Category: Gibbs 2018

How Jesus Interprets the Bible

12/18/2024

Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
12/18/24

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 22:23-46" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1127-1173). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

   Matthew 22:23-33 describes a second verbal trap, this one set by the Sadducees, who asked about marriage and the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1127). Here, Gibbs notes that Matthew doesn't describe the encounter as an attempt to test Jesus. Further, Jesus doesn't specifically condemn the Sadducees as hypocrites, though he does point to their ignorance of both Scripture and God's power (Gibbs 2018, p. 1132). The content of the question is a serious contention, though. The Sadducees deny resurrection, a central hope of Israel, and a clear teaching of Jesus. While Gibbs acknowledges that the Old Testament does not take resurrection as the most important element of the future, it is certainly clear (Gibbs 2018, p. 1133).
   Gibbs briefly describes what is known about the Sadducees and their differences with other Israelite factions. He observes that, aside from Christian sources, we have very little information about a denial of resurrection. However, they do seem to consider death to be the end (Gibbs 2018, p. 1135).
   The Sadducees' question to Jesus seems intended to demonstrate the foolishness of the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1137). In their concept, in the resurrection the one woman would be wife to seven brothers, a position which would be rejected. Jesus' response accuses the Sadducees of being badly informed about Scripture as they assume marriage and its normal activities continue in the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1139). He then makes it clear that in the end death is to be reversed. Jesus' use of the passage about Moses and the burning bush interprets it to say that God is the God of those who live (Gibbs 2018, p. 1140). Gibbs observes that there is little evidence of Jesus taking this to mean that all are somehow alive to God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1142). Rather, Gibbs suggests, it must be taken to assert a future hope of the dead living again (Gibbs 2018, p. 1144).
   Gibbs makes a brief comparison of the similar passage in Luke 20, in which, in Gibbs' understanding, the main concept discussed is whether there will be a resurrection on the last day. Counter to some commentators, Gibbs does not see Jesus describing a situation in which people are actually not held in death, but rather a resurrection of the dead, at which time the dead return to life (Gibbs 2018, p. 1145-1146).
   A third trap is set for Jesus in Matthew 22:34-46. Pharisees ask Jesus what the central concept of the Law is (Gibbs 2018, p. 1148). Jesus provides not one, but two central issues, summarized simply as loving God with all your being, and loving the neighbor as yourself. Jesus then turns a new question upon the Pharisees, regarding David's statement in Psalm 110:1, where David speaks of the Lord and of a Son (Gibbs 2018, p. 1153). The encounter with the Pharisees still fits into the context of attempts to entrap Jesus, begun as early as Matthew 21. Jesus' response with a question thus fits his pattern of capturing the terms of the discussion from his opponents (Gibbs 2018, p. 1154).
   The challenge in Matthew 22:34-36 hinges on how Jesus will interpret the Scripture. If he doesn't interpret it in the same terms the Pharisees desire, they will declare him a false teacher (Gibbs 2018, p. 1156). In fact, Jesus gives a completely noncontroversial answer, using Deuteronomy 6:4-5 to illustrate the importance of loving obedience to God. Jesus goes on and adds the need to love one's neighbor, which may be slightly controversial, as the Pharisees were not known for their loving attitude but rather for their obedience (Gibbs 2018, p. 1157). However, Jesus' interactions with others have consistently spoken of love for the neighbor, which is entirely consistent with the way God has treated his people. The controversial material begins in verse 41, when Jesus asks the Pharisees a question about the way they interpret Scripture. The identity of the son of God is critical to Jesus' message. How, then, do the Pharisees identify the Messiah? (Gibbs 2018, p. 1159). The Pharisees will not be willing to answer this question.
   Gibbs discusses the historical interpretation of Psalm 110 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1160). There is at least some evidence that the Psalm was considered Messianic in nature, though it does not appear to be a universal understanding at the time of Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees. Jesus' question, then, may have taken the Pharisees by surprise and appeared to be a novel interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1161). The Psalm is indeed complex, having a number of oracles and indicating a relationship among different individuals identified as Lords (Gibbs 2018, p. 1163). Gibbs further notes that Jesus' actions as the Son of David were not the actions expected of a Messiah. His role as a descendant of the king, moreover, is not the most important factor of his Messiahship shown in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1165).
   The Pharisees were not willing to answer Jesus further. He had won the debate by this time, as he had effectively dominated all the arguments which had been put to him (Gibbs 2018, p. 1166). Gibbs closes his comments on this chapter with reflections on the importance of and the appearance of loving God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength. Jesus in his life and ministry accomplishes this in ways that no human has ever done. This is part and parcel of showing himself to be the Son of God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1169). His love for God reaches its peak as he embodies that love by atoning for the sins of humanity. While Christians are set a goal of perfect love for God, it is only ever accomplished as we are shown to be God's forgiven people and carry the love of Christ for the Father. Likewise, as we are to love our neighbors, we will always fail. However, Jesus' love for us as his neighbor has never failed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1171). Jesus' interpretation of the entire Old Testament is governed by love for God and love for the neighbor. His answer has settled the dispute with the Pharisees.

0 Comments

A Wedding Feast and a Trick Question

12/11/2024

0 Comments

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.

0 Comments

Matthew 21 - Jesus Turns Arguments Upon His Questioners

12/4/2024

0 Comments

Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
12/4/24

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 21" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1031-1098). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

   Matthew 21:1-11 describes the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, entering on a donkey, to the acclaim of his followers, much like a triumphant king coming in peace (Gibbs 2018, p. 1031). Gibbs observes that the narrative here is closely tied to the events preceding and following it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1036). The passage itself easily divides into verses 1-7, governed by Jesus' directions to his disciples, and the events' relation to Zechariah 9:9, then verses 8-11, governed by the reaction of the crowd and the city.
   Verses 1-7 in Matthew 21 refer both to the disciples and to the men Jesus had healed of blindness in 20:30-34, who stand as a contrast to James and John (Gibbs 2018, p. 1037). Gibbs notes that, in contrast to others, these blind men had recognized Jesus as the Davidic king. In chapter 21, then, we see a larger contrast between those welcoming Jesus as king and the city in general, which will reject Jesus. The entry itself is on a donkey colt, a move Gibbs sees as purposely significant of the right of the king described in Zechariah chapter nine (Gibbs 2018, p. 1038). The specific descriptor "humble" resolves any doubt as to the significance of Jesus' entry to the city. Matthew is particularly setting Jesus apart from the normal, earthly king (Gibbs 2018, p. 1039).
   In Matthew 21:8-11 we read about the response of the crowds and of Jerusalem in general to Jesus' entry into the city (Gibbs 2018, p. 1040). The crowd calls on Jesus and honors him as the Son of David. Gibbs notes that Psalm 118, a song of ascents, would have been used by people going up to Passover, so it is applied to Jesus as well here. While Gibbs is uncertain whether the crowd knew the significance of the action at the time or recognized it only later, they seem aware of an event of importance (Gibbs 2018, p. 1041). The crowds, when questioned by the people of the city, are not able to resolve the city's perplexity. Gibbs reflects briefly on several possible ways of misunderstanding Jesus' nature and work, both in the time of Matthew 21 and today (Gibbs 2018, p. 1042).
   The three other Gospels record Jesus' entry into Jerusalem mounted on one animal, while Matthew alone adduces a mare and a colt (Gibbs 2018, p. 1043). Matthew's citation of Zechariah 9 is clear about two animals. However, in Gibbs' opinion, Matthew has misconstrued the parallelism of Zechariah 9, which repeats the mention of the donkey on adjacent lines (Gibbs 2018, p. 1044). Gibbs briefly explores the plausible ways of coming to the conclusion of two animals and of Jesus riding both. He concludes that there were in fact two donkeys, that Jesus rode on only one, but on multiple garments, and that the other evangelists only mentioned the one donkey which carried Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1046).
   Matthew 21:12-17 describes Jesus in the temple, in conflict with the authorities who allow money changing and buying and selling animals for sacrifice there (Gibbs 2018, p. 1047). Gibbs, having made grammatical notes on 21:12-17, interrupts his flow somewhat with an introduction to the context of Matthew 21:12-23:39 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1050). He observes that verses 1-11 and the chapters leading up to it serve to anticipate Jesus' purpose, bringing him into the room, so to speak. Now, through 2339, Jesus is present in Jerusalem, actively engaged with an openly hostile audience. His questioners are attempting to destroy him. In all the interactions, Jesus refuses to allow his questioners to pursue their intentions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1051). Gibbs encourages careful attention to the combative context so as to rightly interpret passages in this portion of Matthew.
   Gibbs describes the precincts of the temple, the scene of much activity, in some detail (Gibbs 2018, p. 1053). At this time there were numerous buildings in the precincts. A low wall separated the areas open to all from the area open only to Jews (Gibbs 2018, p. 1054). Going beyond this barrier, there was an area where Jewish males and females could go. As one ascended the steps, women who were not bearing sacrifices were excluded, then all but the priests were prohibited. The most likely place for Jesus' actions in Matthew 21:12-13 would have been near the lower edge of the outer court. Gibbs notes that this would have been a busy area and was approximately 300 yards across, so it is entirely possible that not everyone in the area would have noticed Jesus' actions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1054).
   The circumstances suggest to Gibbs that we should re-evaluate Matthew 21:12-17. Rather than consider it a cleansing of the temple, preparatory to restoring it to its purpose as a place of sacrifice, Gibbs considers it as a judgment against the failed system (Gibbs 2018, p. 1055). The movement into the court of the Gentiles in verse 12 and the later move away from the temple in verse 17 suggest a concern not with Israel but with the Gentile world. In verses 12-14, Jesus depicts God's judgment on the temple establishment in terms of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11v (Gibbs 2018, p. 1056). Gibbs sees the use of Isaiah and Jeremiah to contradict the idea of Jesus' actions as a protest against commerce or dishonesty. Rather, his action symbolically interferes with the supply of animals for sacrifice (Gibbs 2018, p. 1057). The sin being judged, based on Jeremiah, is apparently that of refusing to repent and believe in Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1059). Gibbs observes that in this context, Jesus' action of healing people in Matthew 21:14 is all the more startling. He has come into a setting where he demonstrates God's judgment and redemption together.
   Matthew 21:15-17 shows the opposition to Jesus, as authorities object to the cries of "Hosanna" from children (Gibbs 2018, p. 1060). jesus' response to the questioners acknowledges hearing the people but refuses to agree with the premise. In this way, he takes control of the situation again.
   Matthew 21:18-22 describes Jesus' cursing a fig tree and his disciples' failure to understand the event (Gibbs 2018, p. 1063). Gobbs observes there is considerable debate about whether, and in what way, the passage may relate to surrounding contexts. The event is rather clearly a symbolic judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1064). An important question is what the tree symbolizes. Gibbs entertains the ideas of the tree as a symbol of Israel or as a symbol of the temple and the religious authorities, settling on the latter. Not all Israel is judged. However, the temple sacrificial system is coming to an end. Verses 20-22, then, is taken to refer not to prayer in general, but to the replacement of the sacrificial system with faith in Jesus' sacrificial death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1066). The context of the miracle and Jesus' teaching urges a recognition that the actions and words are related to Jesus' judgment on the sacrifices of the temple, not as a disconnected, abstract teaching about prayer (Gibbs 2018, p. 1067). The apostles will engage in the rejection of the symbolic fig tree, and will do other things as well. This is implicit in their witness to the world. Gibbs, then, takes the proper application of the passage to be a call to do what Jesus has entrusted to his followers (Gibbs 2018, p. 1069).
   In Matthew 21:23-32 the authorities in Jerusalem ask Jesus a question about his authority to do his miracles. Jesus again denies the premise of the question and turns it on his questioners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1071). In effect, Gibbs sees Jesus as demanding repentance from the chief priests and elders, thus challenging their legitimacy (Gibbs 2018, p. 1076). At issue is the failure of the leaders to repent at the preaching of John the Baptist (Gibbs 2018, p. 1077).
   Gibbs observes that Jesus' refusal to answer the question in Matthew 21:23 is followed by a question from Jesus in the form of the parable of the two children (Gibbs 2018, p. 1078). This parable has a number of textual variants, chiefly in the ordering of the two children, rather than in the overall thrust of the parable. However, Gibbs observes that the parable is somewhat out of place in its context. "The religious leaders do not obviously correspond to either child in the parable" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1078). This makes it difficult to interpret the purpose of the parable. The leaders do rightly identify the child who did the father's will. Then Jesus, in verse 32, points out that the leaders are not like either of the characters in the parable. They lose, but not due to association with a party to the question. A solution to the interpretive problem may be to conclude that both the children in the parable are actually partially obedient, while the chief priests were not even partially obedient (Gibbs 2018, p. 1079).
   Gibbs asks one more question regarding Jesus' words in Matthew 21:32. What, in Jesus' statement, is the "way of righteousness" that John the Baptist taught (Gibbs 2018, p. 1081)? A common view is that this is wrapped up in morality consistent with God's revelation. Gibbs, however, thinks it is appropriate to interpret this in terms of Matthew 3:15, when Jesus' baptism is "to fulfill all righteousness" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1081). This urges a view of Joh's teaching not in terms of our righteous acts but of God's works of salvation and of judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1082). The emphasis is on what God is doing in Christ rather than on what we do.
   Matthew 21 closes with a parable regarding wicked tenant farmers (21:33-46). Gibbs takes this parable to be directed against Israel's religious leaders, not against the overall unbelieving generation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1089). Though the people in general are at fault, Jesus' audience of chief priests recognize the parable attacks them directly. The problem in the vineyard is those who are governing it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1090).
   Matthew 21:33 begins with Jesus' request that people should hear a parable. This language, in Matthew, typically indicates some urgency. Jesus particularly wants his words to be heard and understood (Gibbs 2018, p. 1091). Gibbs sees the parable as a "strange" story. While there is an allusion to Isaiah 5:1-7, the story quickly moves into a different realm. The tenant farmers reject regular authority in a strikingly violent way (Gibbs 2018, p. 1092). The owner departs from normal behavior by showing incredible patience (Gibbs 2018, p. 1093). He refuses to use his ability to cast out and destroy his tenants. From an interpretive standpoint, it is fairly straightforward to see the owner as God, the servants as prophets, the son as Jesus, and the tenants as the religious authorities (Gibbs 2018, p. 1093-1094).
   Jesus' opponents, in Matthew 21:41, essentially condemn themselves, saying the vineyard should be given to someone else (Gibbs 2018, p. 1094). Jesus then, in verses 42-46, applies Old Testament imagery to himself, using material from Psalm 118. Gibbs briefly provides an exegesis of Psalm 118, demonstrating the understanding which the chief priests should reach, that Jesus, the rejected stone, is vindicated in the end (Gibbs 2018, p. 1095). When the realm of God is taken from the religious elites of Israel and given to someone else, something must change. Yet it is a matter of debate what the actual thing to be taken away is (Gibbs 2018, p. 1097). Gibbs takes it to be the blessing and salvation of God which will be taken from the priestly authorities and given, first to the eleven apostles, then to others following them. This does not necessarily imply Gentiles, though in practice that is what happened relatively quickly. In either case, the rejected stone will be the undoing of the Jewish authorities who have rejected Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1098).

0 Comments

How Jesus Interprets the Bible

A Wedding Feast and a Trick Question

Matthew 21 - Jesus Turns Arguments Upon His Questioners

Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

About Throwing Inkwells

Blog Feeds

Categories

How Jesus Interprets the Bible

A Wedding Feast and a Trick Question

Matthew 21 - Jesus Turns Arguments Upon His Questioners

​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

About Throwing Inkwells

Blog Feeds

Categories

Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!