Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Christianity 101
    • Greek Tutorials
  • Blog
  • Calendar
    • Events
  • Recording Archives
  • Sandbox

Jesus' Temptation

8/6/2020

0 Comments

 
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.

​
0 Comments

Matthew 7:15-23 - Lectionary for Trinity 8

7/30/2020

0 Comments

 
7/30/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Matthew 7:21-23 issues a stern warning to us. Here Jesus says that not everyone who calls on him or even does miracles in his name will be a partaker of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says this not to plant doubt, or to call people to do more good works in his name, but to urge his children on to do “the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

What is God’s will if it isn’t the kind of work detailed in verse 22? All that prophecy, casting out demons, and doing mighty works? What are we supposed to do that will be better than that?

Consider for a moment how Abraham was counted as righteous before God. He believed God and he was accounted as a righteous person in God’s eyes. Christians confess, with the apostle Paul in Ephesians chapter two, that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works of any kind. The action that pleases God is believing him, taking him at his word, knowing that he is the God who brings forgiveness, life, and salvation.

By no means does this say that we don’t have an obligation to live a holy life before God and our neighbor. Those works of righteousness are good. They are pleasing to God and they serve our neighbor. But they won’t save us from sin. We can’t possibly do saving works. God is the one who has done that, by having Jesus, God the Son, bear our sins and earn our salvation through his perfect righteousness on our behalf. We don’t do that. We receive it. Then God makes us to be the good tree, bearing good fruit, for the glory of God.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

The Baptism of the Christ

7/30/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

​
0 Comments

Meet John the Baptizer

7/23/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

​
0 Comments

Matthew 5:17-26 - Lectionary for Trinity 6

7/16/2020

0 Comments

 
7/16/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

The law always condemns. It certainly does more than condemning us, but it always condemns. Jesus, in Matthew 5:17-26, speaks highly of the Law of God. It will not pass away. Jesus’ role is to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. God’s Law is great. However, lest we make any mistake in this regard, Jesus goes on to show some of the implications of God’s Law. 

Murder is bad. It’s a terrible thing. It not only ends another person’s life, but it does so willingly and places the murderer in the role of Gd, who gets to decide when life begins and ends. The vast majority of people on the planet will affirm that murder is a bad thing and will be able to say quite honestly that they have never murdered anyone.

Jesus shows that our internal attitude toward others can be an act of murder. If we wish someone were dead, if we are hostile toward someone, if we are insulting, we have placed ourselves in the role of God as the judge over that person. In effect, we have done the very same kind of sinful thing that is done in murder, except the person’s life isn’t irretrievably lost. It may, however, be lost to us and to others who value our opinion, in a practical sense, because a reputation and social interactions are critical pieces of life.

So how are we doing at keeping God’s Law? Jesus keeps turning up the heat and telling us the underlying implications of the Law. And the more he does it, the more quickly we fall under condemnation.

What’s the point of all this? Jesus tells his hearers to repent and to seek peace with those they sin against. The same applies to us and, no doubt, one of the people we have sinned against is God himself. As we seek reconciliation, and as we realize that Jesus is the one who has reconciled us to God, we are declared not guilty. By God’s grace, though the Law would convict us, the Gospel has set us free, free to live at peace with God and with others. The call of God’s Law is to turn to the Gospel, since we realize our need.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Jesus as the New Israel, not the New Moses

7/16/2020

0 Comments

 
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.

​
0 Comments

Two Kings Plus Messengers

7/9/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

​
0 Comments

The Naming of the Messiah

7/2/2020

0 Comments

 
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.

0 Comments

What's in a Lineage?

6/25/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

​
0 Comments

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

6/18/2020

0 Comments

 
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.

0 Comments

By Matthew the Tax Collector Turned Apostle

6/11/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Message of the Kingdom

6/4/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

​
0 Comments

Matthew As Self-Contained Narrative

5/28/2020

0 Comments

 
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.

​
0 Comments

Matthew as Its Own Thing

5/21/2020

0 Comments

 
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).

0 Comments

What Is a Gospel Account For?

5/14/2020

0 Comments

 
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.

​
0 Comments

Matthew 27:11-66 - Lectionary for Sunday of the Passion

4/2/2020

0 Comments

 
4/2/20 Read the passage here.  
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Matthew’s Gospel does two interesting things that we might not notice immediately but which I would like to bring out a little today. 

It is relatively easy to see that from the beginning Matthew points us to Jesus’ work fulfilling prophecy. This is particularly intense near the end of the Gospel account, though Matthew mentions it less. In this week’s reading, among the many actions leading up to the crucifixion, even the Gentiles are presented with dreams and visions, make prophetic statements which accord with the Old Testament, and engage in prophetic activities. The crowd even asks that Jesus, the Son of God, should die in place of Barabbas, whose name means “son of father.” They ask that his blood should be upon them. The actions of veses 32-46 specificlly fulfill prophecies, many of which are found in Psalm 22, which Jesus refers to from the cross. The culmination of the Gospel account is that Jesus has fulfilled prophecy.

Another feature of Matthew, which doesn’t show up quite as obviously, is that Matthew almost always leaves people needing to decide for themselves how they are going to understand Jesus. In the end, Pilate seems to have concluded that he is the son of God, a king, and someone he does not wish to offend. Others have decided to revile him regardless, but they seem to have an accurate account of his claims. He claims to be the Son of God, but they are not going to believe. There are bystanders who seem eager to hear whatever he says. Maybe he is calling Elijah who will usher in the kingdom of God! The centurion understands that Jesus’ death was not normal. He concludes that Jesus is the Son of God. The rich man gives his tomb over, indicating that he doesn’t think Jesus is any common (or uncommon) criminal. The Pharisees think something is going to happen, so they ask for guards. Pilate’s orders suggest that he thinks something may just happen and that the guards won’t be of much use.

When we look at the death and burial of Christ, his rest in the tomb, how do we consider him? What conclusions do we make about life, death, and the eternal hope Jesus has promised? Matthew leaves that conclusion to us. Yet is is clear how he wants us to understand it. Jesus, God the Son, lived a life of righteousness in our place, died as an innocent man, tore the veil of separation between God and man apart from top to bottom, and rose victorious over death. He kept all the promises he made. Jesus is presented as the very real and living God, coming for us. I pray that we will all come to the same conclusion, that we will find ourselves in agreement with this good news, for the Gospel is indeed a book of good news.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 15:21-28 - Lectionary for Lent 2

3/5/2020

0 Comments

 
3/5/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

“My child is severely oppressed.” Maybe we need to put this into a more current paradigm. My child is sick, discouraged, tormented, disoriented. You name it, the Scripture knows about the ways we can suffer. Perhaps the Canaanite woman’s daughter is under attack by spiritual forces. Perhaps the woman is misdiagnosing it. In the end, it doesn’t matter very much. The girl is suffering. Her mother is concerned for her well being. She is in fear that the girl’s life may be ended in one way or another. My child is in trouble. What will I do?

The answer of the disciples and then of Jesus is striking. “Go away, you Canaanite. We were only sent to heal the people of Israel.” While we can’t know what the actual nonverbal communication might have been, I’m going to suggest just one possibility. The disciples had told the woman to get lost. Jesus heard them doing that. He also knew, as did the woman, that she had come to see him, not his disciples. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus looked the woman in the eye, smiled a little, and told her again what the disciples had said. Maybe he winked at her. We don’t know. But what if she thought he was playing along with her against the idea of the disciples? There would be every reason for her to keep asking. There would be every reason for her to suggest that she should be cared for like the pet who is present at the master’s table. It is altogether possible that she is making a gentle dig at the disciples.

In the end, what we do know is that Jesus healed the woman’s daughter. Her prayer was heard and answered. She didn’t get lost, because God’s mercy was yet to be poured out on her and her family. She was in just the right place of healing.

Jesus shows himself to be the mighty God who heals all nations, not just those who are biologically related to Jacob, named Israel. Jesus cares for the outsiders, the Canaanites, those who have been separated from God’s promise by their own or their nations’ disobedience. Jesus loves and heals those who come to Him in faith. Even the crumbs from his table are enough to sustain all the nations of the world. He is that kind of master.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 4:1-11 - Lectionary for Lent 1

2/27/2020

0 Comments

 
2/27/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (v. 4b, ESV). This is how Jesus endured the temptation of Satan. When he was assaulted by the devil, he responded with God’s Word. But which Word of God is this? Satan responds with quotations from Scripture, yet he is tempting Jesus to disobedience and destruction! How are normal humans like you and I supposed to deal with this temptation and with the Scripture?

I was recently having a conversation with a friend who was critical of an emotionalistic movement in Christianity. He said it was wrong, and that the corrective was that we had to hear the Scripture and understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. That’s a nice attempt, but it is also precisely what the people within that emotionalistic movement would say they did. Others will try to take long standing Christian tradition as the guide. That’s what people in my theological camp are alleged to do blindly. A solid tradition is a great guide. But not all traditions are solid and biblical. We can find examples of just about every erroneous understanding of Scripture prior to the year 400. 

We live by every word that comes from the mouth of God. We’re going to understand God’s Word in ways that are both historically demonstrated to be sound and that can be held in concert with all the rest of Scripture. In the time of the Lutheran Reformation, the idea was promoted that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Specifically, the passages of Scripture which are easily understood, which speak clearly, and which have always been recognized as authoritative Scripture (i.e., not Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 or 3 John, Jude, or Revelation) will be used to guide the interpretation of other passages of Scripture. In general, we want to be very cautious about a brand new understanding of a passage that nobody has ever found before. We also want to be very hesitant to make a difficult passage of Scripture guide our interpretation of a more clear passage. 

Jesus, the living Word of God, speaking the written Word of God, stands up to the temptations of Satan himself. He finally tells Satan to get lost, which Satan does. May the Lord give us all the readiness to handle God’s Word so clearly.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 20:1-16 - Lectionary for Septuagesima Sunday

2/6/2020

0 Comments

 
2/6/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Our Gospel this week is Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard. When those who worked all day realized that they were being paid the same as those who had come in just at the end of the day, they were indignant. We always want some sort of difference in rewards, specifically, a difference based on how hard we worked. The owner of the vineyard would have nothing of this. It is his money, he can “waste” it on whatever people he wants.

In Christ’s kingdom, there is no special value of those who have always been Christians as opposed to recent converts. Nobody is exalted due to coming from a long line of Christians or even of pastors. We all stand at the foot of the cross. We have all come at the Master’s invitation. None of us has a special place of honor. We have all been selected and have experienced Christ’s loving care lavished upon us. This is the love of God in Christ.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 17:1-9 - Lectionary for Sunday of the Transfiguration

1/31/2020

0 Comments

 
1/31/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

An encounter with the living God is terrifying, and rightly so. We are not able to stand before the holiness and majesty of God. In Matthew 17, we should not be surprised that Peter, James and John were undone by God’s appearance.

Those who wish for an unmediated encounter with God would do well to take caution. None can stand in His presence. Rather, it is the Christ, Jesus, both God and Man, who is able to serve as our mediator. His humanity, standing in for ours, is able to stand in the presence of God. After all, Jesus possesses both a human and a divine nature. He, the perfect human, always stands in the presence of the perfect God.

This is a hard thing to comprehend. Jesus, our Mediator, makes us to stand before God without fear, as He did for His disciples in verse seven. It is by his presence as the sinless man who lives and dies for us that we can stand. So we are able to endure that encounter with the living God, only through Christ the Lord. We are rightly thankful for his presence and work on our behalf.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 11:2-11 - Lectionary for Advent 3

12/12/2019

0 Comments

 
12/12/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

The words and deeds of Christ are controversial, as they have been since the time of John the Baptizer’s imprisonment. John’s question to Jesus in Matthew 11:2-11 is whether Jesus is really the Messiah. Jesus’ answer is that John has to make up his own mind. What are the works of Jesus? How do they compare with what John knows of the Messiah. He is healing, even raising the dead, and he is preaching good news to the poor. Are these the works of the Messiah?

These are the works of the Messiah. But Jesus is not the Messiah that some cultures want. After all, by some accounts he should have crushed the Roman government, that bunch of oppressive and hateful people. Maybe he should have given free money and food to all who wanted it. At least it would have been nice if he had healed all sicknesses forever and made it so nobody would ever sin against me again forever. If Jesus was going to usher in a new order of the ages, at least he could have done it the way my imagination would prefer. 

This is just the problem we have with all the biblical prophets and other leaders, all the way up to Christ, who showed himself to be God the Son, savior of the world, conqueror of sin, death, and the grave. They don’t do things the way we wanted them to. John was still beheaded in prison. Jesus heals people and they get sick again. They even die! The poor are still among us. For all the preaching about peace, we live in a world of war. What’s going on with all this?

Jesus points out to his listeners that they also didn’t recognize John the Baptizer for what he was. They thought he was some sort of oddball, and really he was, but he was a prophet who would point people to God. In the final analysis, when we try to understand God’s work in terms of our momentary temporal existence in a sin-cursed world, we don’t normally manage the task. This is why we need God’s perspective, as He has delivered it to us in the Scripture. We are then prepared to look through God’s eyes and see that Jesus is rescuing people from sin, death, and an eternity of penalty by grace through faith, delivering them into eternal life. We can see those around us as God sees them, as people who are laboring underneath the weight of the curse of sin and who cannot rescue themselves. We can bring the Gospel - good news of forgiveness, life, and salvation - to the least and the greatest of those surrounding us. We begin to see that Jesus is accomplishing the will of God the Father and that we are along for the ride.

We, like John, may still be imprisoned. We may sometimes lose sight of what God has done in Christ. At those times we are reminded, as was John, that Jesus is doing the work of the Messiah. He is reconciling the world to himself.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 21:1-9 - Lectionary for Advent 1

11/28/2019

0 Comments

 
11/28/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Our Gospel reading for Advent 1, from Matthew 21, shows a coming of Christ, as He enters Jerusalem, with a donkey, a sign of a humble and gentle king, not one coming in war. Jesus has apparently made arrangements beforehand, though they seem to be news to his disciples. The donkey and her colt are available for Jesus. Instead of leading the donkey, as a healthy man would, Jesus is seated on her. This is a sign of honor, as also are the cloaks and branches laid on the road. It was a sign of great importance for a man to walk on a rug or garments, rather than on the ground. The crowds further emphasize their reception of Jesus, shouting out, identifying him as the Son of David, not only the rightful king but also as the one who comes in God’s name. This is more than a kingly welcome. It is the welcome you would give to God.

The arrival in Jerusalem of Jesus is precisely that. God has come to dwell among His people. He has come as the humble, righteous, and merciful Son of David. He has come to rescue his people from the tyranny of the false kings. He has come in peace to overthrow worldly power. Matthew further notes that he has done it to fulfill the prophecy. As always, Matthew shows Jesus as the one who fulfills the requirements and predictions of God’s words. He is the mighty Lord who accomplishes all that has been written of him. He is the savior.

In this season of Advent, our prayer is that Jesus would show himself as the same kind of king in our lives, that he would come to us as the gentle but mighty king, and that he would rule in our hearts and lives as well. Hosanna to the King. Thanks be to God.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 11:25-30 - Lectionary for the Commemoration of Matthias

2/21/2019

0 Comments

 
2/21/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Our Gospel reading, from Matthew 11:25-30, shows Jesus rejoicing in the way the Father has revealed the things of eternal life to even little children. The sublime God of all is revealed through God the Son, who invites “all who labor and are heavy laden” (Matt. 11:28a, ESV) to himself.

This is a wonderful call. After all, it isn’t easy to carry on life in this sin-cursed world, where we work and toil, gaining our sustenance by sweat. Even our children, young and sheltered though they be, become frustrated. There’s always something to draw our labor and leave us burdened. Who does Jesus call? He calls us all. Follow along with him, learn from him, benefit from his willingness to humble himself, find rest, peace, hope, and finally life.

The walk of the unbeliever is not easy. Its end is death. The walk of the Christian is not easy. But we tired and heavy laden people find Jesus with us, and at last a death which passes into a glorious resurrection. This is life indeed.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew 2:1-12 - Lectionary for Epiphany, Series C

1/3/2019

0 Comments

 
1/3/19
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the three-year lectionary.

Our Gospel passage for Epiphany is drawn from Matthew chapter two. Here some wise men (no number specified) came to Jerusalem to try to find the king of the Jews, a newborn. Herod, who was already the king, was bothered by this bit of information. Not only did he not have a small child who would become king after himself, these people from a foreign land seemed to have supernatural knowledge of something. Maybe they were intending to find a child and place the child on the throne under their guidance? Maybe there was some deception afoot from Rome? Maybe there was something miraculous happening, but Herod would not have generally expected that.

The chief priests and scribes were able to find the prophecy which pointed them to Bethlehem. The wise men went on to find the child. They were apparently taken in by Herod’s insistence that he wanted to know the location so he could come and worship. After all, in verse 12, the wise men were warned by God in a dream not to disclose the location to Herod.

Jesus, the newborn king of the Jews, the newborn king of all creation, was found. He was presented with noble gifts, but of the sort that could also be used to prepare someone for death and burial. Here the Scripture foreshadows the fact that Jesus is going to die for those over whom he rules. This was the plan of God from time immemorial, revealed in these last days.

The word “Epiphany” means “a revealing.” During the time of Epiphany our readings will be about the way Jesus, God the Son, is revealed to be exactly the savior we need. I invite you to read along and to join with others as we look in wonder at this newborn king of the ages.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

0 Comments

Matthew

4/5/2018

0 Comments

 
Thursdays are for the New Testament
4/5/18
Carson, D.A., and Douglas Moo An Introduction to the New Testament - Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. "Matthew" Carson & Moo pp. 134-168

CONTENTS
The discussion of the outline of a book of the Bible has always seemed curious to me. Carson & Moo are no exception in this chapter. They review various means of outlining the book, seeing that some authors have identified geographic frameworks, some have looked at christological development, and some have looked at a series of multiple discourses. It strikes me that we do best to observe important features of a text but not worry too much about what framework the author had in mind if it is not patently obvious.

AUTHOR
Authorship of books of the Bible is a difficult issue. After all, many of the texts in Scripture have no internal ascription. Scholars of a more liberal bent will frequently suggest that false claims to authorship were rampant in antiquity so where we have a claim to authorship in the Bible we should assume it is false. It does appear that the Gospels had the names of the evangelists attached to them prior to A.D. 140 and that the identification of authors may well have been present from very early on. After all, we don't seem to have any question about which Gospel is attributed to which author, as might have happened if there were a lengthy period of doubt. There are suggestions that Matthew may have originally been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, this claim may have been misplaced, as it may also be a claim made about another writing from the apostolic age. The place of authorship is not known. It would seem from the text that it was written in a place where there was both a significant Jewish cultural foundation and a substantial number of Gentiles who would not be completely familiar with Jewish customs.

DATE
Many scholars consider that Matthew was influenced by Mark, dating Matthew at A.D. 80 or later. Yet a number of scholars are now dating all the synoptics prior to 70 and suggesting that Mark may not have had primacy. The early church fathers viewed Matthew as the first of the evangelists to write.

DESTINATION
We should hesitate to assume that the gospels were written to incite conversion to Christ. They seem aimed at those who believe on Jesus and need ongoing encouragement in their faith. Matthew seems to be aimed at a predominantly Jewish audience. Yet he explains many of the Jewish customs, which may indicate that he intended the gospel to be useful to Gentiles as well.

PURPOSE
Matthew does not state why he wrote the Gospel. There are many different themes in the text. So it's difficult to say what his purpose was. We do see among the primary themes a description of events in the life of Jesus, as well as a good deal of Old Testament justification for the actions of Jesus. Jesus is clearly presented as the Messiah promised by God, the one who is rejected by Jewish leaders, and the one who is bringing in his eschatalogical kingdom, reigning over and protecting all who trust him.

TEXT
The text of Matthew is well attested. There are places where attempts to harmonize Matthew with other Gospels will be frustrating. Yet the text itself is stable and understandable.

ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Matthew was universally accepted in antiquity except by Marcion, who rejected all things which seemed Jewish. The book's canonical status has never been seriously questioned.

MATTHEW IN RECENT STUDIES
Matthew's Gospel tended to be ingnored by English-language scholars until the latter part of the 20th Century. In recent years there have been more major commentaries. Text-critical studies have been fairly common until recently, as scholars wish to see how the text may have been pasted together from various other sources. But in recent years more commentators have been looking at the text as a cohesive whole.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF MATTHEW
Matthew contributes to the canon especially in his preservation of "large blocks of Jesus' teaching" (p. 163), by giving us the story of the incarnation from Joseph's point of view, by emphasizing Jesus' life and work as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, by viewing Jesus as the one who fulfills the law of God, by looking forward to the relationship between Israel and the Church, and by emphasizing roles of Jesus such as "Christ, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Servant of the Lord" (p. 164) etc.

​
0 Comments
<<Previous

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1-thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2-kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Alesso-2009
    Allitt-2010
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Aristotle
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bauckham 2006
    Belonging
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Boehme-2010
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-day
    Chronicles
    Circumcision-and-naming-of-christ
    Colossians
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Culley 1986
    Daniel
    DeHalleux 1996
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Draper
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1996
    Easter 2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter 3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter 4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter 5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter 6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter 7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter Day
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria-2014
    Ephesians
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell 1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser 1996
    Forde-2007
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Genesis
    Gibbs 2006
    Gonzalez-2010
    Grosvener & Schaff 1885
    Grosvenor 1884
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Harnack 1884
    Hebrews
    Henderson 1992
    Henderson-1992
    History
    Hoffman 1986
    Hosea
    Hutchens-2013
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    James
    Jeffreys 1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Justin-martyr
    Kelber 1987
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Koch-2010
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year C
    Lectionary
    Lent 1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent 2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent 3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent 4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent 5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln 1885
    Long-2009
    Lord 1986
    Lord 1987
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Malachi
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1996
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2012
    Mitch-2010
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller 2006
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niederwimmer 1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen 1986
    Ong 1987
    Ong 1988
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Parks 1986
    Passionb
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost 16C
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Sunday
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Preaching
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Receptivity
    Reformation
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Ruth
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Smith-2009
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Taylor 1888
    Teaching
    Thielman-2010
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tuckett
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Warfield 1886
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly