Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - Matthew's Gospel
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Bible Study - Ephesians
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

"Son of God" as Jesus' Official Title in Matthew

8/28/2025

0 Comments

 
Thursday Scholarly Notes
8/28/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975).  Chapter 2: The Christology of Matthew: The Title Son of God." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 40-83). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
    Because Kingsbury maintains that Matthew's Gospel is primarily christological in nature, he proceeds to approach the various topics found in Matthew in christological terms, with each shedding light on some aspect of the nature of Christ. In this chapter, he argues "that 'Son of God' is the central christological title of Matthew" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 41). This differs from much of the contemporary scholarship cited by Kingsbury, which has considerable diversity in terms of the central title used to describe Jesus' identity.
    Kingsbury considers the title "Son of God" as introduced in 1:1-4:16 to be represented also by parallel terms such as "the Son" or "my/his Son" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 42). In the birth narratives, while Jesus is identified as the Son of David, he is also identified as the Son of God, having been conceived by special means of the Father through Mary (Kingsbury 1975, p. 43).
    In the narrative of the Magi, Kingsbury notes the frequent use of regal language around Jesus (Kingsbury 1975, p. 45). The newborn is considered by Herod and the Magi as some sort of divine figure. In the narrative Jesus is regularly referenced as "the child" in such a way as to reject any conclusions that he is the son of Joseph. Kingsbury further notes the eschatological language used about Jesus. The divine promise made to Abraham is presented as coming to all humans through Jesus. This is something only God's representative could do (Kingsbury 1975, p. 46).
    In the account of Jesus' baptism, temptation, and relocation (3:13-4:16) Kingsbury notes a central theme of Jesus as the perfectly obedient one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 48). The sign of the Holy Spirit in 4:17 demonstrates that Jesus is divinely empowered for his work. He is openly endorsed by the Father and the Spirit (Kingsbury 1975, p. 49). The baptism thus declares Jesus to be the one and only Son of God. As with the baptism, so the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (4:1-11) portrays Jesus as the perfectly obedient Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 51). 
    In 4:17-10:42, the title "Son of God" or its equivalent does not appear. For this reason, Kingsbury seeks out a convincing argument that the title "Son of God" remains central to the concept held in Matthew (Kingsbury 1975, p. 53). This reason, Kingsbury considers, is that the title is not a "public" title. It is not used by outsiders to refer to Jesus except in mocking him. Even the disciples refer to Jesus as κύριε rather than υἱὲ θεοῦ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 54). Within Matthew 4:17-10:42, Jesus is engaged in dealing with the outsiders who would not be privy to the term "Son of God." Kingsbury further notes that, in other passages in Matthew, both κύριος and Messiah are used as synonyms for "Son of God." Within this section, those terms are still used to address Jesus. A further piece of evidence Kingsbury notes is that within this passage, Jesus describes his disciples who believe in him as sons of God, the heavenly Father. This strongly suggests Jesus is applying to them the status of sonship before God which he had applied to himself (Kingsbury 1975, p. 55). Additionally, Jesus continues to show divine authority in his teaching. His frequent choice of a mountain as a setting points to the many times God has revealed himself on a mountain (Kingsbury 1975, p. 57). 
    A note on the organization of the chapter is in order. Though Kingsbury began by breaking Matthew 4:17-28:20 into smaller parts, he departed from that organizational plan, here adducing passages throughout the second portion of Matthew (Kingsbury 1975, p. 56ff).
    While Kingsbury observes the importance of the title "Son of God" in Matthew, he also considers the displayed authority of Jesus as his central characteristic (Kingsbury 1975, p. 58). It is as the one who possesses authority that Jesus teaches and preaches. Kingsbury discusses in some detail the signs of authority in Jesus' teaching (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 60-61) and in his works of healing (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 61-63). Kingsbury concludes that the ongoing moves of Matthew to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God in 4:17-10:42, though without using the descriptor specifically, assert him as the Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 63).
    In Matthew 11-12, though Israel has not recognized Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus is still portrayed as God who has come to dwell with His people (Kingsbury 1975, p. 63). He thanks the Father for revealing him to the "infants" even though he has not been understood in general (Kingsbury 1975, p. 64). Yet it is the Father's will to reveal the Son. Due to Israel's continued rejection of Jesus, he turns to teaching in parables. Yet his disciples continue to see his acts showing divine sovereignty, such as his walking on water in 14:22-33 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 66). Matthew continues to portray the confusion about Jesus' proper identity as we continue reading. 
    Kingsbury sees the next high point in the discussion with Peter in chapter 16. Counter to other people, Peter, as spokesperson for the Twelve, has come to know that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 67). The text continues with a move to the Transfiguration, where Matthew presents Jesus as the one who can overcome the fear of the disciples who have been confronted with God's glory (Kingsbury 1975, p. 68). Jesus is presented as the one in whom God's presence resides and as the one to be listened to. As parabolic actions and teaching continue, Jesus presents himself as the Son, the one who is with Israel (Kingsbury 1975, p. 71).
    Kingsbury moves on to the passion narrative. As Jesus prays in the garden it is significant that he specifically addresses God as "my Father" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 73). The motif of Jesus as the Son of God is continued in the trial of Jesus, where he agrees with the High Priest's question about being the Son of God, then immediately equates that term with the Son of Man (26:62-64). It is the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God which serves as his condemnation to receive the death penalty (Kingsbury 1975, p. 74). The remainder of Matthew's account of the suffering of Jesus is infused with language affirming Jesus' identity as the Son of God. The events of the cross leave no doubt that Matthew portrays Jesus as the perfect Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 76). The culmination of the Gospel, in Matthew 28:16-20, completes the theme, which Kingsbury has argued exists throughout Matthew, of Jesus as the Son of God. Here, rather than being the suffering Son, he is the risen and glorified one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 77).

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Structural Concepts

8/21/2025

0 Comments

 
Thursday Scholarly Notes
8/21/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975).  Chapter 1: The Structure of Matthew's Gospel and His Concept of Salvation-History." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 1-39). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
    Kingsbury asserts a lack of consensus about both the structure of Matthew's Gospel and about the history of salvation (Kingsbury 1975, p. 1). For this reason, he proposes his view of each.
    From a structural standpoint, Kingsbury finds that some commentators have essentially assumed and described a topical structure in which there is no purposeful overall goal in the progression of topics (Kingsbury 1975, p. 2). A second type of topical structural outline leans toward Matthew structuring his writing in five parts, with some sort of connection to the Pentateuch (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 2ff). This perspective has gained much influence, though different interpreters approach the purpose of the parts in various ways. Because of the lack of overall agreement on the purposes of the portions of Matthew, while the divisions are reasonably easy to identify, the interpretive framework as a whole remains unstable.
    Kingsbury notes that from a structural standpoint it may be fruitful to consider the formula "from that time Jesus began" found at 4:17 and at 16:21 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 7). The two passages serve as pivotal instances in the narrative, in Kingsbury's view (Kingsbury 1975, p. 9). He therefore attempts to demonstrate that this is the appropriate transitional cue which Matthew uses to arrange his narrative. The passage 1:1-4:16 he takes to be a first section, introduced as the background information about Jesus' lineage, birth, and preparation to begin his tasks which consume the remaining two parts of the book (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 10-11). He makes extensive comments on chapter three, which could easily be seen as an independent sense unit. Kingsbury considers it to be closely tied to the earlier and later materials from a standpoint of language usage (Kingsbury 1975, p. 15). Kingsbury's overall conclusion is that 1:1-4:16 introduce the person of Jesus.
    Kingsbury takes Matthew 4:17-16:20 as focused on Jesus' public proclamation of himself as Messiah (Kingsbury 1975, p. 17). It is in this portion of the text tha Jesus performs miracles which accompany his teaching, attracting crowds. He commissions twelve disciples whose ministry resembles his. It is in this portion of the text that his popularity grows and shrinks (Kingsbury 1975, p. 18).
    The third and final portion of Matthew's Gospel may then be seen as 16:21-28:20, which describes Jesus' suffering, his death, and his resurrection (Kingsbury 1975, p. 21). In this section Jesus and the public come into greater tension as he is being rejected. He still heals people, but his teaching is primarily focused on his disciples (Kingsbury 1975, p. 22).
    Kingsbury, considering his structural thesis as proven fact, moves on to discuss Matthew in terms of salvation-history (Kingsbury 1975, p. 25) He notes there has been increasing interest in the conceptual framework in recent years. Much of the scholarship he considers has evaluated the conceptual structure in terms of salvation history. Kingsbury notes authors who take as central the concept of Christians serving as the true and new people of God, others as a shift from the call of Israel to a call of the Gentiles. The temporal shift and a shift in the way salvation is understood work together (Kingsbury 1975, p. 26). Patterns of analysis have typically divided salvation history itno three parts. Yet Kingsbury does not think that a three period view is a foregone conclusion (Kingsbury 1975, p. 27). 
    There is no contest to the fact that Matthew uses temporal terms more frequently than Mark (Kingsbury 1975, p. 27). While some of his usages are relatively vague, many are used in the context of vivid descriptions of a time to come. Matthew tends to give eschatological significance to his temporal markers (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 28-29).
    Of more importance to Kingsbury is his understanding tha Matthew considers history to be divided into only two periods, rather than the conventionally assumed three (Kingsbury 1975, p. 31). The "time of Jesus" takes over from the "time of Israel." Matthew would seem to consider himself as living in the "time of Jesus," which includes all the age of the Church (Kingsbury 1975, p. 32). Kingsbury finds that within Matthew the distinction is made between Jesus and his disciples, but there is not such a temporal distinction that would show a difference between a time of Jesus and a time of the church. This leads Kingsbury to conclude that "the christology of Matthew, not his ecclesiology, more than anything else has molded his concept of the history of salvation" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 36).
    In sum, Kingsbury understands Matthew to be topical, rather than chronological, in nature. The topical development he takes to be governed by matthew's Christology (Kingsbury 1975, p. 36). What chronology does exist in Matthew is a division of history into prophecy and its fulfillment in Christ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 37).
    Kingsbury ends the chapter with some comments on a study of Matthew by H. Frankemölle, released shortly before publication of this book. The study appears to take a covenant theology point of view, with a strong element of continuity rather than changes in era (Kingsbury 1975, p. 37). While Kingsbury does agree with Frankemölle on one level, he rejects the view of covenant theology which is used. The level of continuity which matthew shows between Old and New Testament is not as great, in Kingsbury's opinion, as Frankemölle would allege (Kingsbury 1975, p. 38). 

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Eight

5/29/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Eight

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty-Seven Jesus is executed.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 434-444.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

Recall that at the death of Jesus in chapter 27 there was an earthquake. In 28:2 there is one accompanying the resurrection as well. Matthew's account here suggests that the angel came at the same time as the women, and that Jesus was gone when the tomb was opened. What does this tell us about the nature of Jesus' body in the resurrection?

In verse 11 the guards tell the chief priests what happened. In the verses that follow, the chief priests engage in what they see as damage control. What do their actions signify?

We are told in other passages, notably in Luke/Acts, John, and 1 Cor. 15 of other post-resurrection events until Jesus ascended 40 days after the resurrection. Matthew jumps directly to the 40th day in verse 16.

Analyze the implications of verses 16-20 in detail. How do they anticipate what Christians still think and do?

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Seven

5/7/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Seven

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty-Six Jesus is arrested and tried.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 404-434.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

Matthew 27:1-10 shows Judas' regret that his betrayal of Jesus to the chief priests had actually led to a death sentence for Jesus. Consider especially his interaction with the chief priests and their response to him. How are Christians supposed to deal with a confession of sin?

Consider the interview Jesus has with Pilate, the governor, in Matthew 27:11-26. From the text of Matthew, try to understand Pilate's opinions and actions. Ask yourself who is in charge of the events described here. How does this compare to the description in John's Gospel chapters 18 and 19?

In verses 27-44, Jesus is mocked, in turn, by soldiers including an execution squad, by fellow prisoners, and by Jewish leaders. Would you expect this? Why or why not?

Was it necessary for Jesus to remain on the cross until he died? Why or why not?

What is unusual about the darkness described in Matthew 27:45-49? Consider the suggestions that it was an eclipse.

As you did with Jesus' hearing before Pilate, consider who is in charge of the events during the crucifixion itself. Compare these events to those depicted in the first half of Psalm 22.

As Jesus dies (Matthew 27:50), a number of other signs happen. What might God be showing us through Matthew's description in verses 51-53? Note that there is debate particularly about which curtain was torn and what it signified. The nature of the resurrection of people from the tombs is also uncertain.

Matthew 27:54-56 makes it clear there were a number of witnesses present at the death of Jesus. How are they and their reactions important?

As we conclude the chapter, what is the controversy about Jesus' tomb and its security? What are people's expectations?

​
0 Comments

Scripture - recognized, not imposed

5/1/2025

0 Comments

 
Tuesday Scholarly Notes
5/1/25

Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter 3: The Scriptures." in Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition." (pp. 52-79). Harper San Francisco. (Personal Library)
    Kelly notes that by the apostolic period, though the collection was not articulated as such, the Old Testament was agreed upon by Jews, and was quickly recognized by most Christians as their authoritative works as well (Kelly 1978, p. 52). The early Christians seem to have used the Septuagint including what we would now consider the Apocrypha rather than the more restricted Masoretic Text (Kelly 1978, p.
54).  The Apocrypha were less favorably received in the East than in the West. By the fourth century those works were regularly removed from readings in the East. In the West, in most settings, they were included as Scripture (Kelly 1978, p. 55).
    New Testament writings were recognized as Scripture at a very early period. Kelly cites Marcion, the second century heretic, as being the person who compelled Christians to make formal lists of what works belonged to a New Testament (Kelly 1978, p. 57). Kelly, evaluating this activity, notes that there is evidence of some recognized corpus of the New Testament prior to Marcion (Kelly 1978, p. 58). In any case, Marcion's rejection of some writings suggests a known collection from which some parts could be rejected. Kelly notes that the first actual list we have of our current New Testament works comes from Athanasius in 367, and that there was still ongoing debate about the contents into the sixth century (Kelly 1978, p. 60).
    Kelly notes that Christianity adopted a view of inspiration of Scripture from Judaism and quickly applied it to the New Testament writings as well as the Old (Kelly 1978, p. 61). The nature of inspiration as understood by the patristic authors was generally that the writers were taken into an ecstatic state and had little or no control of how they wrote what they did (Kelly 1978, p. 62). After the rise of Montanism, however, Christian interpreters tended to assign more personal care and consciousness to the biblical authors (Kelly 1978, p. 63).
    Issues of biblical interpretation were of considerable importance in early Christianity. In particular, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments was a matter of discussion (Kelly 1978, p. 64). A key interpretive element is seen in the canonical gospels as Chrsit and the evangelists treat the Old Testament as a Christian book, describing the Messiah (Kelly 1978, p. 65). This, then, is the pattern found in Acts and the epistles. A similar interpretation can be found in the post-apostolic authors as well. At times the interpretation of the Old Testament's symbolic references to Christ becomes more allegorical than most modern Chrsitians would like. Kelly describes a passage in the epistle of Barnabas (as interpreted by C.H. Dodd According to the Scriptures 1952, p. 9) in which Abraham's 318 servants show Christ. The Greek number 18 is IH, a common abbreviation of "Jesus." The number 300 is T, which looks like a cross (Kelly 1978, p. 66). Kelly goes on to note that such allegorical readings were not universal. There is a harmony between the Old and New Testaments. However, in general, the New Testament came to be seen as making the implications of the Old Testament more clear.
    Typology and allegory are terms normally used to describe interpretive methods. Kelly suggests avoiding the term "allegory" as it is understood differently now than it was in the patristic period (Kelly 1978, p. 70). In allegory, the details of a narrative itself play a relatively unimportant role, as they intend to symbolize other spiritual truths. The exegete's job is to identify these spiritual truths and explain them. In contrast to allegorical reading, typological readings interpret the Old Testament events as prefiguring or anticipating those in the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p. 71). The historical context of a type was important in determining its fulfillment, or antitype.
    Kelly observes that while typological exegesis became very normal within Christian teaching, allegorical exegesis was problematic. This is particularly the case in dealing with Marcionism and the various Gnostic movements, as they could pick and choose allegorical symbols to prove whatever they wished (Kelly 1978, p. 72). Allegorical interpretation was used in orthodox ways, particularly in Alexandria. However, it opened interpretive doors which could prove problematic (Kelly 1978, p. 73).
    Kelly refers finally to a reaction against allegorical exegesis of every sort. This reaction was centered in Antioch during the fourth and fifth centuries (Kelly 1978, p. 75). These interpreters maintained that an adequate understanding of the text would be based on the facts of the text rather than a symbolic understanding of letters or numbers within the text. This emphasis led to typological interpretations but a rejection of allegory (Kelly 1978, p. 76). Symbolic language could be accepted as symbolic, but the Scriptures are normally located in literal times and events.

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Six

4/22/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Six

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty-Five gives parables about preparedness, ability, and care for others.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 371-404.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

Matthew 26:2 has an identification of time, two days before the Passover, so Tuesday of Holy Week. The Jewish leaders at this time are determined to get rid of Jesus.

Verses 6-13 describe Jesus being anointed by a woman in Bethany. What does this action say about giving expensive gifts? What was the woman accomplishing?

Verses 14-16 describe Judas' arrangement to betray Jesus. Consider his incentive to do this.

Verses 17-25 describe preparations for Passover. The conversation turns to Jesus' upcoming betrayal. What is significant about the preparations? Consider also the interpersonal dynamic in verses 24-25.

The institution of the Lord's Supper is found in Matthew 26:26-30. Consider the way Christians have normally received communion, using almost identical words and actions, every Sunday. What does it give you?

Verses 31-35 predict Peter's denial of Jesus. Trace through the rest of this chapter and chapter 27 to see how Peter's rejection of Jesus progresses. Especially compare Jesus and his disciples in 26:36-46, then see them scattered afterward. Then return to Peter's actions in 26:69-74.

Verses 47-56 describe Jesus' arrest. In what ways does Jesus seem to be in charge of what happens? In what ways does he seem to be a victim of others?

Verses 57-68 describe Jesus' hearing before the Jewish authorities. What seems odd about the hearing?

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Five

4/16/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Five

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty-Four Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 356-370.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

Consider Matthew 25:1-13, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. The parable speaks of a coming judgment in which the wise and foolish are separated. How do the details of the actions describe life in general? What does the passage say about coming judgment?

Verses 14-30 describe the work of the disciple of Christ in terms of a servant who has been entrusted with money to care for in the master's absence. How does God provide us with what we need to do his work? How do we use the resources he has provided? Consider stewardship of both time and money.

Verses 31-46 are a parable of final judgment. In the last day, Jesus will separate his disciples who are faithful from those who are not faithful. Consider the distinctions between the two groups and their treatment.

​
0 Comments

Matthew 28 - Life in the Resurrection

4/10/2025

0 Comments

 
New Testament Studies
4/10/25

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 28" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1596-1659). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

"Matthew 28:1-10 The Promise Kept with One to God: Jesus Is Raised and Will Go to Galilee." (pp. 1596-1613).
    Matthew 28:1-10 describes the first post-resurrection events. Jesus moves from the dead to showing himself as very much alive. After extensive grammatical and textual notes, Gibbs notes that these verses easily divide into three parts (Gibbs 2018, p. 1603). First, the angel opens the tomb. Second, the angel tells the women not to fear. Third, Jesus appears to the women and sends them on their way with the message of resurrection.
    In Matthew 28:1, the women had gone to visit Jesus' grave. They had no expectation of finding Jesus alive (Gibbs 2018, p. 1604). Yet not only was there an earthquake, but they met an angel of God who caused the earthquake. Gibbs notes the multiple uses of ἰδοῦ (behold) in this passage. Something worth watching was happening. Not only has the angel removed the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb, but he has also frightened the soldiers so they could do nothing to guard the tomb (Gibbs 2018, p. 1606).
    The angel reminds the women not to fear. This is because Jesus is risen, in accord with his promise (Gibbs 2018, p. 1607). For this reason, the women are to go and tell the disciples that Jesus will keep another promise, that of appearing to them in Galilee (Gibbs 2018, p. 1608). Gibbs observes that this promise was made in Matthew 26:31-32. In the context, the disciples were all denying that they would fall away. Now, in chapter 28, Jesus will gather his scattered sheep again.
    To cap off the work of the angel, in Matthew 28:8-10 Jesus himself appears to the women while they go to the disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1609). The women were moved to worship Jesus. Their move to grab Jesus' feet testifies to a real physical presence, counter to Gnostic views that Jesus only seemed human (Gibbs 2018, p. 1610). It is significant, in Gibbs' estimation, that when Jesus repeats the call for the women to go to the disciples he calls them "my brothers" (28:10_ (Gibbs 2018, p. 1611). This serves as an affirmation that they can be reconciled to Jesus. It also suggests that they have a mission like his, to proclaim the Gospel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1612). It finally draws attention from the start of Psalm 22, referenced several times in chapter 27, to the later part of Psalm 22, which speaks of brothers and victory. Gibbs will unpack this further in his comments about Matthew 28:16-20 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1612). 

"Matthew 28:11-15 The Reign of Heaven Will Continue to Suffer, Even in Light of Easter." (pp. 1614-1620).
    In his notes regarding the text of Matthew 28:11-15, Gibbs observes the strong parallels between chapters 27 and 28 (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1614-1617). The soldiers, having recovered from their encounter with the angel, report what has happened to the high priest (Gibbs 2018, p. 1617). Gibbs briefly speculates about the content of the report from the soldiers. While we have no clear information about it, we can assume they reported the angelic encounter and the fact that Jesus was no longer in the tomb (Gibbs 2018, p. 1618). The most reasonable story to spread was that the soldiers fell asleep and the disciples stole the body. Gibbs notes the soldiers must have received a lot of money from the religious leaders, as sleeping on duty was a serious offense.

"Matthew 28:16-20 The Risen Jesus Assures, Sends, and Accompanies His Israel in Mission to All the Gentiles/Nations." (pp. 1621-1649).
    Matthew brings his Gospel account to an end by discussing the final earthly appearance of Jesus to his remaining eleven disciples. After extensive grammatical notes, Gibbs specifies that his commentary here will reference Matthew's Gospel as an independent source rather than making an attempt to harmonize the various topics as recorded in all four canonical Gospels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1628). In brief outline, he considers the passage to center on the identity of Jesus, the identity of the Eleven, and the identity of the Gentiles/nations.
    Matthew 28:16 describes Jesus appearing to his disciples in Galilee. Gibbs sees Galilee as the particular place of revelation of Jesus, as well as of reconciliation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1629). It is in Galilee that much of Jesus' ministry has centered. From Galilee is the place where the light of God will shine to all the world. Verse 17 shows the Eleven worshiping Jesus, now reconciled to him after they fell away. Yet some of the Eleven still had doubts. Gibbs considers the text to refer here still to the Eleven rather than referring to others, not of the Eleven (Gibbs 2018, p. 1630).
    Gibbs considers that, according to Matthew, jesus has fulfilled all things, including, as foreshadowed in Matthew 28:10, completing the second half of Psalm 22, where the Psalmist sparks of a proclamation to "my brothers" (Ps. 22:23) (Gibbs 2018, p. 1632). Gibbs describes a number of ways in which the final sentences of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel connect to the second portion of Psalm 22. 
    Gibbs sees the appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee as a reference to Daniel chapter seven, as Jesus is presented as the glorious Son of Man (Gibbs 2018, p. 1633). He is further presented as the Son of God, a clearly divine identity (Gibbs 2018, p. 1634). Gibbs notes the singular divine name Jesus shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit. As with other themes in Matthew, Gibbs considers the names used of Jesus throughout Matthew are now more clearly understood as part of the divine name. Gibbs takes this to be a means by which Jesus' various claims of his identity are finally vindicated (Gibbs 2018, p. 1637). He is fully shown as the Lord of all, the fulfillment of God's promises to the world.
    Gibbs takes Matthew 28:16-20 to also show definitively who the Eleven disciples are in their restoration to Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1638). Matthew has earlier established the special nature of Jesus' work through them. They have a special authority and special tasks (Gibbs 2018, p. 1639). In a way they represent the different tribes of Israel, as Jesus represents Israel in one person. Gibbs then sees the disciples as a start of the Church. However, he cannot say they serve as a replacement of Israel. Rather, he contends that the disciples serve for the Church as the patriarchs did for Israel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1640). Jesus is the fulfillment, rather than the replacement, for Israel.
    The command Jesus gives to his disciples in Matthew 28:19 is to make disciples. This remains the mission of the Church (Gibbs 2018, p. 1640). They do this by baptizing and teaching, with the promised presence of Jesus. Gibbs emphasizes that "ultimately the work of making disciples is rooted in [Jesus'] authority to save" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1641). It is decidedly not an authority held by the disciples. Jesus' summary of how they are to make disciples is that they do it baptizing and teaching others. The baptizing is specifically trinitarian in nature (Gibbs 2018, p. 1642). This brings people into a participation with God as Jesus has shown throughout Matthew. They are associated with Jesus' death and resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1643). The command to make disciples was given to the Eleven. However, Gibbs is clear that work continues to belong to the whole Church in every age. Those are the people who have been made into disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1645). Gibbs takes the mission of Matthew 28:19-20 to be incumbent on those who are pastors, but that it also applies to other Christians. All God's people are to evangelize (Gibbs 2018, p. 1646). Yet pastors are uniquely involved in the process.
    Verse 19 also refers to the people who are evangelized and taught, the "Gentiles," or the "nations" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1647). However, Gibbs maintains that ethnic Israel is always to be included in proclamations of the Gospel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1648). All the people of the world are to be baptized and taught.

"Excursus: The Resurrection of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel and in the New Testament." (pp. 1650-1659).
    Gibbs writes this brief excursus after his thoroughgoing commentary on Matthew' Gospel because, in his opinion, much of Western Christianity has emphasized the death of Jesus with scarce consideration of his resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1650). Without the resurrection, the story remains incomplete. And Gibbs finds that whenever the word εὐαγγέλιον (Gospel) is used in Matthew it always is related to events involved in the reign of Jesus, something which takes place in the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1652). Jesus not only predicts his death, but also his resurrection.
    Gibbs reviews a number of passages within Matthew in which it becomes clear that it is necessary that Jesus be raised. The final judgment, in particular, cannot happen until the time of resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1652). It is particularly clear from Jesus' use of texts from Psalms that the resurrection is critical to God's plan (Gibbs 2018, p. 1653). Of great importance in Gibbs' thought is the process by which, in Matthew 27, Jesus makes a cry of dereliction, then is raised from the dead to be received to heaven in Matthew 28 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1656). The cycle of dereliction and reconciliation is central to the work of redemption.

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Four

4/8/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Four

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty-Three Jesus condemns the actions of the Pharisees.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 337-356.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

In Matthew 24:1-3 the disciples wonder at the impressive temple. in the end, Jesus says even that will be destroyed. What are some things you think of as permanent? What if they are destroyed?

Verses 4-8 show some signs that the end of the world may be near. What is our response to this news? What of Jesus' statement that it is just the beginning?

Verses 9-14 speak of cultural changes. What is our response? How do we prepare for a time like this?

In verses 15-25 the picture grows darker. How are we to respond to such trials?

Verses 26-31 speak of both deception and the return of Jesus. Is there any danger of not noticing his return? 

Signs point to some different reality. What do the signs in Matthew 24 point to?

How do we live as people who expect the Lord's return?

​
0 Comments

Matthew 27, Part 2 - Jesus Is Executed

4/3/2025

0 Comments

 
New Testament Studies
4/3/25

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 27" (part 2) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1490-1595). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

"Matthew 27:27-38 Rome Has Its Way and God's Will Is Done: The King Goes to the Cross." (pp. 1537-1550).
    Gibbs finds in this passage a three part illustration of the work of Roman power to mock Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1541). He further observes that the actual crucifixion is not given substantial space in the text.
    First, Jesus is mocked in the Praetorium by a group of soldiers (Gibbs 2018, p. 1541). Though the group of soldiers would have been large, Gibbs observes such an activity may not have been surprising in its time. These soldiers evidently knew of the charge that Jesus was king of the Jews. Therefore, they mock him as one would a false king (Gibbs 2018, p. 1542). Gibbs finds that the actions of making requests of him and seeking him out as king of the Jews were used genuinely elsewhere in Matthew's Gospel. Here, however, the actions are used to mock him.
    As Matthew's narrative continues in 27:32-34, Jesus moves from the praetorium to the place of execution, Golgotha, "place of a skull" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1542). While Gibbs notes we could ask questions about Simon and his work carrying at least some portion of the cross, he considers the absence of Jesus' disciples to be a more important matter (Gibbs 2018, p. 1543). All the disciples had promised to be with Jesus. At this point, none was found, to the extent that there were no followers at all.
    Finally, in Matthew 27:35-38, Jesus, now helpless, is displayed in his crucifixion (Gibbs 2018, p. 1543). There is a strong allusion to Psalm 22 in verse 35. Other allusions can be found in verses 39, 43, and 46 v(Gibbs 2018, p. 1544). A charge is placed above Jesus' head, which serves as an indicator of the shape of the cross. To a Roman, the one identified as King of the Jews would be seen as treasonous. Matthew is very likely emphasizing the paradoxical nature of God's greatness which suffers and serves others.
    Gibbs continues with a brief discursus summarizing recent research about crucifixion (Gibbs 2018, p. 1545). Suspending a body for public display was nothing new in the first century AD. There is evidence for doing this before death or after death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1546). In the first century BC and the first century AD, the practice in the region was generally to suspend someone in a way which would bring death, then to leave the body on display. Often, the texts we have do not make it entirely clear what the other details are. Gibbs notes that one could be tied or nailed to a vertical post or something in the shape of a cross (Gibbs 2018, p. 1547). Death could be caused by asphyxiation, though there could be other causes of death. In the Roman world, it was considered a shameful way to die, so was taken very seriously. However, people other than slaves could be executed in this way, and people of low classes could be executed in other ways (Gibbs 2018, p. 1548). 
    In the final analysis, it is plain that, regardless of the specific details, Jesus died a painful and humiliating death, probably stripped of all his clothing. He was made a spectacle for all onlookers (Gibbs 2018, p. 1550).

"Matthew 27:39-56 The Son of God Dies: What Does This Mean?" (pp. 1551-1585).
    Matthew 27:39-56 describes one of the most difficult events ever interpreted. The one who has been identified as God in the flesh dies. Various signs accompany his death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1551). Gibbs provides substantial textual notes, frequently also referring to concepts which are unpacked in the commentary section. The passage divides into three segments (Gibbs 2018, p. 1561), Verses 39-44 show Jesus being identified correctly, though mockingly, by hostile witnesses. In verses 45-50 Jesus directly identifies himself as the Son of God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1562). Finally, in verses 51-56 a number of apocalyptic signs proclaim the effect of Jesus' death.
    As noted above, Matthew 27:39-44 shows a number of people mocking Jesus, thus mocking the actual work of God. This Gibbs considers blasphemy (Gibbs 2018, p. 1562). The mockers fail to recognize Jesus' actual claims or his authority to accomplish God's will (Gibbs 2018, p. 1563). Similarities to Jesus' temptation in the wilderness (4:1-11) can be drawn. Neither Satan nor the onlookers at the crucifixion recognize Jesus' work of laying down his authority. Jesus is not intent on saving himself, but rather works salvation for his followers (Gibbs 2018, p. 1564). Ironically, this is even recognized in some of the mocking. In 27:42 the mockers acknowledge that Jesus saves others (Gibbs 2018, p. 1565).
    Gibbs observes the connections previously made to Psalm 22. In Matthew 27:45-50 Jesus himself makes reference to Psalm 22, interpreted by onlookers as an invocation of Elijah (Gibbs 2018, p. 1566). As things progressed, there was darkness at midday, which would be readily recognized by onlookers as a sign from heaven. Then, in midafternoon, Jesus quotes the start of Psalm 22. Gibbs observes that this is carefully brought in to a setting where the Psalm had been alluded to already several times (Gibbs 2018, p. 1567). In a very real way, Jesus is claiming the abandonment of God to which David had referred. Here, in the case of Jesus' abandonment, it is used to work salvation for the world. Gibbs reflects on a number of other passages from Jesus' baptism on in which his actions and statements make complete sense in light of his surrender as a vicarious representative of humanity. Then, without commentary, Matthew records in 27:50 that Jesus died (Gibbs 2018, p. 1568).
    Gibbs considers the question raised in Matthew 27:46 as to whether Jesus recited the whole of Psalm 22 or simply the opening verse (Gibbs 2018, p. 1569). It is certainly possible that the opening verse would prompt onlookers to recall the entire Psalm. Considering the tone of victory at the end of the Psalm, some have suggested the intention of the quotation is to be a shout of victory. Gibbs considers this a weak theory. Not every citation or allusion to the Old Testament found in the New Testament brings a large amount of context with it. Further, all the allusions to Psalm 22 found in this part of Matthew 27 are to the early part of the Psalm, where it describes a lack of victory (Gibbs 2018, p. 1570). Third, the statement of Jesus is one of defeat. He is forsaken by God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1571). Gibbs suggests we should understand Matthew 27 as describing the affliction, rather than the victory of Christ. As readers, Matthew provides us with references to the portion of Psalm 22 which depicts defeat. It is only later in Matthew 28, that the victory is shown. Gibbs observes that Matthew 28:9-10, when Jesus sends the two Marys to his disciples, there is an allusion to verse 23 of Psalm 22 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1572). This completes the cycle of Christ's humiliation and exaltation.
    At the death of Jesus, in Matthew 27:51-56, signs in earth, heaven, and possibly hell speak to the work of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1573). The curtain of the temple is torn from top to bottom. This event has been variously interpreted as God departing from the temple either as a sign of judgment or a sign that Christ has completed the needed sacrifice. A further challenge is the fact that there were several veils in the temple (Gibbs 2018, p. 1574).
    Gibbs evaluates the mention of the veil in some detail. Matthew has not prepared his readers with discussion of the veil or the separation of the holy place and the most holy place (Gibbs 2018, p. 1576). However, he has referred to the temple area and to the sanctuary in it at several points (Gibbs 2018, p. 1577). There have been numerous references to the coming destruction of the temple area and its buildings. This suggests to Gibbs that the tearing of the curtain is a partial destruction of the temple as an act of judgment against the temple authorities. They deserve judgment due to their rejection of the Messiah (Gibbs 2018, p. 1578).
    The raising of the dead, recorded in Matthew 27:52-53, requires careful interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1579). Gibbs takes the description as historic, rather than symbolic and metaphysical, largely because it has none of the introduction that we find in Matthew 24:29-31. The timing of the event is not clear. Gibbs suggests that it was likely begun at the time of the earthquake at Jesus' death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1581).
    In the final analysis, Jesus' death has begun the time of the end. The signs recorded in Matthew 27 describe Jesus' actions moving toward the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. (Gibbs 2018, p0. 1582-1583). Matthew 27 further illustrates the fact that Jesus' work is recognized only by the least likely witnesses, the centurion and some women. This recognition by the least likely witnesses has been a theme throughout Matthew's Gospel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1584).

"Matthew 27:57-66 At Pilate's Command, Jesus Is Entombed by Friend and Foe." (pp. 1586-1595).
    Gibbs briefly explains his choice to treat Matthew 27:57-66 together due to parallelisms in the two segments of five verses and due to the time reference given for each part (Gibbs 2018, p. 1590). New characters are introduced and an appeal to Roman authority is made. Finally, the presence of women who have been with Jesus and are witnesses of the events tie the narrative together (Gibbs 2018, p. 1591). Gibbs notes that none of the participants have any expectation that Jesus will be alive again.
    It is clear in Matthew 27:62 that Pilate still retains authority over Jesus' body. In no way does Matthew minimize his responsibility (Gibbs 2018, p. 1591). On the afternoon of Jesus' death, Joseph of Arimathea needed permission to entomb Jesus. It appears, given Pilate's agreement to all the proposals, that he did not consider Jesus a serious threat to public order (Gibbs 2018, p. 1592).
    Gibbs observes that the respect shown by Joseph of Arimathea is a generous gift. It included not only preparations for burial but also a new tomb (Gibbs 2018, p. 1593). 
    The chief priests and Pharisees, remembering the claim that Jesus would rise after three days, sought a way to guard against theft of the body (Gibbs 2018, p. 1594). After all, they considered Jesus to be a deceiver. There is no hint that they expect a resurrection, but only a grave robbery. Gibbs observes that the disciples had fled and would be powerless to attempt anything. At the same time, sealing the stone and posting guards would prove utterly insufficient to stop God's plan of resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1595).

​
0 Comments

Matthew 27, part 1 - apparent chaos

3/27/2025

0 Comments

 
New Testament Studies
3/27/25

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 27" (part 1) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1490-1595). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

"Matthew 27:1-2 Jesus Is Transferred to Pilate." (pp. 1490-1492).
    Gibbs takes Jesus' hearing as a preliminary action, which required the Jewish leaders to exercise caution in the way they would present Jesus to Pilate (Gibbs 2018, p. 1491). For this reason, they "took counsel" (27:1) about the best way to arrange for Jesus' death at the hands of the Romans. We realize that while the Sanhedrin instigated Jesus' death, he was executed by the order of Pontius Pilate.

"Matthew 27:3-10 Indifference to Despair: The Chief Priests and Judas." (pp. 1493-1513).
    Matthew 27:3-10 describes Judas' despair, his return of the money given to him for betraying Jesus, his death, and the move of the chief priests to purchase a burial place. Gibbs provides extensive notes on the text and grammar (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1493-1499). He then goes on to observe that "Judas . . . serves as a contrast with the chief priests and elders, and the unit primarily says something about them and their actions" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1499). They are shown as intent on having Jesus executed.
    In Matthew 27:3-5, Judas is described in terms of repentance, as he returns the silver he had been paid to the chief priests, and as he made confession of sin (Gibbs 2018, p. 1500). He was, however, not absolved, but was rather rejected by them, provoking him to suicide. At the same time that Jesus is being taken to provide forgiveness for the world, the chief priests refuse forgiveness for a penitent sinner (Gibbs 2018, p. 1501).
    Matthew 27:6-8 demonstrates the failure of the chief priests to understand purity. They decide to take defiled money, the price of blood, which was thrown into the temple, thus defiling the temple, and purchase a plot of land which would be used to bury foreigners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1502). This land would be considered impure both due to the presence of foreigners and due to its use for burial. They failed to understand the grace and forgiveness available in Christ.
    In Matthew 27:9-10, Gibbs finds that Matthew has deliberately connected Zechariah 11 and Jeremiah 19 with a fulfillment in the work of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1503). The prophecy speaks to divine judgment coming upon those who would reject the prophetic work of the one chosen as Israel's shepherd. Here Jesus is shown as the antitype, or fulfillment, of the shepherd in Zechariah 11 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1504). The connection of Jeremiah would be very easy to overlook without Matthew's specific reference. However, the connection does show in the concept of innocent blood and a potter (Gibbs 2018, p. 1505). This also brings the connection of judgment against Jerusalem into prominence (Gibbs 2018, p. 1506). 
    Gibbs makes application of Matthew 27:3-10 by observing that God's plan to redeem the world cannot be stopped even by evil such as that of the chief priests and Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1506). The sin rooted in the opponents' lives is to be seen as terrible and destructive to themselves and others. Yet it is incapable of stopping Jesus, who alone provides the forgiveness and restoration needed by sinners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1507). Gibbs further observes that, at this point in the narrative, there is no substantial difference between Judas and Peter. Both have fallen away. Neither is, in any real way, a disciple of Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1508). The disciples have all fallen away. This is without exception, including both Peter and Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1509). Gibbs finds this highly significant for our understanding that there is nothing in us which makes us naturally turn to Jesus. Rather, Jesus comes and finds us when we are spiritually hopeless (Gibbs 2018, p. 1511).

"Matthew 27:11-26 Pilate Condemns Jesus to Death by Crucifixion." (pp. 1514-1536).
    Gibbs provides detailed grammatical notes for Matthew 27:1-26. The narrative has numerous grammatical irregularities, possibly emphasizing the tumultuous events of Jesus' presentation to Pilate and Pilate's eventual sentencing of Jesus.
    Gibbs reviews the identity of Pontius Pilate briefly, observing that we know with certainty only two of the three Roman names of Pilate, lacking his praenomen, though some legends suggest it was Lucius (Gibbs 2018, p. 1521). He likely served as prefect of Judea and Samaria from AD 26-36 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1522). He was portrayed negatively by both Philo and Josephus, though Gibbs is quick to remind readers that they were hostile witnesses (Gibbs 2018, p. 1522). Pilate held considerable power and influence as prefect. The length of his time in office and the coins minted during his tenure suggest that he was not intent on causing a mass revolt among the Palestinian Jews (Gibbs 2018, p. 1523).
    The interview of Jesus with Pilate would not have required any particular procedure or interaction with Roman law, since Jesus was almost certainly not a Roman citizen (Gibbs 2018, p. 1525). Pilate was free to hear the issue or not, and to act based on his own understanding of the case. Just the same, as the Roman prefect, he would have needed to bear in mind both Roman interests and enough of the Jewish interests to prevent a local rebellion. In Matthew 27:11-26, then, Pilate interprets the accusation against Jesus, and does so with little assistance of witnesses or legal precedent.
    The difficulty presented to Pilate in Matthew 27:11-14 is that Jesus, presented to him, chooses not to respond. Gibbs observes that Jesus' assent to Pilate's question, "You are saying" (so), is not a denial but also fails to be a strong affirmation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1527). Jesus' silence afterward makes the interview more difficult, rather than clarifying matters. In verses 15-23, then, Gibbs takes Pilate to be turning some elements of his judgment over to the Jews, possibly so as to insure his future relationships with the Jewish leaders.
    The custom of releasing a prisoner at this time cannot be found outside of the canonical Gospels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1527). In Gibbs' estimation, Pilate's suggestion of releasing Barabbas may have served as a test of how dangerous the Sanhedrin actually thought Jesus was (Gibbs 2018, p. 1528). Pilate specifically refers to Jesus as the one called the Christ, or the Messiah. Gibbs, with many others, finds Matthew's report about Pilate's wife and her dream to be cryptic. He briefly entertains the possibility of this as a divine revelation as were the other instances of dreams recorded in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, pp. 1527-1528). This could certainly lead Pilate to his opinion of Jesus' innocence. Gibbs notes that there is no inherent inconsistency about God's plan that Jesus would be executed and his issuing warnings. He also knows that his warning will not be heeded (Gibbs 2018, p. 1528). If, however, the dream is not intended to relate this incident with others in Matthew, it could simply serve as yet another demonstration that Pilate would remain guilty in his decision to have Jesus executed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1529). Regardless, the outcry of the crowd is described as forceful. Pilate ultimately concedes to them and condemns Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1530).
    Gibbs sums up the decision of Pilate, "As is so often the case with political decisions, both ancient and modern, power and compromise take precedence over truth or justice" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1531). Though Pilate washes his hands and proclaims his own innocence, Jesus remains the one who is genuinely innocent. The crowds, and "all the people," ask that Jesus' blood should be upon them. Gibbs explores the interpretation of this call (Gibbs 2018, p. 1532). Pilate cannot possibly be innocent of the blood of Jesus. As prefect, he is responsible. Likewise, Gibbs takes the call of the people as ineffective from the standpoint of calling a curse down on themselves (Gibbs 2018, p. 1533). They have no understanding of who Jesus is or what he is doing. Rather, their response illustrates the theme, common in Matthew, that all Israel stands guilty before God (Gibbs 2018, p. 1534). They will be displayed as guilty before God as the people of Jerusalem face persecution at the hands of the Romans, culminating with the sacking of the city in the year 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1534). Gibbs finally notes the irony that this incident and Pilate's decision does shed the blood of Jesus, which proves salvific.

0 Comments

Jesus Goes to Trial

3/13/2025

0 Comments

 
New Testament Studies
3/13/25

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 26" (part 2) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

"Matthew 26:36-46 The Perfect Son Prays and the Father's Will Is Done." (pp. 1426-1442).
    Gibbs notes that Matthew 26:36-46 uses a number of historical present verbs. The only other passage which uses many is Matthew 4:1-11 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1426). While Gibbs makes no strong conclusion as to a particular narrative purpose, he does think the two passages are intended to show vivid intensity (Gibbs 2018, p. 1427).
    In Matthew 26:36-38 Jesus enters the garden with his disciples, who have all insisted that they would remain with him. While three remain with Jesus as he moves farther into the garden, Gibbs points out they also are not there for the same purpose as Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1432). While Jesus prays for his disciples, he never asks them to pray for him. Rather, he warns them of the coming temptation. This is one of the few places in Matthew where Jesus' emotional life comes to the surface of the narrative (Gibbs 2018, p. 1433). Jesus clearly expresses extreme sorrow, though it is not entirely clear which of the troubles at hand is predominant in his thought. Despite the sorrow, Jesus continues his mission.
    In verses 39-44, then, Jesus prays as his disciples fail to do his will. It is significant that Jesus prays in essentially the same manner three times, and that there is somewhat of a time marker in Matthew 26:40, where he refers to "one hour" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1434). This suggests a fairly literal amount of time. In any case, it was late enough and long enough that the disciples fell asleep, a form of falling away.
    Jesus' prayer is summarized in Matthew 26:39, 42, and 44. He addresses God the Father and asks that the cup would pass from him, if possible. Gibbs observes that Jesus has known this plan all along. The "if possible" expresses a desire, but one which Jesus knows is not possible (Gibbs 2018, p. 1435). Jesus further affirms that his desire is to do the desire of the Father. The grief is real, as is the commitment. Gibbs reflects briefly on the nature of "this cup" which Jesus would like to avoid. The imagery of bitter death predominates throughout the Old Testament (Gibbs 2018, p. 1436). Gibbs concludes that, though the cup Jesus gives his disciples in the Last Supper is full of his death, it does not have the bitter element of the cup of suffering Jesus drinks.
    The failure of the disciples while Jesus prays is recorded in Matthew 26:40, 41, 43, and 45. Even as Jesus prays three times, the disciples fail to watch or pray, but rather they sleep (Gibbs 2018, p. 1437). The disciples are in great danger of temptation, which Jesus knows will cause them to stumble.
    Matthew 26:45-46 moves from Jesus' prayers into the fearful events he has been praying about. The disciples have been sleeping but now is the time of their temptation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1438). Jesus is given into the hands of sinners (v. 45), though it is part of his divine plan.
    Gibbs discusses Matthew 26:36-46 as a passage which makes significant Christological statements (Gibbs 2018, p. 1439). He followed a difficult path, one which his disciples could not follow. He is shown as the one who obeys the Father perfectly. He exercises his reign as the Son of David in ways we will never understand (Gibbs 2018, p. 1440). Above all, Gibbs finds this text to illustrate the uniqueness of Jesus. He is unlike any of his disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1441).

"Matthew 26:47-56 Two Plans, a Common Goal: Jesus Is Arrested." (pp. 1443-1457).
    Gibbs makes substantial textual comments on Matthew 26:47-56 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1443-1448). The passage detailing Jesus' betrayal and arrest is intricately composed. Furthermore, Matthew uses vocabulary and style which emphasize the critical tension of the scene. In this passage, the culmination of God's ancient plan is nearing as Jesus is bringing the start of his eschatological reign to the present (Gibbs 2018, p. 1449). Gibbs particularly notes the element of time in Matthew 26:36-46. We have recently seen mention of praying for hours. Now the time has come and all is prepared for Jesus' arrest.
    The events at the end of Matthew 26 point up the fact that there are two different plans involving Jesus' arrest. In God's plan, Jesus is being taken so as to die for mankind's sin. In the plan of the Jewish leaders, the one threatening their power is being taken out of the way. Jesus rejects the attempts of his disciples to rescue him from arrest (Gibbs 2018, p. 1450).
    In Matthew 26:47-48 it becomes clear that the plan Judas had made with the Jewish authorities was intricately worked out. They had a substantial arresting force, knew their destination, and had a means of identifying Jesus, even at night (Gibbs 2018, p. 1450). While Gibbs notes that the size of the arresting force is undetermined, and I agree, I think it is worth noting that in John's account, the term used is normally applied to a military force of about 600 people.
    In verses 49-50, Judas greets Jesus with a kiss, calling him "Rabbi." Gibbs observes that we have little knowledge of the typical dynamics involving rabbis and their disciples at this time, nor of any special habits that Jesus and his disciples may have had. Gibbs does, however, note that Matthew's readers would catch the significance of Judas calling Jesus "Rabbi" rather than "Lord," and may have seen some significance of Jesus calling Judas "friend" in return (Gibbs 2018, p. 1451). Jesus is accepting of the arrest. Gibbs again observes that the divine and human plans agree in that Jesus must be arrested and must die (Gibbs 2018, p. 1452).
    Matthew 26:51-54 describes an attempt to interfere with the plan to arrest Jesus. A disciple attacks a slave of the high priest. Gibbs suggests that this person may have held a position of authority or leadership, thus putting him into the place he would be a target (Gibbs 2018, p. 1452). The disciple, in all probability, was trying to kill the slave, but only wounded him. Gibbs theorizes that the disciple with the sword probably had no good plan to stop the arrest. However, he didn't accept the concept that Jesus was supposed to be arrested (Gibbs 2018, p. 1453). Jesus' action, by which he rebukes the disciple and rejects the use of force to establish God's reign is striking to Gibbs. There is no suggestion that there was a retaliation against the disciple. Jesus shows himself to be able to govern the entire incident. Gibbs continues with a substantial reflection on the futility of human means (force and violence) which intend to establish God's reign (Gibbs 2018, p. 1454ff). The kingdom belongs to God and will be established by his means and in his time.
    The arrest of Jesus concludes with Jesus addressing the crowds in Matthew 26:55-56 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1456). Jesus speaks to the contradiction inherent in the way he is being arrested. If he were a danger to society, he would have been arrested easily, by day, as he was engaged in teaching in public. This arrest was not for that reason. Rather, it is indicative of Jesus being treated as a persecuted prophet.

"Matthew 26:57-68 In the Face of Danger, Part 1: Faithful Jesus before the Sanhedrin." (pp. 1458-1480).
    In Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus is taken away for trial before the Sanhedrin, a court of Jewish elders (Gibbs 2018, p. 1458). Gibbs notes that in this passage, as compared with earlier passages, Jesus' conflict is no longer with relatively anonymous religious leaders. Here he is taken to a particular council, the Sanhedrin, which has assembled specifically to see that Jesus is killed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1462).
    Gibbs briefly reviews what we know about the Sanhedrin at this time in history (Gibbs 2018, p. 1463). It was a body which had both religious and civil functions, and was at the time a single group, though in more recent history there is evidence that there may have been two such groups. At least at this time the high priest could preside (Gibbs 2018, p. 1464). The council did not have authority to execute people without Roman permission. Gibbs observes that there was likely division within the Sanhedrin about the nature of Jesus and the charges against him. Particularly, when Matthew says (26:59) that the court was seeking false witnesses, at least some of the court was probably seeking reliable and accurate testimony, but that the testimony they would accept was colored by a lack of trust in Jesus' claims to be the Messiah (Gibbs 2018, p. 1465).
    When compared with records of Jewish council procedure from approximately AD 200, the examination of Jesus does not align well (Gibbs 2018, p. 1465). We do not know what the accepted procedure was for a capital case around AD 30. Yet the hearing is deficient in numerous areas. It was held at night, there is no attempt to demonstrate innocence, it is on the eve of a Sabbath, and the verdict occurs on the same day. All this violates process as described later, about AD 200 in the Mishna (Gibbs 2018, p. 1466). Gibbs observes that the contradiction can be explained in various ways, but that his leaning is to consider that this was not a capital trial. If the hearing was intended either to gather information prior to a trial, or if it was intended to collect evidence which would be presented to a Roman court, the procedures would not be as important (Gibbs 2018, p. 1467). In fact, the council has difficulty reaching a verdict, only gaining consensus when Jesus replies to Caiaphas in verses 63-64.
    Gibbs takes Matthew's shift of focus in 26:57-58 as highly significant. After all the disciples fled, Peter followed Jesus, though at a distance (Gibbs 2018, p. 1469). It may suggest that Peter has not fallen away, or it may suggest that Peter has also failed to be faithful in staying with Jesus. The juxtaposition of the various elements is highly significant. After placing Peter in the courtyard, Matthew makes no more mention of him until verse 69. The contrast, therefore, is not between Peter and the other disciples, but between Peter and Jesus.
    The hearing of Jesus, meanwhile, is unable to make much headway due to the inadequate witnesses and Jesus' own refusal to speak (Gibbs 2018, p. 1470). In the end, two witnesses did agree, though there is no evidence for its truth, that Jesus had said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days. Jesus' failure to respond to this charge still hindered the progress of the hearing. Gibbs observes that the charges against Jesus still do not rise to the level of a capital crime. However, for a referral to Pilate, the Sanhedrin needed some allegation that Jesus would cause civil unrest. This charge would rise to that level in Roman thought (Gibbs 2018, p. 1471). Eventually, Caiaphas pursued the task of clarifying Jesus' identity as the Messiah, asking him directly (Gibbs 2018, p. 1472). Jesus' response is an affirmative, but one which presses the reader to realize that Caiaphas has identified him as the Messiah. He then continues with words which speak to his divine authority (Gibbs 2018, p. 1473). This assures everyone that he will be condemned to death. From this point the mystery will only grow. Gibbs notes that Jesus would have to be alive to do the apocalyptic signs promised. His death should be expected to put an end to all that he taught (Gibbs 2018, p. 1474). The fulfillment, then, begins not immediately but only four days later, with the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1475). Jesus is accordingly condemned with a charge of blasphemy, worthy of death in the understanding of the Sanhedrin. Gibbs moves on with a discursus considering the various types of words and actions which would constitute blasphemy at this time (Gibbs 2018, p. 1476ff).

"Matthew 26:69-75 In the Face of Danger, Part 2: Faithless Peter before the Bystanders." (pp. 1481-1489).
    Matthew 26:69-75 turns our attention from Jesus, who has been faithful in all things, to Peter, who will prove unfaithful (Gibbs 2018, p. 1481). It is particularly significant to Gibbs that Peter had specifically boasted of his faithfulness in contrast to the other disciples. Gibbs cites 2 Corinthians 12:9 and 1 Corinthians 10:12 as Pauline statements about exactly what happens in this passage (Gibbs 2018, p. 1484). Peter trusted his own strength, the very thing which led to his desertion of Jesus. The structure of the passage rather clearly shows three denials of Jesus, with Peter's departure from the courtyard as the final stroke (Gibbs 2018, p. 1485). In the first encounter it becomes apparent that Peter had been with Jesus. However, based on his interaction it is no longer clear that he presently is with Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1485).
    After the first denial, Peter moved farther away, to the gate of the courtyard, a move which Gibbs sees as indicating his departure from Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1486). Here, the accusation is that Peter was formerly with Jesus, who here is described as a Nazarene, a typical cultural slur. Peter insists that he does not know Jesus, whom he calls "the man" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1487).
    Finally, people standing around think Peter was one of the disciples. Gibbs notes the irony that the disciples, of whom Peter was often the standout, had fled. Now Peter has also forsaken Jesus. He is one of them. Peter has not only rejected Jesus, but now he rejects the other disciples, with oaths (Gibbs 2018, p. 1488). His rejection is complete by the time he hears the rooster, which reminds him of Jesus' earlier words.

​
0 Comments

Matthew 26, Part 1

3/6/2025

0 Comments

 
New Testament Studies
3/6/25

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 26" (part 1) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

"Matthew 26:1-5 Two Plans, One Divine Will: Introduction to the Passion Narrative." (pp. 1365-1372).
    Matthew 26:1 marks the transition from Matthew's fourth discourse (24:1-26:1) into his fifth discourse, the Passion Narrative, in 26:1-27:66 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1365). Gibbs particularly observes the slight change in the formula Matthew uses at the end of discourses. Here, "Jesus completed all these words," where previously the "all" was omitted (Gibbs 2018, p. 1368). From this point there is less speech. Rather, the attention centers on Jesus' action. Matthew deliberately juxtaposes Jesus' words to his disciples at this point with the plan made by the chief priests and elders. Both plans are laid out at the start of chapter 26 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1369). Gibbs observes that while the plan of the chief priests to arrest Jesus in secret, not during the festival, and to avoid a riot fails in all points. Jesus' plan is fulfilled (Gibbs 2018, p. 1370).  This is a clear use of irony, as the plans are made and that of the organized leaders (the chief priests) fails because of people acting in ignorance. Those who respond to the plan of the leaders end up carrying out Jesus' plan (Gibbs 2018, p. 1371). Gibbs suggests the type of irony presented in Matthew's Gospel invites readers to understand the situations in ways which the chief priests did not (Gibbs 2018, p. 1372).

"Matthew 26:6-13 Jesus' Anointing in Bethany: An Enacted Passion Prediction." (pp. 1373-1383).
    Gibbs divides Matthew 26P6-13 into three portions: verses 6-7, 8-9, and 10-13. The passage shows "the disciples' obtuseness and Jesus' steadfast focus on the goal of his ministry (Gibbs 2018, p. 1375). The incident, in Bethany at the home of one "Simon the leper" focuses on the preparation for Jesus' death and burial, though not on the woman who anoints Jesus or on the local household (Gibbs 2018, p. 1376). While Gibbs observes that we know little of the motive behind the woman's action, we are told the root of the response of the disciples. They respond in an indignant way at what they perceive as waste on the part of the woman (Gibbs 2018, p. 1377). They act as if they have no concept whatsoever of Jesus' coming move to death and resurrection. Gibbs is plain that the passage has nothing to do with a comparison of helping the poor versus bringing honor to Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1378). Jesus makes this plain as he rebukes his disciples in verses 10-13. They are to stop troubling the woman, who has performed "a beautiful work" for him (26:10). They can give to the poor at any time, but for now they are to recognize the special nature of the time they have with Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1379). The disciples, however, have no clue of the situation. Gibbs observes that the very same lack of understanding will be an important feature throughout the period leading to Jesus' death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1380).
    Gibbs makes a brief discursus regarding the multiple accounts of Jesus' anointing by a woman, found in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; and John 12:1-8 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1382). In Gibbs' model, the four accounts refer to two different events. He takes the incident in Luke 7 to be separate from the one reported in Matthew, Mark, and John. Though the language used is similar, there are enough different details in Luke's account to warrant consideration of it as a different event.

"Matthew 26:14-19 Two Times at the Same Time: Preparations for Betrayal and for Sacrifice." (pp. 1384-1392).
    After some brief grammatical analysis of Matthew 26:14-19, Gibbs observes that verses 14-16 could be treated as distinct from 17-19. However, they are brought together by Matthew, not only by the location in his narrative, but also by strong verbal parallels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1387). Both prepare the reader for the description of the Passion events. Judas, one of the Twelve, seeks out an agreement with the Pharisees to betray Jesus. Gibbs notes the strong irony of one of the Twelve betraying Jesus to his death at the time of the Passover (Gibbs 2018, p. 1388).
    While Judas makes his preparations, the other disciples make preparations for the Passover meal (Gibbs 2018, p. 1389). Gibbs observes that while the disciples are apparently unaware of the bigger picture, Jesus is the one who is actually in control of it, and orchestrates the events accordingly.
    The chronology of this passage is problematic. At issue is the relation of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday to the Passover and the Sabbath (Gibbs 2018, p. 1389). It is unclear whether 26:17, referring to "the first day of Unleavened Bread," refers to the actual Passover day or the day after, when the fasting actually begins. In part, this lack of clarity leads to questions about possible contradictions within the canonical Gospels. While the Synoptic Gospels lead to an expectation of a Passover meal followed by Jesus' arrest during Thursday night, John 18:28 shows the priests not entering Pilate's house on Friday in anticipation of a Passover meal to come (Gibbs 2018, p. 1390). Gibbs takes the account inJohn to refer to the priests' desire for ritual purity for additional events during the Passover season, and that the "preparation" referred to is preparation for the Sabbath, not for Passover proper (Gibbs 2018, p. 1391).

"Matthew 26:20-25 The Darkness Grows: One of Them Will Hand Jesus Over." (pp. 1393-1398).
    Gibbs takes the meal shared as the Passover dinner (Gibbs 2018, p. 1395). It is in the context of this meal that Jesus makes it clear that one of his disciples who is with him will betray him, leading to his death. There are two specific predictions, each with a reaction by one or more disciples. Though the incident is introduced in verse 20, there is no clear conclusion in verse 25, which leaves the reader slightly off balance. In verses 21-22, Jesus makes it clear that one of his disciples will betray him. There is a general questioning of the ideas, along with a rejection of that action by Peter, with concurrence by the others (Gibbs 2018, p. 1396). In verses 23-25, Jesus makes it clear it will be someone who is eating with him at the present time. Judas is not particularly identified except by Matthew's recording of his particular question. Gibbs observes the irony in Judas' question, as he had possibly not responded to the first prediction, as he calls Jesus "Rabbi" rather than "Lord," and as Jesus responds to him alone (Gibbs 2018, p. 1397). Gibbs suggests the emphasis in this passage should be on the grace of Jesus who, knowing all that would happen to him, continues to care for his disciples, including Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1398).

"Matthew 26:26-29 A New Mal to Fulfill and Surpass the Old." (pp. 1399-1415).
    Gibbs notes that Matthew 26:26-29 could well be seen as a continuation of the narrative started in verse 20, as it is introduced with the same verbal formula (Gibbs 2018, p. 1399). In his textual notes he briefly discusses the context of the being verb and of the word for "covenant," but treats the issues in more detail later in the commentary section.
    The actual Passover ritual is not a matter which Matthew describes in detail. While an "intricate ritual" has developed over time, Gibbs notes that we are not entirely certain about the nature of the ritual at the time of this meal. At this time, the sacrificial system was still in operation. Yet many of the pieces of information we have about the meal practices come from after the end of the sacrificial system in A.D. 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1404). In general, Gibbs takes the practice to likely include the meal and three cups of wine accompanied by ritual words and actions. Matthew's account, however, makes no clear references to the particular stages of the meal (Gibbs 2018, p. 1405). Without a doubt, though, Jesus' statements about his body and blood would have created considerable discomfort (Gibbs 2018, p. 1406). In particular, a pouring out of blood was familiar, but drinking blood was unthinkable. Gibbs notes that there is no record of the disciples' response here, though there is to the events before and after this (Gibbs 2018, p. 1406). The emphasis is on Jesus, not on his disciples.
    A challenge in interpretation of Matthew 26:26 is the fact that, while the Passover was a meal focused on the death of an animal and eating meat, the language of breaking is not applied to meat. Rather, it is applied to bread, which is routinely borken for consumption (Gibbs 2018, p. 1408). Jesus explains the action with the cup in more detail.
    The concept of pouring the blood of a covenant out is an allusion to Exodus 24:5-8, where Moses puts blood on the altar of God and on the people of Israel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1408). Yet Gibbs observes that the Old Testament texts about the Passover do not treat the blood of the animal as something that forgives sins (Gibbs 2018, p. 1409). Jesus' association of the blood and forgiveness seems more like that found in the Day of Atonement. This draws the reader away from Passover toward sacrifices for sin (Gibbs 2018, p. 1410).
    Gibbs notes that the suffering of Jesus has also directed interpreters to Isaiah 52:13-53:12, detailing God's suffering Servant (Gibbs 2018, p. 1411). Though the connections are primarily conceptual, there are some verbal resemblances as well.
    By Matthew 26:29, it is clear that Jesus' intent is to give the Last Supper meal to the church, which will engage in the eating and drinking, but without his presence among the disciples as they have previously known it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1413). Gibbs is clear that this does not in any way deny the Lutheran view of Jesus' bodily presence in the bread and wine of the eucharist. However, unlike previous meals with Jesus present, he is feeding his disciples rather than dining with them (Gibbs 2018, p. 1414). Gibbs briefly considers that in the eucharist we receive both the forgiveness of sins, as in the Day of Atonement offerings, and the protective presence of God, as in the Passover offerings. If this is the case, the elements of the Supper are brought together in a comprehensive manner.

"Matthew 26:30-35 It Is God's Time to Strike and Scatter: Never, Lord! We Will Never Deny You!" (pp. 1416-1425).
    The concepts of "stumbling" and "denying" Jesus are central to understanding Matthew 26:30-35. Gibbs reviews the concepts briefly (Gibbs 2018, p. 1420). In general, Matthew uses language of stumbling to indicate a fall into unbelief. It is thus a very serious matter when anyone is made to stumble. Denial of Jesus is a similarly serious matter. The result of denying Jesus is to be denied by Jesus before God the Father (Gibbs 2018, p. 1421). Matthew presents stumbling into unbelief and denial of Jesus as absolutely possible, and horrific, moves. However, Jesus also promises restoration for his disciples.
    In Matthew 26:31, Jesus predicts the stumbling and denial of his disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1422). Jesus will be abandoned by his disciples and even by God the Father (Zech 13:7; Ps. 22). Gibbs observes that in verse 32, Jesus (again) specifically predicts his resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1423). The disciples utterly reject Jesus' prediction. In Matthew 26:33, Peter specifically says he will not reject Jesus. In response, Jesus says clearly and forcefully that Peter will deny him. Peter again rejects this concept in 26:35 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1424). Verse 35 then adds the other disciples, as a chorus, pledging their faithfulness. As always, Gibbs notes, Jesus is right and his disciples are not. They will fall away (Gibbs 2018, p. 1425).

​
0 Comments

Matthew 25

2/13/2025

0 Comments

 
New Testament Studies
2/13/25

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 25" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

    Matthew 25:1-13, the parable of the ten virgins, contains more manuscript variants than normal. Gibbs reviews the variants, observing that only in verse nine is there one which has an impact on the interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1311). In that verse, Gibbs finds four possible variant readings. Of the readings, two make little grammatical sense and one appears to be an attempt to smooth out a slightly difficult reading by avoiding a repeated word in a double negative (Gibbs 2018, p. 1313). At issue is whether the people, when asked to share their oil, reply "no" or whether they simply give the reason for their refusal, "lest it not suffice." Gibbs prefers the grammatically more challenging answer, "no, lest it not suffice" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1313).
    Gibbs observes that when reading parables about the kingdom of heaven in Matthew we should expect they will not appear entirely true to life (Gibbs 2018, p. 1314). There will normally be some elements which would break from typical human behavior. In the case of the parable of the ten virgins, there are enough elements of wedding customs that we don't know that we have to speculate about what would be unusual (Gibbs 2018, p. 1315). It may be possible to discern some of the intended meaning by means of an analysis of the details of the kingdom of heaven as described in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1316). Gibbs evaluates Jonathan Pennington's analysis of the kingdom of heaven at some length. Pennington considers that, at least in some way, there may be a spatial element (Gibbs 2018, p. 1318). Yet Gibbs considers the primary element of the kingdom in Matthew to be the deeds of God in Christ.
    Matthew 25:1-5 describes a gathering in which ten virgins are to be in attendance on a bridegroom as he arrives at a wedding feast (Gibbs 2018, p. 1319). The groom is apparently a person of some importance, as he is addressed in a respectful manner in verse eleven. Some sort of a lit procession is to occur. Those who have brought enough oil cannot share, for fear that all the lights would go out prematurely (Gibbs 2018, p. 1320). The groom delays, and the lamps have gone out by the time of his arrival. Some of the virgins were prepared, while others were not (Gibbs 2018, p. 1321). 
    In verses 6-13, the important element is that those who were prepared could honor the groom when he arrived. Those who were not prepared were sent away and even when they returned later they were rejected (Gibbs 2018, p. 1321). It was essential that they should be alert and ready to honor the groom.
    Taking Jesus to be represented by the bridegroom, as in all parables which feature a groom, the clear meaning of the parable is to be prepared for Jesus' coming, though he may not come immediately (Gibbs 2018, p. 1322). The virgins, representing all Christians, demonstrate that some are ready and others are not. All should be ready to honor Jesus at his coming, though not all will be ready (Gibbs 2018, p. 1323). Gibbs considers the oil to represent whatever characteristics may be helpful to our ability to honor Jesus at his return.
    In a more extended parable, the "parable of the talents" (25:14-30), Jesus describes a master who entrusts money to three servants before departing on a journey. Gibbs emphasizes that this parable is not to be understood as speaking of three slaves, but about two kinds of slaves who respond to the trust they are given (Gibbs 2018, p. 1328). The narrative carefully ties the first two slaves together in their character and actions, then demonstrates the third is very different (Gibbs 2018, p. 1329). Of special note to Gibbs is the fact that the third slave's verbal interaction with the master is much more extensive than the first two. He uses thirty words, compared to the ten of the other two. The master's response is similarly much longer, at sixty-five (some manuscripts have eighty-two) words (Gibbs 2018, p. 1330). 
    The departing master, in verses 14-15, is careful. He entrusts to each slave  an amount according to his ability. Each slave is entrusted with a large amount of money. Gibbs observes that the one talent referenced was likely about twenty years' salary (Gibbs 2018, p. 1331). The master did not return unexpectedly, so surprise was not an issue in the story. The first two slaves work in accord with the master's trust. The third does not. Upon the master's return, the first two show identical results, use identical words, and receive identical commendations (Gibbs 2018, p. 1332). Gibbs notes that the third slave's answer shows his fear of his master, based on his understanding of the master's priorities (Gibbs 2018, p. 1333). The master's response rejects the slave, who failed to do even the reasonable action of investing the money for some interest. Gibbs observes that within this parable there are multiple signs that the third slave's assessment of the master is completely wrong. He was not a harsh master, he entrusted his possessions to others, and made no secret of his trust. Further, it would be clear to Matthew's readers that the master represents Jesus, not an evil master (Gibbs 2018, p. 1334). This should influence our interpretation of the parable.
    The identification of the "talents" in the parable poses significant challenges to interpreters of Matthew 25:14-30. Interpreters suggest the trust delivered could be knowledge of God's heavenly realm, the gospel, or the great commission, among other things (Gibbs 2018, p. 1336). Other details of the parable are similarly challenging. Gibbs observes that there is an eschatological thrust in the reward of the first two slaves and in the penalty of the third. The timing, however, is not clear.
    Gibbs considers "the contrast between the two kinds of slaves" to be of great help in interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1337). The first two were moved to faithful activity, while the other was unmoved and did nothing. The first two have an unexplained motive, but the other makes an explanation. His refusal to act was rooted in fear and distrust. By contrast, we recognize the first two understood and trusted the master. The exhortation of the parable is, then, to remember Jesus as the master and to act in concord with his character.
    Matthew 25 closes, in verses 31-46, with a description of the end of the age, in the separation of the sheep and the goats (Gibbs 2018, p. 1339). Gibbs' textual notes on the passage bring out the carefully balanced structure of the parable with its extensive parallelism. Gibbs notes that in the 20th and 21st century interpreters have largely taken the text to urge care for the needy, wherever they are (Gibbs 2018, p. 1343). However, Gibbs considers this interpretation to be inconsistent with Matthew's context. The social care interpretation, however, is so commonly made that Gibbs explains its implications in considerable detail. While the doctrinal outcome of the interpretation is perfectly orthodox, Gibbs takes it to be a poor fit for the context of the narrative in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1345). Jesus never refers to needy people in Matthew as his true family. He doesn't make care for the poor a central issue elsewhere in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1346). Christians are to care for others, but that is not the center of Christianity. Third, the groups in the passage are never said to be surprised, as in a pop quiz judgment. Followers of Jesus can be expected to be aware that their actions of service to others also are directed by Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1347).
    The reading of Matthew 25:314-46 which Gibbs advocates recognizes that Jesus' 'brothers" are his disciples, those born to him by faith (Gibbs 2018, p. 1348). The nations to be gathered, as we can take from Matthew 28:19, are those his disciples have made into disciples until the end of the age. The sending of generation after generation results in nations of Jesus' brothers who will be gathered together (Gibbs 2018, p. 1349). Within this essential framework, all the mentions of the nations in Matthew's Gospel can be held together coherently. They involve both those who receive Jesus' gospel and those who don't, faithful and persecutors alike (Gibbs 2018, p. 1350). When the righteous and unrighteous are given their assignment to paradise or torment, Gibbs suggests the presence of Jesus' "brothers" from 25:40 as a separate group, those who were faithful or not in their ministry and care for others. Their work with the sheep or the goats is an element of their judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1352).
    Gibbs goes on to identify the people Jesus calls "brothers" in 25:40 as Jesus' disciples, Christians. This is consistent with Matthew's pattern of referring to the disciples in familial terms (Gibbs 2018, p. 1353). Jesus never refers to strangers as "brothers." In Matthew 28:10, Jesus refers very specifically to the disciples as his brothers. These are then the people Jesus commands to go and make more disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1353). This work, significantly, continues until the consummation of the age, the scene depicted in Matthew 25. While all Christians are to share the news of Jesus, his "brothers" are those who are specifically engaged in that task on a regular basis (Gibbs 2018, p. 1355). Further, Gibbs argues that throughout the New Testament, hospitality shown to a messenger implies reception of the message as well as the messenger (Gibbs 2018, p. 1356). Gibbs describes this as a well documented theme in the New Testament. In this passage, rejecting Jesus' messengers is tantamount to rejecting Jesus himself (Gibbs 2018, p. 1357). 

0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Two

1/30/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-Two

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty-One we have the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 309-322.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

In Matthew 22:1-14 we read the parable of the wedding feast. Albrecht makes a strongly detailed interpretation. This may raise suspicion. For example, on p. 311 he affirms the practice, undocumented, of a gift of wedding clothes. What is the big picture of the parable? How does this big picture help you read the rest of the parable?

From verse 15 onward, the questioning is not only hostile, but also designed to trap Jesus. Watch for patterns in his ways of answering questions.

How did Jesus' statement about giving Caesar what is Caesar's and giving God what is God's signal treason and lead to death?

Verses 23-33 bring up the question of resurrection and levirite marriage. Jesus' answer immediately rejects the viwe of the Sadducees. Find parallels to the Pharisees and Sadducees in modern Chrsitianity.

In verses 34-40, how des Jesus' anser affirm all the 10 Commandments?

Notice that Jesus ends the questioning by asking a question the teachers are unwilling to answer. He remains in control of the situations he is in.

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-One

1/29/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty-One

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter Twenty Jesus continues to describe what true power looks like.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 291-309.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

In verses 1-11 Jesus enters Jerusalem with crowds, a donkey colt, and people shouting. Try to explain the symbolic words and actions here.

Albrecht describes the cleansing of the temple in 21:12-13 as the second time Jesus did a similar act. Gibbs (2018) describes the likely location as an outdoor plaza. How did Jesus disrupt "business as usual?"

Actions make bold statements. What was Jesus saying when he simply allowed children to shout his praises?

In a similar vein, what is Jesus communicating when he curses the fig tree?

How is prayer a right (or wrong) use of God's name? (Consider the second commandment from Exodus 20.)

By verse 23 Jesus is clearly being questioned by people who wish to entrap him. How does this influence the interactions?

How do we interpret the fathers, sons, and others in the parables at the end of Matthew 21?

​
0 Comments

Study Prompts for Matthew 20

1/19/2025

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Twenty

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter nineteen Jesus ranks small children above the rich and powerful ruler.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 282-291.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

Matthew 20:1-16 continues the theme of power and wealth introduced at the end of chapter 19. How is the theme adjusted here?

Who does the landowner in the parable represent? What is the parable meant to illustrate?

In verses 17-19 Jesus predicts his death for a third time. What reaction would you expect from the disciples?

In verses 20-28 the mother of James and John makes a request. What does it imply? What does Jesus' answer imply?

Compare a Christian view of competition with what you see in the secular world.

Verses 29-34 describe a healing of two blind men. What does the title "Son of David" suggest as the blind men ask for help?

​
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Nineteen

1/12/2025

0 Comments

 
For Lunch and Learn January 16 - Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Nineteen

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter eighteen Jesus teaches about the importance of forgiveness.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 267-282.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

What makes marriage an issue of such importance as seen in Matthew 19?

Does Jesus understand children in the same way as our culture does? Explain your answer.

How can the theme of power and wealth tie Matthew 19 together?

​
0 Comments

How Jesus Interprets the Bible

12/18/2024

0 Comments

 
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's Gospel - Chapter Seventeen

12/10/2024

0 Comments

 
Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Seventeen

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter sixteen the high point is Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 244-254.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

What are some possible purposes of the transfiguration of Christ? Why do you think that ?

Jesus had earlier given his apostles authority to heal the sick and cast out demons. Why were they unable to deal with the man's son brought to them?

In chapter 17, Jesus again predicts his arrest and execution. Consider reasons that the disciples wouldn't believe or remember these predictions when the events actually happened.

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

November 27th, 2024

11/27/2024

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
11/27/24

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 19:27-20:34." In  Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 978-1025). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)

    Gibbs treats Matthew 19:27-30 along with 20:1-16 (Gibbs 2010, p.978). After his translation he provides extensive textual notes before his main commentary. His treatment of the passage as one unit is likely based on the wording of 20:1, which he takes to look backward, signifying that the parable explains Jesus' statement to the disciples of the first being last and the last first (Gibbs 2010, p.980). The disciples' original question was related to their status as those who had left everything to follow Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p.983). Jesus answers with some reassurance and then expands the clarification with his parable (Gibbs 2010, p.984). 
    The promise Jesus gives in Matthew 19:27-28 is immense. The apostles are to have thrones in the last day, when they participate in judgment (Gibbs 2010, p.984). Gibbs observes that Jesus speaks here of events "in the regeneration." While we often think of the last day in terms of judgment and destruction, it also is the time when Jesus puts all things into their perfect order (Gibbs 2010, p.985). Despite the promise given to the apostles, Gibbs notes that there is to be no arrogance. In effect, there is no significant distinction among believers in the last day (Gibbs 2010, p.987). Nobody earns a place of special exaltation or of shame. It is all by God's grace.
    Gibbs considers the parable of the workers in Matthew 20:1-16 to be directly connected to the disciples' question immediately before it. He also calls it "a wonderful and suspenseful story, carefully crafted to reveal that in the most important way, all disciples are equal in the present and future reign of God in Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p.988). In verses 1-7 the householder recruits workers to labor in his vineyard for the day. He does this at five times during the day. Gibbs observes that only the first and last group are central to the parable (Gibbs 2010, p.989). The first have agreed on a wage "for the day." The last have no agreement for a wage, and are noted as having been idle "for the day." In verses 8-16, as the day closes, the workers are paid out. Surprisingly, the people who came near the end of the day are paid for a full day of work (Gibbs 2010, p.990). Gibbs notes that the owner's generosity with those who came late would suggest he would pay more than agreed on to the workers who came earlier. However, he pays them the same amount, according to their earlier agreement. This seemed unjust to those who had worked all day (Gibbs 2010, p.991). However, the real issue, in Gibbs' mind, is the injustice of the employees deciding they should be paid beyond the terms of their agreement due to the master's generosity to others. Gibbs takes the premise of this parable to be socially revolutionary, since it equates everyone in God's kingdom (Gibbs 2010, p.992).
    For a third time Jesus predicts his death and resurrection in Matthew 20:17-19. Gibbs points out the disciples' failure to grasp the picture in the first two instances (16:21, 17:22-23). Again, here, as evidenced in the subsequent narrative, the disciples fail to understand (Gibbs 2010, p.996). This prediction is more extensive and detailed than the two earlier statements.
    Matthew 20:20-28 describes an interaction involving James and John's mother asking that her sons should be set apart in a privileged role in God's kingdom. Jesus' questioning makes it plain that they desire something which cannot be promised to them (Gibbs 2010, p.999). Jesus' purpose, according to verse 28, is to give his life. Gibbs briefly discusses the nature of this work of Jesus.
    First, Jesus gives his life as a λυτρόν. The meaning of this word in its context is a matter of debate. Gibbs takes it to mean a "ransom payment" rather than any other sort of payment (Gibbs 2010, p.1001). This is consistent with the bulk of the word's use. He does not see it as a "rescue" or "deliverance."
    The ransom payment is ἀντὶ πολλῶν. While the preposition often shows position, for instance, being located opposite something, Gibbs considers it to express some sort of exchange much more frequently (Gibbs 2010, p.1002). The reference to "many" in the prepositional phrase strikes Gibbs as indicative of "all people," the apparent opposite of "one person" as used in Matthew's Gospel.
    Gibbs reminds his readers of the three-part pattern in Matthew's passion predictions. The prediction was made in 20:17-19. Now, in verses 20-28, the disciples show they fail to understand, then Jesus provides them with teaching which should clarify things for them (Gibbs 2010, p.1003). Here, the failure to understand is shown through the request for special treatment to be given to James and John. The teaching of Jesus then has to do with the concept of greatness. At the heart of the misunderstanding, in Gibbs' view, is their failure to understand God's reign and priorities.
    In verses 20-23, Jesus makes it clear that James and John don't know what they are requesting. While they think they are asking for prestige, in fact they are asking to "drink the cup" which Jesus will drink (Gibbs 2010, p.1005). Drawing on Old Testament metaphors, Gibbs identifies "the cup" as an image of suffering (Gibbs 2010, p.1006). He further draws out numerous ways that Matthew carries the metaphor out in the life of Jesus. The cup of suffering is finally fulfilled in Jesus particularly at the Last Supper in Jesus' new covenant in his blood (Gibbs 2010, p.1008). After the Last Supper, Gibbs sees the cup of suffering as completely consumed by Jesus. From this point, then, the cup of blessing is what is received (Gibbs 2010, p.1009). As the disciples are associated with Jesus' death, they participate in his suffering as well. They do drink Jesus' cup. But they do not have a place on Jesus' right and left. Gibbs portrays that as given to the criminals executed along with Jesus, on his right and left (Gibbs 2010, p.1010).
    Gibbs discusses the presence of the mother of James and John in Matthew 20. He observes that there is a strong element of irony in Matthew's account, as she is specifically listed as being present at the death of Jesus in Matthew 27:55-56 (Gibbs 2010, p.1011). Among the women who followed Jesus, serving him, are the women who see Jesus dying so as to serve them. The model of Jesus' service is held in stark contrast to normal human service to others.
    Matthew 20:24-28 further emphasizes that greatness in God's kingdom is set apart from our imagination's model of greatness. Jesus' greatness is in his service to all (Gibbs 2010, p.1012). His intention is to give his very life for the salvation of the world. Gibbs makes it clear that this can be done only by Jesus, the Christ, who is well pleasing to God the Father (Gibbs 2010, p.1014). The Christian, however, is not exempt from imitating Jesus. We are likewise to lay our lives down for others (Gibbs 2010, pp. 1016ff).
    In Matthew 20:29-34 Jesus, leaving Jericho, heals two blind men. Gibbs observes the text here has a large number of variant readings but that the thrust of the passage is entirely consistent (Gibbs 2010, pp. 1019ff). He does discuss the grammatical implications in detail. It is significant that the blind men address Jesus both as "Lord" and as "Son of David" (Gibbs 2010, p.1022). They thus foreshadow Jesus' move to Jerusalem to take on the throne of David. As in many other passages, we find Jesus acting with compassion. He restores their sight.
    Gibbs compares this passage with the first healing of two blind men, from Matthew 9:27-31. In chapter nine, there is little contrast between the blind men and the crowd. Here, however, the crowd tries to silence the men. In contrast to the immediate context, while the disciples were blind to Jesus' role as Lord and Son of David, these men see it clearly.
    Further, in Matthew 9, the people healed are not to tell others. Here, in chapter 20, the news is not to be kept secret (Gibbs 2010, p.1024). Jesus is moving directly to his arrest and execution. There is no more need for discretion.
    This concludes the second of three volumes of Gibbs' commentary on Matthew. We'll push right on with the next volume.

​
0 Comments

November 20th, 2024

11/20/2024

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Chapter Sixteen

11/17/2024

0 Comments

 

Keep working on learning where to look for different things in Matthew's Gospel. In chapter fifteen we read about hand washing, defilement, and another mass feeding.

Write down at least three questions you hope will be answered.

Read Albrecht's commentary on Matthew, pages 232-244.

See if you have any more questions or answers.

Questions for Study and Discussion:

In verses 1-4, does Jesus condemn observational science? Why or why not?

In verses 5-12, and in other places in the Bible, false teaching, bad ideas, and sin are compared to yeast or leaven. Why is this an appropriate metaphor?

Verses 13-20 are usually considered a very important passage. Ask the questions of yourself and your culture. Who do people in your culture think Jesus might be? Who do you think he is? Defend your answers.

In verses 21-28, Jesus speaks of his upcoming death again. Why is this such a difficult concept for the disciples, as shown by Peter? How does he expect us to act in light of his death and resurrection?

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 Chronicles
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Abortion
    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
    Akagi 2016
    Aland 1961
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Antioch
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apologetics
    Apostles' Creed
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Apostolic Fathers
    Applied Theology
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker-1993
    Balabanski-1997
    Bammel-1996
    Baptism
    Baptism-of-christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy-1938
    Baron-2019
    Baron-maponya-2020
    Bauckham-1984
    Bauckham-2006
    Bauckham-2007
    Beale-1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Benamos-1999
    Betz-1996
    Biesenthal-1893
    Bigg-1904
    Bigg-1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg-1984
    Boehme2010
    Botha-1967
    Botha-1993
    Botha-2013
    Braaten-2007
    Bradshaw 2002
    Bruce-1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler-1960
    Caneday-2017
    Canonicity
    Capon-1998
    Capon1998
    Carr-2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catechesis
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux-1959
    Chilton-1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas-dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Church History
    Church Order
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constantine
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Creeds
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Denominations
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix-2005
    Dix2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper 2005
    Draper-2006
    Draper 2008
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Early Christian Functionaries
    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-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    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
    Epistles
    Eschatology
    Esther
    Ethics
    Eucharist
    Evangelism
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg-1988
    Fagerberg1988
    Fall Of Jerusalem
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Gibbs 2010
    Gibbs 2018
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Greek
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harrington 2008
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hartin 2008
    Hasitschka 2008
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Incarnation
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jefford 2005
    Jefford 2019
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Jesus
    Jewish Christianity
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Judaism
    Jude
    Judges
    Julian The Apostate
    Jungmann-1959
    Justinian
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kelly 1978
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kingsbury 1975
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Kloppenborg 2005
    Kloppenborg 2008
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb-2000
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kolbarand2008
    Konradt 2008
    Koukl 2019
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    Last Supper
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Law
    Layton 1968
    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
    Lessing-2014
    Lessing2014
    Lessing & Steinmann 2014
    Leviticus
    LGBTQ
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literacy
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Love
    Luke
    Luther
    Lutheran Confessions
    Lutheran Distinctives
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier-1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Marcion
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom-of-john-the-baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary-magdalene
    Mary-mother-of-our-lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux-1993-1950
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza-1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza-1999
    Mbamalu-2014
    Mcdonald-1980
    Mcdonnell-montague-1991
    Mckean-2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton-1935
    Milavec-1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2005
    Milavec2012
    Miller-2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell-1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monasticism
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg-1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    New Testament
    New-testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch-2003
    Niebuhr-1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer-1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Niederwimmer 1998
    Numbers
    Oaths
    Obadiah
    Old Testament
    Old-testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Overman-2008
    Ozment-1980
    Ozment1980
    Painter-2008
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee-1995
    Pardee-2012
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Pastoral-office
    Pastors
    Patterson-1995
    Paul
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost15c
    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-eve
    Pentecost-monday
    Pentecost-sunday
    Pentecost-tuesday
    Petersen-1994
    Peterson-2010
    Peterson2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli-1988
    Pick-1908
    Pieper-1924
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1968
    Piper-1947
    Pluralism
    Pope Leo I
    Post-70
    Powell-2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation-of-our-lord
    Proctor-2019
    Proper19c
    Proper20c
    Proper-21c
    Proper-22c
    Proper-23c
    Proper-24c
    Proper-25c
    Proper-26c
    Proper-27c
    Proper-28c
    Prophecy
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Purity
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic-character
    Real-presence
    Receptivity
    Reed-1995
    Reformation
    Reformation-day
    Reinhartz-2018
    Reproof
    Repschinski-2008
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads-2010
    Richardson-gooch-1984
    Riggs-1995
    Ritual-meal
    Romans
    Romeny-2005
    Rordorf-1996
    Rosenberg-1986
    Rosenberg-1987
    Rosenfeldlevene2012
    Rouwhorst-2005
    Rueger-2016
    Russo-1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger-1999
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sailhamer1992
    Sale-1996
    Samuel
    Scaer-2004
    Scaer2004
    Schaff-1886
    Schaff-1888
    Schaff-1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff2014
    Schollgen
    Schroter-2008
    Schwarz-2005
    Scriptural-usage
    Seeliger-1996
    Senn-1997
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Sim-2008
    Simon-and-jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith-2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Song-of-songs
    Songofsongs
    St-andrew
    Stark 1997
    St-barnabas
    St-bartholomew
    Stewart-Sykes 2008
    St-john
    St-john-the-baptist
    St-luke
    St-mark
    St-matthew
    St-matthias
    St-michael-and-all-angels
    St-paul
    St-peter-and-paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Svartvik 2008
    Syreeni 2005
    Syria
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theological Development
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday-in-holy-week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Tomson-2005
    Tomson-2008
    Tradition
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity-1
    Trinity-10
    Trinity-11
    Trinity-12
    Trinity-13
    Trinity-14
    Trinity-15
    Trinity-16
    Trinity-17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity-4
    Trinity-5
    Trinity-6
    Trinity-7
    Trinity-8
    Trinity-9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity-sunday
    Tsang-2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday-in-holy-week
    Tuilier-1995
    Tuilier-2005
    Twelftree-1984
    Two-ways
    Ty-19
    Vahrenhurst-2008
    Van-der-merwe-2017
    Van-der-merwe-2019
    Van-der-watt-2008
    Van-de-sandt-2002
    Van-de-sandt-2007
    Van-de-sandt-2008
    Vandesandt2010
    Vandesandt2011
    Van-de-sandt-flusser-2002
    Van-deventer-2021
    Varner-2005
    Vatican-ii
    Veith-1993
    Veith1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Verheyden-2005
    Verheyden-2008
    Vikisfreibergs-1997
    Visitation
    Voobus-1968
    Voobus-1969
    Vows
    Warfield-1886
    Wasson-toelken-1998
    Wednesday-in-holy-week
    Wegman 1985
    Welch 2001
    Wenham-1984
    Wenham-1992
    Weren-2005
    Weren-2008
    Weston-2009
    Wilhite-2019
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Winger-2014
    Wischmeyer-2008
    Wolmarans-2005
    Wright-1984
    Young-2011
    Ysebaert2002
    Zangenberg-2008
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah
    Zetterholm-2008

Proudly powered by Weebly