006, 196). Israel was prone to worship of other gods. Yet the nation was pictured as a son of God, which would be bound to allegiance only to God. Citing Deuteronomy 6:13, Jesus affirms worship is reserved only for God. Though Satan has shown a progressively lower view of Christology throughout the temptations, Jesus’ view of God has remained high. He is the Messiah who will obey God.

In Matthew 4:11, Satan leaves Jesus for the time being. Gibbs sees this as Matthew’s sign to his readers that Jesus will be able to defeat Satan in the end. The emphasis, further, is on Jesus’ work to overcome Satan, rather than on Jesus as an example to show us how to be victorious (Gibbs 2006, 197) Gibbs says that “the primary message of 4:1-11 must be that Jesus is Victor over Satan on behalf of the nation and ultimately on behalf of all people” (Gibbs 2006, 198). Yet at the same time the Christian is encouraged to live by rightly grasping Jesus’ identity.

The Baptism of the Christ

7/30/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
7/30/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 3:13-17: Jesus, God’s Son, Is Baptized.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 175-186.

Matthew presents Jesus’ baptism in a relatively short passage for such a momentous event. Gibbs finds care in the arrangement, as Matthew 3:13-17a forms a chiasm (Gibbs 2006, 177). Gibbs observes that the center of this chiasm places our focus on John’s unworthiness to baptize Jesus and Jesus’ insistence that he do it. Immediately after the structure ends, in 3:16b, Matthew leads the reader ahead with two “look” statements, moving us into the Old Testament passages which he uses to teach more about Jesus and his baptism.

In 3:13, the name “Jesus” is used after some time of absence. Gibbs reminds us of the name’s significance, God with us, who saves his people (Gibbs 2006, 177). The contrast between John and the one who is “God with us” is very plain, and would be to Matthew’s original audience as well. Gibbs makes it clear that Jesus could not have been present as a repentant sinner or as someone who is converting from unbelief to faith (Gibbs 2006, 178). Gibbs therefore treats Jesus’ explanation, at the center of the chiasm, in considerable detail.

Jesus’ statement, “allow it,” is seen as a concession. In his state of humiliation, Jesus asks to receive baptism, normally applied to sinners, since he is being identified as the one who bears sin (Gibbs 2006, 179). The baptism is applied “now” rather than in the last day, when Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Righteousness is fulfilled “for us” rather than “for me” since the baptism has an importance for all of God’s people. It is “proper” and has to do with “all” righteousness. Gibbs describes this event as something which speaks to the entirety of righteousness, that which the Old Testament describes and Jesus fulfills (Gibbs 2006, 180). Gibbs further builds a case that when the Old Testament speaks of God’s righteousness, it is making reference to God’s saving work. Again, Gibbs sees the passage pointing to an eschatological fulfillment, brought to pass in Jesus’ baptism.

After the baptism of Jesus, which Gibbs suggests would be a sufficiently important event, Matthew points out two additional events. First, there is an appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Gibbs sees this as a highlight of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Servant Songs of Isaiah 42:1-4 and 61:1-9 (Gibbs 2006, 182). Second, there is a voice from heaven, declaring Jesus not as the Davidic king but as God’s son, “the summation of God’s entire people Israel” (Gibbs 2006, 183). Gibbs sees this as another move by Matthew to portray Jesus as the one who stands in the place of the people of Israel (Gibbs 2006, 184).

Gibbs observes that it is common to make a move from the baptism of Jesus to an interpretation of Christian baptism. This has gone back as far as Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century (Gibbs 2006, 184). The interpretations have routinely said that by being baptized Jesus consecrated water for baptism. Gibbs, however, suggests that Jesus’ baptism points forward to his death for sinners, and that Matthew 3:13-17 does not speak to Christian baptism (Gibbs 2006, 185).

Meet John the Baptizer

7/23/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
7/23/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 3:1-12: John the Baptizer Proclaims the In-Breaking Reign of Heaven.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 151-174.

Gibbs observes that though years had passed between Matthew 2 and 3, from the childhood to adulthood of Jesus, Matthew glosses over it in very simple terms. He finds the link to be theological (Gibbs 2006, 157), in that the Scripture is being fulfilled.

The term used in Matthew 3:2 for repentance, μετανοεῖν, according to Gibbs, is used by Matthew to call for a turning from unbelief and to God in faith, rather than to call for sorrow and restoration. It is a call for the unbeliever to be reconciled to God, not for the believer to be strengthened in the faith (Gibbs 2006, 152).

The significance of tenses in Matthew 3:6 is not wasted on Gibbs, who notes that in 3:2, a call for repentance comes before baptism, in 3:6 the confessing is happening concurrently with baptism, and in 3:7 the Jewish leaders refuse to confess, which leads to their lack of baptism. Gibbs takes this to show that in 3:11 baptism is intended “to produce repentance as a goal (Gibbs 2006, 154, emphasis Gibbs’). Repentance, then, comes from the work of God’s Word.

There is a substantial difference between the view in Matthew 3:11 of John’s baptism and that of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:12. Gibbs contends that neither verse 11 nor 12 refers to Christian baptism, but that John’s baptism is one of repentance and the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit is an eschatological vision, not yet fulfilled (Gibbs 2006, 156).

Although Matthew 3:1 introduces John as the Baptizer, Gibbs notes that there is more emphasis on his work of preaching (Gibbs 2006, 158). The call to repent is a call to be converted from a condition of lost sheep to God’s flock. The conversion is made especially timely, as Gibbs translates it, because “the reign of heaven stands near” (v. 2) (Gibbs 2006, 159). Gibbs takes this to signify that we are considered to be in the last days and that God’s activity is right here. The eschatological hope of Jesus was vivid in the first century (Gibbs 2006, 160). Gibbs further identifies their hope as centered in God’s presence in time and space to establish his reign in his people. This is distinct from a relatively disembodied hope for release from this life (Gibbs 2006, 161).

We might wonder why John the Baptizer has the authority to speak as he does. Gibbs observes that Matthew 3:3 identifies him as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 40:3 (Gibbs 2006, 162). The coming one would be a herald and announce God’s good favor and mercy.

Gibbs notes that John’s appearance, including his clothing, make a parallel with Elijah (Gibbs 2006, 163). Matthew later shows Jesus identifying John as the promised Elijah (11:14).

What is the significance of John’s baptism? Gibbs acknowledges that we know relatively little about the numerous rituals of first century Judaism involving water and purification (Gibbs 2006, 164). What may set John’s baptism apart from the other rites is the close relation to his preaching, and that being a message of repentance and conversion to believe God’s reign. John’s baptism is clearly tied to repentance and faith.Gibbs goes so far as to say John (3:11) suggests the baptism results in or leads to repentance, something which John’s preaching also does (Gibbs 2006, 165).

The Pharisees and Sadducees, from Matthew 3:7-10, are not understood as the same group, but Gibbs sees Matthew tying them together conceptually because both groups failed to see that they needed to repent of sin (Gibbs 2006, 166). Gibbs acknowledges that we do not know enough about the groups to understand them in the way the first audience would. Many of the writings we have are several hundred years distant from the early first century, and contain elements from various time period (Gibbs 2006, 167). Gibbs finds the movement of the Pharisees to be recognizable by the mid 2nd century B.C. (Gibbs 2006, 168). It is not a priestly movement. There wre strong emphases on the synagogue movement, on oral tradition, ritual purity, and God’s commands. The Sadducees, less well known to us, were apparently an aristocratic and priestly movement centered in Jerusalem (Gibbs 2006, 168).

John’s statements to the Pharisees and Sadducees were very forceful (3:7-10). Gibbs, seeing the Pharisees and Sadducees as depending on their heritage under God’s covenant rather than on repentant faith, finds them in sharp opposition to John’s message (Gibbs 2006, 170). John’s preaching called for total dependence on God’s mercy, nothing less. This would cause most people some trouble. John is utterly unaccepting of compromise (Gibbs 2006, 171).

The difference between Jaohn’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism is the subject of Matthew 3:11-12. In John’s view, the work of Jesus is by far the greater. Gibbs observes that John is looking forward to what Jesus will do in the eschaton (Gibbs 2006, 172). Because of the eschatological view, Gibbs takes Jesus’ work of baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire to be a reference to something other than Christian baptism, which is not held off to be performed in the last day (Gibbs 2006, 173). In the last day the Old Testament is clear that we can expect an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The final judgment of God is regularly described as involving fire. Gibbs distinguishes between the two, with repentant people receiving the Holy Spirit but the unrepentant facing fire (Gibbs 2006, 173).

Jesus as the New Israel, not the New Moses

7/16/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
7/16/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 2:13-23: Jesus Fulfills Prophecy as God’s Son.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 129-150.

Following his typical pattern, Gibbs begins with textual notes, then moves into a commentary. In 2:13-14, Gibbs observes Matthew using an historical present, which he rarely does (Gibbs 2006, 129), then a genitive of time, another typical classical usage (Gibbs 2006, 130). I observe he is in the process of introducing a quotation of Hosea. His formal language may serve the purpose of drawing attention to the quotation.

Verse 17 uses a temporal clause for the fulfillment of prophecy. Only at this point and at 27:9 does Matthew use the temporal clause rather than a purpose clause to explain an Old Testament quotation. Gibbs thinks this may be because both instances refer to deaths (Gibbs 2006, 130). The response of verse 18, quoting Jeremiah 31:15, is not an exact quote of either the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint. Most importantly, Matthew changes “sons” to a singular, leaving no doubt about who is of primary importance, Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 131).

Verse 23 is problematic. Gibbs cites four ways the Old Testament citation is set apart from the nine other citations Matthew makes. There is no “saying” here (Gibbs 2006, 131). The plural “prophets” is used, rather than a singular. The particle ὅτι is used here and in no other quotations (Gibbs 2006, 132). It is finally not clear what Matthew is quoting. From a narrative perspective Gibbs sees the verse and Jesus’ residence in Nazareth as another instance of God’s salvation being revealed in an unexpected way (Gibbs 2006, 133).

Gibbs, moving into his commentary, reminds us of Matthew’s distinction between Jesus and Herod as kings. “Matthew proclaims that Jesus is the true King of God’s people - and even more than that, Jesus himself embodies the people (Gibbs 2006, 134). Gibbs sees Jesus as the summation of all God’s people. On the other hand, Herod and his son Archelaus wish to kill Jesus and are unable to do so (Gibbs 2006, 135). Matthew uses three Old Testament citations in the passage, and through these he shows Jesus as the embodiment of Israel and as the Messiah who will be rejected (Gibbs 2006, 136).

The concept of Jesus as the new Moses is a common theme in theological discourse. Although some scholars, most notably Dale C. Allison (The New Moses: A Matthewan Typology, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), find in this passage a Messiah who is a new Moses, Gibbs sees Matthew describing Jesus as a new Israel, not a new Moses (Gibbs 2006, 137). He does not see the structure of the passage or the actions as typological in nature. They are, at best, an echo of a well known theme (Gibbs 2006, 138).

Jesus, then, is portrayed by Matthew as a personification of the nation of Israel. Gibbs examines Hoseal 11:1, cited here by Matthew, and sees it as describing Israel’s history of captivity in Egypt, followed by deliverance by God (Gibbs 2006, 140). Rather than depicting Israel as God’s son, going to captivity and release, Jesus is God’s Son. The exodus was a sign, but only partially fulfilled,as Israel clung to the attitudes they had in Egypt. The fulfillment is in Jesus’ return from Egypt (Gibbs 2006, 142).

Gibbs goes on to describe the view of Jesus as the replacement of Israel in other scenes of the Gospel, such as his baptism and his temptation. The purpose of the typology is to show Jesus as the real savior (Gibbs 2006, 143).

In speaking of verse 23, Gibbs observes that Matthew’s use of a temporal clause may attempt to express God’s foreknowledge of the event but not his pleasure (Gibbs 2006, 143). The sad state of affairs is evident in an evil world. Yet God is still able to use the sin and evil for his good final outcome (Gibbs 2006, 144). Gibbs does ask whether the children should be considered martyrs. He concludes that while they were not martyrs in the strict sense of the word, they died for someone else and are worthy of respect (Gibbs 2006, 145).

Gibbs turns to a discussion of the comparative birth narratives of Jesus, from Matthew 2 and Luke 2 (Gibbs 2006, 145). For comparison, Gibbs recounts the cryptic narratives of Paul and Luke, from Acts 9 and Galatians 1, in which Paul visits Jerusalem. We are left wondering if both authors were present at the same vent (they were) (Gibbs 2006, 146). The nativity accounts of Luke and Matthew are relatively simple to harmonize, except for the visit of the Magi and the trip to Egypt, which are difficult to place in time (Gibbs 2006, 147). Matthew’s abbreviated and selective style is consistent with the many gaps, but also with an assumption that the chronology is accurate (Gibbs 2006, 148). Gibbs does observe that the star guided the Magi somewhere, and that was probably to Nazareth, as the Magi had been told to look for Bethlehem and would need no assistance finding it. This removes our wonder about Jesus staying in Bethlehem so long.

Two Kings Plus Messengers

7/9/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
7/9/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 2:1-12: Magi Come to Pay Homage to the True King.” St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 115-128.

Commenting on Matthew 2:1 and the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, Gibbs is fairly confident that Herod’s death was in 4 B.C., which places Jesus’ birth in 6 or 5 B.C. (Gibbs 2006, 115). He will later discuss harmonization of the difficult dates.

The “star” seen by the Magi seems unlikely to be a natural phenomenon. It drew their attention as much as two years earlier, then pointed them very precisely to Jesus’ location (Gibbs 2006, 116).

The action of worship described may or may not have been a recognition of Jesus as the God of all. Gibbs suggests that it was a clear act of reverence and would be seen by Matthew’s readers as an indication of Jesus’ true identity (Gibbs 2006, 117).

Gibbs observes that Matthew’s citation of Micah chapter 5 is 2:6 is not specifically identical to Micah’s text (Gibbs 2006, 119). Matthew’s alterations seem intended at times to make the theological emphasis more clear. The sense remains the same, but Matthew’s changes point the reader directly to the point (Gibbs 2006, 120).

Though Gibbs recognizes the two kings - Herod and Jesus - as the main characters in Matthew 2, he also notes that the Magi are very important to the flow of ideas. As in chapter one, here in chapter two the average human will not recognize the divine presence in Jesus without some sort of miraculous message (Gibbs 2006, 121).

At the time of Jesus’ birth, Herod the Great was well known as a very competent, though power hungry ruler. On the contrary, Jesus the King of all was lowly, of humble origin, and completely dependent on others (Gibbs 2006, 122). Though Herod would have tried to locate and kill the newborn King, God intervenes using a star to direct the Magi and then he warns them in a dream not to return to Herod. Gibbs sees this as entirely consistent with God’s pattern of using people in unexpected ways to fulfill his promise to Abraham (Gibbs 2006, 123).

Gibbs, following Mark Allen Powell, notes that the Magi were not regarded as royal figures until the sixth century (Gibbs 2006, 123). They would also not have been considered as a special class of “wise men” until the 8th century (Gibbs 2006, 124). Based on Daniel’s description they would likely have been servants and possibly advisers to a pagan ruler (Gibbs 2006, 125). These, Gibbs says, fit the pattern of unlikely people to proclaim the identity of the Messiah. They are depicted as ignorant of nearly every matter of importance in identifying the Messiah. Herod, on the other hand, recognizes that when the Magi ask about a “king” he needs to look for a “Messiah.” This is the promise he considered significant (Gibbs 2006, 128).

The Naming of the Messiah

7/2/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament

7/2/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 1:18-25: The Naming of Jesus.” Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 96-114.

Gibbs begins with grammatical notes about the passage at hand. Of note here, Matthew 1:19 speaks of the intention of Joseph to divorce Mary quietly. Gibbs observes that “betrothal was a legally binding relationship that was the first step of marriage. However, the marriage was consummated only after the betrothal period was completed” (Gibbs 2006, 97). The betrothal was a serious enough agreement that to break it required a formal divorce or the death of one party.

Speaking of the prophecy of Jesus’ birth, Gibbs finds the statement, “this whole thing happened” in 1:22 as possibly an opening bracket, which is completed in 26:56, as Jesus says “this whole thing happened” to fulfill Scripture (Gibbs 2006, 99). Matthew introduces ten statements with “that the thing spoken might be fulfilled.” Gibbs notes that Matthew reserves this language for Jesus alone (Gibbs 2006, 99).

Gibbs observes that in 1:23 Matthew closely follows the LXX in using the word παρθένος of Mary (Gibbs 2006, 100). The Hebrew word is used fairly rarely in the Old Testament, and is sometimes translated as “young woman,” sometimes as “virgin.” Gibbs concludes that the passage in Isaiah was intended to express a “virgin maiden” and was rightly recognized as such by Matthew (Gibbs 2006, 101).

The question of Matthew 1:25 and the virginity of Mary is significant. Gibbs is clear that Matthew’s main purpose is to make it obvious that Jesus could not be the son of Joseph. However, he asks whether the use of “until” implies that Joseph and Mary began having sexual relations after the birth of Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 103). Gibbs finds no grammatical solution to the question. The most logical and natural conclusion to make is that the celibacy ended after the birth of Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 104).

From a theological perspective, Gibbs sees the passage divided into three portions with distinct messages. First, verses 18b-19 speak to “human misunderstanding of the origin of Jesus” (Gibbs 2006, 104). The natural assumption about Jesus’ origin would be that he had a human father. Without other information, we would all assume the same. Gibbs emphasizes that Joseph’s initial reaction was perfectly normal and that his intention of a quiet divorce was well meaning. He was corrected by divine revelation, which we need as well, when confronted with what is naturally impossible (Gibbs 2006, 105).

Next, in verses 20-23, Matthew gives insight into God’s purpose. He provides both testimony of an angel and of the Old Testament prophecy. The angel’s address to Joseph as the “son of David” emphasizes that Jesus will be legally taken into the line of David (Gibbs 2006, 106). Further, Jesus has a divine origin and a divine purpose, the one whose very name points to God as the savior (Gibbs 2006, 107). Gibbs observes that the message of Jesus’ work to rescue from sin is central to Matthew’s Gospel. Here, the emphasis is on Jesus as the Son of God, a substitute for Israel, which is normally seen as God’s son (Gibbs 2006, 108).

Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 is taken by some as reference to an event in the 8th century B.C. but not related to the time of Matthew. Others see the passage as a promise clearly fulfilled in Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 108). Gibbs takes Isaiah seven to address God’s promise that Judah would not fall. The complexity of the prophecy in Isaiah, coupled with the fact that the prophecy of Isaiah 7 does not seem to be completed in Isaiah 8, despite birth of a child, suggests to Gibbs that the child of Isaiah 8 is not the extent of the fulfillment (Gibbs 2006, 111). Gibbs sees that the child of the prophecy, who appears several times in Isaiah, is not an 8th century figure but matches Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. Matthew’s repeated claims that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament passages, particularly from Isaiah, further illustrates Matthew’s view that Jesus is the true promised Messiah (Gibbs 2006, 113).

Finally in Matthew 1:24-25 Joseph trusts God’s word and responds in a righteous way (Gibbs 2006, 114). Gibbs sees him as the contrast to King Ahaz. He recognizes the child for who he is, a savior, and applies the revealed name, “Jesus,” to him.

What's in a Lineage?

6/25/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/25/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. “Matthew 1:2-17, The Genealogy of Jesus” Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006, pp. 78-95.

As he begins his discussion of the genealogy in Matthew 1, Gibbs observes that the word for “begat” and its Hebrew equivalent may frequently be used in lists and can skip multiple generations, thus not always indicating a father-son relationship but simply that of an ancestor and descendant (Gibbs 2006, 78). This pattern is borne out, for example, in verses 3-4 as the period from Hezron to Aminadab is approximately 400 years. A similar challenge exists if the “Rahab” from verse 5 is the one from Joshua 6:17 (Gibbs 2006, 79). However, Gibbs suggests the two may well be different people. Again, in verse 8, there are several generations omitted, and again a gap appears in verse 11. Matthew makes yet another artful piece of arrangement in verse 16, where he arrives at Joseph but then pivots to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Gibbs concludes that “Matthew is clearly not interested in absolute chronology in the secular sense, and we should not expect him to be” (Gibbs 2006, 81).

Gibbs notes that the threefold use of fourteen generations has attracted scholarly interest over the years, as has the presence of four women exclusive of Mary (Gibbs 2006, 81). Yet Gibbs considers it more important that Matthew is communicating the history of Israel as moving toward the goal of the Messiah in an orderly way. Jesus is the fulfillment of the purpose of God’s covenant with Israel (Gibbs 2006, 82). As to the issue of the threefold count of fourteen, the first two groups can be fourteen each, though it requires us to count Jeconiah at the end of the second group and again in the third. However, the third comes to thirteen. This can be resolved by counting both Joseph and Mary, by counting “Jesus” and “Christ” as if they are two persons, or by filling the gap in verse 11 with Josiah by inserting Jehoiakim, the father of Jeconiah. Gibbs suggests that Matthew is drawing attention to the Babylonian deportation and the decline from Abraham and David. This could emphasize God’s faithfulness despite Israel’s failure, which is able to be restored in Christ (Gibbs 2006, 84). I observe the count of thirteen out of fourteen may be a further suggestion of humans coming short. The number 14 may well have been chosen based on 1 Chronicles 1-2, where fourteen generations are given from Abraham to David (Gibbs 2006, 85). Matthew would then have used a threefold repetition, creating a memorable pattern of God’s movement in history.

The five women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Uriah, and Mary, are probably significant. Mary is clearly set apart in the miraculous nature of her conception. Gibbs seeks out interpretations which make snse of the inclusion of the women (Gibbs 2006, 86). The four are easily noted as Gentiles, therefore unexpected. They may provide a contrast with the righteous Mary, partaker of the covenant with Israel. There are indicators of the four others being or pretending to be adulterous (Gibbs 2006, 87). Yet Gibbs thinks Matthew’s most likely reason for including them is to show God in control of history, interjecting the women as evidence that He may do the unexpected. This culminates in Mary, the least expected mother of them all (Gibbs 2006, 89).

Gibbs finally turns his attention to the fact that Luke’s Gospel includes a very different genealogy of Jesus. Though there is no reason to think Matthew’s original audience would know of Luke’s Gospel, the two genealogies have always attracted interest (Gibbs 2006, 89). Luke’s, from Abraham to David, matches Matthew’s almost exactly. However, they diverge significantly from David to Salthiel, where Luke lists some of the kings (Gibbs 2006, 90). They then diverge again. Julius Africanus, ca. 160-240, suggested that Luke gave a legal genealogy based on remarriages of widows. Another attempt essentially reverses Africanus’ argument (Gibbs 2006, 91). Others, including Luther, have suggested that Luke actually provides Mary’s lineage (Gibbs 2006, 92). Gibbs suggests two possible solutions, neither of which heconsiders entirely satisfactory. Luke may have traced Mary’s genealogy (Gibbs 2006, 93). It is also possible that Matthew sought out a royal heritage while Luke sought a heritage which emphasized a divine provision regardless of royal credentials (Gibbs 2006, 94).

A Gospel about a Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham

6/18/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/18/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
“1:1 Who Is Jesus?” pp. 71-77.

Matthew 1:1 states that this is “the book of the origin of Jesus.” Gibbs asks to what the statement refers. He rejects the idea of it referring to the entire work, since it speaks to more than Jesus’ origin. He also sees that “beginning” is repeated in 1:18, which begins the specific narrative about Jesus’ birth. Gibbs rather sees the phrase referring to 1:1-4:16, which constitutes the first major division (Gibbs 2006, 71). Gibbs finds that the word “origin” does not probably speak primarily of “birth” since the actual birth narrative is relatively brief. However, the matter of his origin in accord with prophecy is a significant concept (Gibbs 2006, 72). Gibbs sees this verse as introducing Jesus in three ways: as the Christ, the Son of David, and at the Son of Abraham. These three concepts will serve as unifiers throughout the entirety of Matthew’s Gospel.

The first of the titles is that of “Christ.” The term is used in the Septuagint of anointed priests or people of God, but more regularly of Kings with an eschatological view. Gibbs notes that there were a variety of views in the first century concerning what a Messianic figure would do (Gibbs 2006, 73). “It is clear that they hoped for the restoration of their sovereignty in the promised lad and that the idolatrous Romans would bedriven out when God came to sve his people. But some also hoped for a Messiah who would ‘gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness’ and who would ‘be compassionate to all the nations (who) reverently (stand) before him’ (Pss. Sol 17:26, 34)” (Gibbs 2006, 74). The hope sometimes included a redemption of the spiritual powers of the world and a restoration of the heavens and earth to their original fellowship with God. The ministry of Jesus, as depicted in Matthew’s Gospel, always looks to some end which includes this kind of an eschatological hope. Gibbs finds Matthew to emphasize that Jesus is the very particular Messianic figure who will accomplish restoration, though not in the way the people expected.

The “Son of David” is the fulfillment of the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 17:11-14. Though Gibbs finds Solomon as a proximate fulfiller of the prophecy, the subsequent kings did not seem to have God’s fvor forever. The hope was for another greater king. This hope is fulfilled in Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 75). Though Jesus is acclaimed by many as the Son of David, and though Matthew regularly emphasizes his role as such, he also shows that Jesus was not uniformly recognized in this role (Gibbs 2006, 76).

As the “Son of Abraham,” which Gibbs observes was not considered a Messianic title, Matthew shows Jesus as the descendant of Abraham, the fulfiller of God’s promise to Abraham, and the one through whom all nations are blessed (Gibbs 2006, 77). He did not come only for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles. Gibbs emphasizes that Matthew’s Gospel does not make the ministry to the Gentiles explicitly in many passages, but that it is periodically hinted at. The most explicit mention is in Matthew 28:16-20, the end of the Gospel, and here in the first verse of the Gospel.

By Matthew the Tax Collector Turned Apostle

6/11/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/11/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
“Matthew’s Location” pp. 59-67.

The issue of Matthew’s authorship and the time and place of composition is challenging. Gibbs grants that certainty is elusive, but that until relatively recently, the consensus was that Matthew, the tax collector, was the author. Opposition to this view grew after the Enlightenment until, by the 20th Century, the consensus no longer existed (Gibbs 2006, 59). Gibbs reviews the arguments against the consensus to show that the original opinion is a reasonable one.

The early church Fathers understood the gospel to be written by Matthew (Gibbs 2006, 60). Papias is reported by Eusebius as saying that the gospels bearing their names were written by Matthew and Mark (Gibbs 2006, 61). No other likely author was ever suggested. Gibbs therefore sees the burden of proof on those who would overturn the idea.

Others argue that the Gospels were anonymous, with names attached much later. However, we have no evidence that any of the Gospels were published anonymously. All the manuscripts which include the beginning are ascribed to Matthew (Gibbs 2006, 62).

Scholars who ascribe to Markan priority assume that Matthew the apostle would not have depended on a writing of a non-apostle such as Mark (Gibbs 2006, 62). Gibbs notes that this view requires the other Synoptic Gospel to depend on Mark. It also assumes that Matthew would hesitate to use something he considered divinely inspired. These are assumptions which don’t have any evidence.

A final objection is based on the well developed theology found in Matthew. Gibbs observes that the view of development of theology has been widely discredited (Gibbs 2006, 63). Therefore, there is no compelling reason to assume Matthew needed a late composition.

Gibbs concludes that the most reasonable view is that Matthew’s Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew, the tax collector (Gibbs 2006, 63). There is no compelling reason to overturn this historical view.

The dating of Matthew’s Gospel also presents challenges. While some suggest a late first century date, the evidence for Matthew’s dependence on Mark is not conclusive, so a date in the 50s is certainly plausible (Gibbs 2006, 64). Further, while some suggest a late date due to internal evidence, such as a suggestion that the parables of destruction indicate a situation after the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem, the argument assumes that Jesus could not have known what was yet to come, or that Matthew created the words of Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 65).

Gibbs concludes that Matthew’s Gospel was very likely written by Matthew the apostle, probably around A.D. 55 (Gibbs 2006, 66). Early tradition places Matthew in Jerusalem at this time, though there are some reasonable suggestions that he may have been in Antioch or some other location (Gibbs 2006, 67).

Matthew's Message of the Kingdom

6/4/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/4/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
“Matthew’s Intention:Themes” pp. 47-59

Gibbs finds three summary statements in Matthew’s Gospel, at 4:23, 9:35, and 11:1, which all describe the work of Jesus as teaching and healing (Gibbs 2006, 47). The content of Jesus’ teaching is further identified as centered around the reign of God or the reign of heaven. While specific identification of the meaning of the kingdom is a challenge, it seems clear to Gibbs that this is the central idea. Matthew identifies the news of the kingdom as “good news” (4:23, 9:35, 24:10) (Gibbs 2006, 48). Gibbs observes that the term “of heaven” or “of God” is best identified as an objective genitive, thus suggesting that it is God or his kingdom performing the acts of the reign (Gibbs 2006, 49). This reign is manifested in the life and work of Jesus, though his disciples participate in it according to Jesus’ command.

Gibbs notes also that in Jesus’ parables of the kingdom, each one describes activity such as Jesus the king does in his reign (Gibbs 2006, 49). The activity of the kingdom further suggests to Gibbs that God is moving to establish his reign. “If God the King must come to reestablish his rule in creation, that pimples that the creation is still fighting against its Creator, even though in an ultimate sense God has remained King of kings and Lord of lords (Gibbs 2006, 50). The work of the kingdom is to restore creation to wholeness. The reign of God is also necessarily eschatological as well. As God restores the world to a right relationship with himself he will usher in the end of the fallen world as we know it.

Matthew’s Gospel, then, looks forward to a fulfillment of the Christian’s eschatological hope in Jesus, who will finish his work of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies (Gibbs 2006, 52). Gibbs sees that Matthew wants his readers to find Jesus as the goal of God’s work with Israel (Gibbs 2006, 52). Jesus is the specific fulfiller of prophecy (Gibbs 2006, 53). He particularly fulfills predictive prophecies (Gibbs 2006, 53). He also shows himself as the one who interprets Scripture rightly (Gibbs 2006, 54). Because of this role of Jesus, we see that the message of all Scripture is cohesive. It all points to Jesus and his work, not to the kingdom of Israel.

Throughout Matthew’s Gospel the mission articulated by Jesus is clear: saving the lost and placing them into fellowship with God is the paramount work of Christ (Gibbs 2006, 55). Gibbs observes that this mission is for both Jews and Gentiles, who appear again and again in Matthew (Gibbs 2006, 56). In his work of mission, Jesus draws people to himself, extends calls to all sorts of people, and shows compassion through the disciples he sends out. They are carefully instructed and bring his message to others, sometimes successfully but sometimes not (Gibbs 2006, 57). Though Jesus calls all humans, only those who respond in faith are called his disciples or his brothers. Gibbs does not make an argument for a “brotherhood of all humans” point of view (Gibbs 2006, 58).

Matthew As Self-Contained Narrative

5/28/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
5/28/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
“Matthew’s Intention” pp. 8-58. “Matthew as Narrative” pp. 30-47.

Gibbs approaches Matthew as an independent narrative to be read and understood primarily “for its own sake,” i.e., without assuming a dependence on Mark’s Gospel (Gibbs 2006, 30). Gibbs observes that this means the evangelist was free to select and arrange details as he wished, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It also means that we need to be sensitive to the Gospel genre, a matter Gibbs discusses at more length (Gibbs 2006, 31).

Since the 19802, Gibbs identifies the rise of a critical method known often as “narrative criticism.” Because it has taken root in New Testament scholarship, Gibbs considers it worthy of examination (Gibbs 2006, 32). The method generally accepts interpretation of each Gospel on its own terms. Further, it is not concerned with finding or describing a community underlying the development of a gospel account. Rather, the account is considered complete enough that it can be read and accepted as a fair portrayal of the world, at least that of the particular Gospel.

A significant problem of narrative criticism is that it assumes an “implied reader.” This is the reader which the text seems to desire to have (Gibbs 2006, 33). The reader is assumed to have some certain knowledge and experience base. Discerning what that knowledge and experience base could be is a challenge. Further, and more difficult, the interpreter must discover what the narrative expects in terms of pre-existing beliefs (Gibbs 2006, 34). For this reason, Gibbs concludes, the actual personal understanding of Christianity and acceptance of it is essentially the same terms as the original readers of a Gospel account is needed to rightly understand it. Otherwise, some important principles are almost certain to be misunderstood. Gibbs has been deliberate in his attempts to read Matthew as the intended reader, and he considers this a right approach. However, he finds that there are both advantages and disadvantages in such a scholarly attempt (Gibbs 2006, 35).

A broad overview reading, required of the narrative reader, will clarify our view of many concepts. For instance, Gibbs notes that “the crowd” in Matthew is not the same as “the disciples.” The crowd generally has a minimal grasp of Jesus’ work, and is thus easily swayed. That could explain the welcome on Palm Sunday and the crisis for execution five days later (Gibbs 2006, 36). The narrative approach is helpful in finding context for passages. The smaller units do make part of a large picture, rather than serving as the picture themselves. As an example, Gibbs cites Matthew 22:15-22 and shows that Jesus’ words about paying Caesar are readlly a move to turn aside the constant and irrelevant attacks of the Pharisees, with a focus on repentance and life before God (Gibbs 2006, 37).

This strength of the narrative approach can also be a serious drawback. Application of events to the greater context of history and culture may be neglected, especially if the text does not specifically make a connection (Gibbs 2006, 37). Further, there are times when parallel accounts provide the context needed to understand a text. Gibbs sees this to be the case in our attempts to build an understanding of the events in the infancy narrative of Jesus.

Gibbs considers the structure and overall message of Matthew next (Gibbs 2006, 38). This will be important to his attempt to provide an adequate and balanced commentary based on the narrative as a whole. He initially considers whether the models based on the five main discourses reflect the actual structure adequatel. The five discourse approach may reduce the importance of the Passion and resurrection (Gibbs 2006, 39). This radically alters what most readers would see as the overall goal of Jesus’ actions.

Rather, Gibbs finds a “three-part narrative outline” (Gibbs 2006, 39), which others have also described. First, he considers 1:1-4:16, where Jesus is presented to the reader, but where Jesus does not yet begin to speak and teach. The Old Testament is cited extensively, the christological titles are introduced, and the events are presented as “in those days” (Gibbs 2006, 41). The second segment covers 4:17-16:20 beginning from the start of Jesus’ actual preaching and teaching. There is a division after Matthew 11:1, whih is used for the end of this commentary volume. 4:17-11:1 emphasizes Jesus’ authority, while 11:2-16:20 describes Jesus, identity and opponents (Gibbs 2006, 43). The third and final segment is 16:21-28:20, where Jesus deliberately moves to the cross both in is teaching and actions (Gibbs 2006, 45). Jesus’ authority returns to a place of prominence but this time it is rejected by his opponents (Gibbs 2006, 46). The goal of the Passion, resurrection, and Jesus, commission of his disciples becomes clear.

Matthew as Its Own Thing

5/21/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
5/21/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
“Matthew’s Intention” pp. 8-58. “Matthew as Scripture” pp. 8-12, “Matthew as ‘Independent Narrative’: The Synoptic Problem” pp. 12-30.

Gibbs observes that Chrsitians would gather to hear the Word of God, and that Matthew was apparently read. He now asks whether the earliest Christians considered Matthew’s Gospel to be a part of Scripture like the Old Testament. We have no definitive answer from the first century, so Gibbs asks a related question. ‘Did the First Evangelist consciously set out to author a document that possessed an authority and a character that would cause it to be received and regarded as God’s Word” (Gibbs 2006, 9)? On one level, Gibbs says, Matthew’s intent is realtively unimportant but the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the text as Scripture is. Yet it is important to consider why someone would recognize a document to be authoritative. The fact that a text would be read in churches does not make it authoritative Scripture (Gibbs 2006, 10). However, Gibbs find Matthew writing with the intention of showing the fulfilled goals of the Old Testament. “The story that claims to complete the Scriptural story is also desiring to be Scripture itself” (Gibbs 2006, 11, emphasis his). Further, Gibbs points out that Matthew as a distinctly Christological narrative intends to give an authoritative, detailed account of Jesus’ work. Finally, Gibbs observes that the earliest readers apparently accepted the canonical Gospels as having “the highest spiritual authority in the early Christian churches” (Gibbs 2006, 12).

Gibbs turns next to the Synoptic Problem, which he summarizes in simple terms. “Did the first canonical evangelist intend to write a revision of the work of the second? In terms of their origins and composition what is the relationship . . . between all three of the Synoptic Gospels” (Gibbs 2006, 12)? Gibbs considers this important as it can shed light on the intention of the author, thus leading to the ability to interpret the text fairly. To begin his evaluation, Gibbs turns to Papias, as quoted in Eusebius. Papias makes no connection between Matthew and Mark as to the composition of the Gospels.

The concept of “priority” in the composition of the Gospels is, however, more complex than that of timing. As to Matthean priority, “the modern use of that phrase carries the suppostiion that Mark used Matthew, the First Gospel, as his written source” (Gibbs 2006, 14, emphasis his). The idea of one evangelist using another evangelist’s work as a written source emerges no earlier than Augustine, and only questionably so at that time. The current ideas of “priority” are relatively recent, becoming widely accepted by the early 20th century. Gibbs observes that they are based on an assumption of direct literary dependence to explain material presented by different authors, an assumption Gibbs questions (Gibbs 2006, 17). For the sake of fairness, Gibbs does provide a brief description of the standard arguments for Markan priority, all predicated on the idea of direct literary dependence. Gibbs points out weaknesses corresponding to each argument. In the end, though, Gibbs rejects the idea of direct literary dependence, so finds the arguments of Markan priority to have no reliable foundation (Gibbs 2006, 20).

Gibbs acknowledges the need to identify a source for any composition of a factual nature. His solution is that “a combination of oral tradition, some smaller written materials, and the influence of the common teaching of the Jerusalem apostles suffices to explain the data as we have them in Matthew, Mark, and Luke” (Gibbs 2006, 21). Less than a third of the material in the Synoptic Gospels is presented in the same order and in all three Gospels. Other material, which is present in only two, normally appears in a different order and in different contexts. This so-called Q material is not used in the predictable way. Gibbs also observes that precise verbal agreements, which we might expect when a literary sources was essentially transcribed, exist only in small clusters of words (Gibbs 2006, 22). A sample of his comparison is provided (Gibbs 2006, 23-25). The texts for which literary dependence is alleged actually have only about a 60% agreement. The textual agreement is simply not strong, though the conceptual agreement is quite strong (Gibbs 2006, 27). Gibbs concludes that “each of the Gospels should be read on its own terms, for its own message, in a holistic way” (Gibbs 2006, 28). The Gospels are not pieces of a whole but each one is a whole in itself. The material which was included in the Gospel accounts was likely discussed freely during the 30s while the apostles had not scattered from Jerusalem. They understood the same things about Jesus (Gibbs 2006, 29). Oral transmission can certainly explain the agreement in content but the relative fluidity in wording which is found (Gibbs 2006, 30).

What Is a Gospel Account For?

5/14/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
5/14/20

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 1:1-11:1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
“Introduction: Matthew’s Audience” pp. 1-8

Gibbs affirms that Matthew’s Gospel was intended to address “a broad Christian audience of Jewish and Gentile worshiping communities in Syria and Palestine” (Gibbs 2006, 1). While Gibbs brings up the frequently asked question of Markan priority and of whether there is a “Matthewan community” that had particular needs, he quickly responds that those two ideas are really not necessary to understanding of the text. Further, as to the community, “some view the community’s needs as the reasons that elicited the traditions about the words and deeds of Jesus, traditions that the evangelist invented in order to speak to those needs” (Gibbs 2006, 2). However, Gibbs rejects this idea, affirming that the Gospel account accuraely records words and actions of Jesus.

Gibbs considers Richard Baukham’s work about the nature of the Gospels to be particularly enlightening. Gibbs reports that Baukham first considers the Gospel texts as literary biographies, therefore intended to circulate beyond narrow, particular communities. He further sees that the Gospels were written with an eye to preserving and transmitting the content through multiple generations, rather than as a literary item to be used and then abandoned (Gibbs 2006, 4). Finally, the Gospels do not appear to come from isolated communities which didn’t interact with one another. Rather, they seem to have a well connected network of different communities in mind (Gibbs 2006, 5).

The Gospels, further, do not seem to be overtly polemical in nature. Matthew certainly makes arguments for Jesus’ identity as the one who fulfills prophetic destiny. However, the text seems more to be an affirmation of Jesus’ words and deeds, to be received and reviewed by the community at worship (Gibbs 2006, 6). While we know relatively little about the actual practices of worship in the mid first century A.D., we have reason to believe that the Gospels were read in the community and that, as time went on, they may have been divided into smaller sections which then became associated with different parts of the calendar. There is considerable speculation about this idea. However, Gibbs is “certain that the Gospel of Matthew was read, over and over again, to baptized Christians who had gathered to hear God’s Word and to receive the Lord’s Supper” (Gibbs 2006, 8). It therefore gained a place in the liturgy of the community.