Category: New Testament - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Luke 5:11-11 - Lectionary for Trinity 5

7/9/2020

7/9/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

There are a few elements we should especially notice, even in this well-known Gospel passage from Luke 5:1-11. First, Luke portrays this as essentially the first time Jesus had met Simon Peter. There are no signs of previous familiarity, though somehow Jesus knows enough about Simon and Simon enough about Jesus that they can end up in Simon’s boat.

Simon Peter is clearly tired, and reports having worked hard all night with very disappointing results. He doesn’t seem to like being told by a rabbi what he should do, and with good reason. He is a professional fisherman, and a successful one.

Most of us don’t like it much when Jesus tells us what to do. Yet what can we observe about this encounter between Simon and Jesus? First, Jesus apparently does know what he is talking about. Even when he says something counter-intuitive or that goes against our experience and training, we should take him at his word. Second, Jesus’ command is for the good of those who hear it and obey it. The large catch of fish represents not only food for Simon Peter and his co-workers, but also for the crowd of people who have gathered that morning to hear Jesus. It also represents economic stability. I find it hard to imagine that Simon and company would give all the fish away. They were professional fishermen and their livelihood came from selling fish. The crowd likewise probably had nothing against paying for the fish they would consume. It certainly was fresh! Finally, Jesus often redirects us in order to do some greater good in our lives and, through us, to others. Here he took the fishermen and redirected them into lives which would bring the food of eternal life to those they met. When we are confronted with Jesus’ commands, we should ask what he is going to do with us.

Jesus comes to each of us in His Word. He guides our lives, he puts us in contact with people, and he shows us how to be his servants in our world. This is always a good thing, even at the end of a long night’s work.

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

Two Kings Plus Messengers

7/9/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
7/9/20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Peter 3:8-15 - Lectionary for Trinity 5

7/8/2020

7/8/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In 1 Peter 3:13 the apostle asks, “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?” (ESV). Actually, there are plenty of people ready to bring harm on those who are zealous for what is good. It’s a tragically widespread issue. Our Western society these days seems to have long waiting lines of people, eager to engage in hate and to show anger. They call what is evil good and what is good evil, then they attack anyone who pursues truth, beauty, and goodness. It’s sad.

Even if that hatred and abuse is poured out on us, though, we can know that the Lord is good. We don’t fear those who would persecute us for righteousness’ sake. We know that Jesus is the holy Lord and that he has given us a living and eternal hope.

What is our calling, in light of this passage? We are called to do good, to hope in what is good, and to realize that all good centers in Jesus, the savior of the world. He is the holy one in whom we find the hope of the resurrection to eternal life. Nobody can take that away from us.

In light of that knowledge, also, we guard our tongues and pursue peace, as we read in verses 10-11. This is for the good of our neighbor, as it shows the hope of the Christian even in this lost and evil world. Will there be opposition? Certainly, but we can know that Jesus has overcome his opponents and leads the way to eternity.

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

Luke 6:36-42 - Lectionary for Trinity 4

7/2/2020

7/2/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

The blind leading the blind . . . In Luke 6:36-42 Jesus ties this to the idea of judgment (vv. 36-37), receiving guidance (v. 40), and assisting others (vv. 41-42). What happens when a blind person leads a blind person? I don’t wish to say anything against my friends with visual challenges. Many of them get around very well. But there are some obvious drawbacks. Following the green line on the floor to get to your destination in the place you have never been? It won’t work out too well.

What happens when we seek advice from senses that are not functioning? We may go astray. Wat of it when our trusted guides aren’t trustworthy? Just like having the tour guide who is lost, so when we seek social, emotional, and spiritual advice from someone who is unprepared, we are very likely to go astray. It’s much better to find a guide who is prepared.

What kind of guide do we need? We need those who have taken the time to learn about God’s judgment and mercy. We eed the kinds who have been led and guided by Jesus. We need those who love their neighbors because Jesus first loved them. So we turn to godly and experienced people who know Jesus as the merciful savior.

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

The Naming of the Messiah

7/2/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament

7/2/20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 12:14-21 - Lectionary for Trinity 4

7/1/2020

7/1/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Romans 12:14-21 speaks particularly of the Christian’s life in society. It can be summed up by describing the Christian as someone who is kind, helpful, and harmless. This is amazingly difficult in this sinful world. Paul tells us in verse 21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (ESV). Why is this so difficult? Our evil world doesn’t want to be overcome with good. That makes for a world of trouble. Another reason it is difficult, possibly one more important for our consideration, is that the definition of doing good is muddled.

In verse 17 we are do consider “what is honorable in the sight of all.” Yet what one person thinks is honorable is considered dishonorable by another. We are very hard-pressed to find universal good, especially when we consider the variety of presuppositions about how good is to be done. I’ll draw a quick example from the current discussions in my native country. It is essentially universally agreed upon that good and affordable health care is a good thing. There may be a few dissenting voices, but they are remarkably few. However, this concept brings up countless questions. How is good health care defined? What makes it affordable? Are there some medical procedures that should be provided free to the patient? If so, what? Does the patient pay directly for health care, or is funding generally to be taken care of on the basis of a large group of people so as to spread the financial risk out? Is health care financing something to be provided by government or through free enterprise? Who gets to determine pricing? How is health care service reimbursed to providers? Who gets to judge what appropriate care standards are? How can that be enforced? Disagreements abound in all those matters. Yes, we think good and affordable health care is a good thing. Yet as soon as we start discussing the details, we are likely to find deep disagreements, which make it hard to fulfill the command in verse 17.

The definition of doing good is then muddled. How do we live this passage out? In a word, we live it out badly. Something is going to fall apart somewhere. We really can’t avoid that.

As always, then, we see that the law of God points us both to God’s perfect will and to our failure to do God’s will. We are directed, again and again, to our need for a savior, someone who is able to grant us forgiveness as we come, repentant of our inability to do what is good.

In the end, we don’t overcome evil with good. But God does. He is the one who can forgive, heal, and restore us. We do what we can. We try to do good, and sometimes we are remarkably close to success. Yet it is in Jesus and his forgiving love that we can actually stand before God, called his children, knowing that he will work through us for the good of our world.

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

Luke 15:1-10 - Lectionary for Trinity 3

6/25/2020

6/25/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Why do we try to crush all the joy out of God’s kingdom? That’s exactly what we do, and it’s nothing new. In Luke 15:1-10 Jesus is confronted by some who are disgruntled with him because he receives sinners. Why would he waste his time? Shouldn’t he be spending time with righteous people, people like us?

Jesus’ response is that God delights in restoration, including the restoration of the one who has been displaced from his rightful place through carelessness (the woman’s lost coin, which should have been right with the others in her special secure collection) or due to some sort of accidental oversight (the sheep who managed to get far enough away from the flock it required a search, rather than simply calling again).

How did these people in Luke 15 wind up as sinners? They were part of Israel. They were among God’s chosen people. They were partakers of the promise of God to Abraham. They had access, just as did the Scribes and Pharisees, to God’s
Word. What happened?

Some people wander through inattention. Some people don’t take the diligent care needed to train up the next generation in God’s Word. Some people neglect their own spiritual lives and those of their family members. Some people actively reject the faith. This is the reality of our fallen world. What are we supposed to do with those who are not in a close and vital relationship with God through Jesus? We don’t treat them as outcasts, or if they are outcasts, we treat them with compassion, as those who have endured a shipwreck in their faith and who are in danger of perishing due to the misfortune.

What is God’s attitude? Joy, when someone is brought to repentance and restored to faith in God. Jesus came to save sinners. He will keep working toward that goal until the end of history. May we have grace to participate in the same joy our Lord has when he works restoration.

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

What's in a Lineage?

6/25/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/25/20

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

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

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

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

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

1 Timothy 1:12-17 - Lectionary for Trinity 3

6/24/2020

6/24/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

The forgiveness which Christians experience in Christ is completely different from anything we find anywhere else. The apostle Paul describes it for us in 1 Timothy 1:12-17. What is the judgment of Jesus about Paul? He has called Paul “faithful.” He is of use in service to God, as a faithful servant. This is not of Paul’s doing. In the past, Paul was shown to be unfaithful, a blasphemer, persecutor, and an opponent of God. This was all forgiven in Jesus’ grace.

When Paul was forgiven, he was also changed. He received mercy and forgiveness, but his life was not the same as it was before. The patience of Jesus was now on display in Paul.

If we compare the forgiveness and grace of God shown toward Paul to the kind of treatment given by humans to humans, we easily see tremendous differences. On one level, people will speak of forgiveness and use it as an excuse for a lack of life change. They will say they have been forgiven, or deserve to be forgiven, and therefore they make no attempt to do anything differently. True, God is able to forgive any sort of sin. His grace is abundant, more so than ours. But at the same time, when God’s Word has condemned a course of action, his forgiveness is not to be used as an excuse for continuing flagrantly in that action, be it adultery, murder, theft, or covetousness. God’s forgiveness is a strong motivator for life change. Human concepts of forgiveness may not understand the strength of God’s commands or the gravity of sin.

Another way God’s forgiveness differs from human forgiveness is that, to be quite blunt, humans almost never grant forgiveness that is underserved. For that matter, humans almost never grant even deserved forgiveness. When popular culture observes a sin or perceived sin (however they define sin) in the past, they will call the alleged sinner to account. Retribution must be exacted, and the offender remains an offender forever. There is no restoration. If you, or the people group you belong to, have been declared guilty of some offense, you are condemned to suffer. That’s where it seems to end.

God’s great mercy not only forgave Paul of his sin and shame, it restored him and placed him in a position of service and even honor. God in Christ does the very same thing for every Christian. By God’s grace, through faith, we are declared to be good and faithful servants who are pleasing to God and free from our past sins. This is to God’s glory and to our benefit.

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

Luke 14:15-24 - Lectionary for Trinity 2

6/18/2020

6/18/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

“I can’t come to your event, because I don’t want to.” True, this is not a way we would likely treat others. I am of a slightly older generation in my culture, one in which we might deal with invitations in a different way. When invited to something we don’t want to go to, we might go anyway, since it is a polite thing to do. We also might simply say, “No, thank you.” No explanation is really needed, we simply declined the invitation and won’t be going. People a generation younger than myself will, on the other hand, often not respond in any way to an invitation, then decide at the last minute whether they will come or not. Or they may do something I find very rude, accept the invitation and then decline it at the last minute because something else came up. We have all sorts of ways of deciding what our priorities are.

In the world of Christianity, great amounts of time and effort have been expended trying to figure out why more people from one group, fewer people from another, will attend an event. Do some activities reach different ages or demographics differently than others? These are, perhaps, valid questions to ask. However, they all miss the point of our Gospel reading from Luke 14:15-24. Jesus tells a parable about people who have been invited to a banquet. Apparently it is a big deal. When the servants try to get the banquet hall filled, they have to do a lot of recruiting.

The respondents didn’t want to go to the banquet. They all make excuses which are pretty lame. “Oh, I have some real estate I need to look at.” “I have some cattle I want to meet.” “I got married so I can’t do anything.” All are ridiculous excuses. They can’t come to the banquet because they don’t want to.

Jesus invites us to a banquet in his presence. He gives us his broken body and shed blood to eat and drink, distributing forgiveness and peace with God at the same time. He gives us a feast centered around His Word, which creates faith in our hearts and lets us see the goodness of God.

The feast spread by God is available to all who believe. Why do so many reject? They don’t want God to mess with them. Changing the message or the method of presentation won’t fix anything. We need to pray that God will change the hearts and minds of those we invite. Some might come simply because they are polite. But some will come and receive God’s banquet with joy.

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

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

6/18/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/18/20

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

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

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

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

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

Ephesians 2:13-22 - Lectionary for Trinity 2

6/17/2020

6/17/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In recent weeks the idea of reconciliation has once again cropped up to the center of many Americans’ attention. The tensions have perhaps been more intense because of the pandemic which has prevented many meetings and appearances of Christian leaders, who have typically been a voice for reconciliation among different racial and cultural groups.

The Bible has a great deal to say about reconciliation. This week, in particular, the Epistle reading from Ephesians 2 points out that the most serious conflict in the world, the conflict between the perfectly holy God and sinful humans, has been resolved by Jesus, who broke down the separation between God and man. This is particularly important when we remember this letter was written to Christians at Ephesus. The Ephesians, in the Greek world, and the Jews, would have very little to do with one another. There was a lot of tension. Virtually nowhere in the Mediterranean world was Judaism accepted, primarily because the pagans had little patience with a people who were monotheistic and who believed in a transcendent God, rather than a group of gods who were more like long living and very powerful humans.

“Everyone” in Christianity recognized that the Jews would become Christians by God’s grace. However, there wa still some doubt about the legitimacy of a Greek becoming a Christian without first converting to Judaism. Paul says that Jesus has made the Ephesians also partakers of his divine nature, breaking down their separation from God through his own work. The Ephesians, just like the Jews from Jerusalem, were citizens in the kingdom of God. They too were built up on the foundation of Christ and were a holy dwelling for God.

It is in Christ and His reconciling work that we have hope for reconciliation with one another. It is in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice and his love for all humans that we can hope to see one another as bearers of God’s image and as those who are worthy of love and respect. This is the message of Christianity, that though we are sinners, God has esteemed us highly as those created in His image, and that he has reconciled us to himself, at his own expense. Our role is to acknowledge his work. That acknowledgement automatically brings us to see other humans, no matter their background, as His precious children. So we treat one another well, with respect, with dignity. Here we can find peace.

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

Luke 16:19-31 - Lectionary for Trinity 1

6/11/2020

6/11/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In this week’s Gospel passage Jesus’ story of the rich man should set us back on our heels. It should surprise us, as many of us have become like the rich man. We are used to having all we need. We are used to ignoring some parts of society, especially those that look different, act different, and, yes, smell different from our ideals. The division between different cultures in my native country is growing sharper and sharper by the year, especially evident in the past thirteen to fifteen years, as different groups have grown more hostile toward one another. Many would rather the people who are different from themselves would just go away, or just die.

What does Jesus say in this passage? First, what he does NOT say. The rich man is not excluded from heavenly bliss due to his riches. The poor man is not included in heavenly bliss due to his poverty. That would contradict many other passages of Scripture. Most notably, we recall that Abraham was a very rich man, and he is in the place of bliss. It isn’t about money. The passage also makes no condemnation of rich people using their riches. The clothing and feasting of the rich man is never spoken against. His lack of care for his neighbor is, as the poor man would like what falls from the table but is unable to get it. The household dogs presumably are treated well, but the poor man, to think in terms of the culture I live in, finds the trash cans are kept locked up.

Now, what does Jesus say? He says two very important things. First, there is no changing our status after death. We are ushered into bliss or into torment. The rich man can accept this, but he wants to see if someone can come back from the dead and warn his brothers. The other thing Jesus says is that even if someone rises from the dead they won’t believe. What’s the proof for that? Jesus, who rose from the dead, and who calls people to believe him as Abraham believed him, is rejected and scorned by those who are like the rich man and his brothers.

If we are trusting in our wealth, our property, our influence, our power to make a way in this world, it will all prove a futile trust. If, on the other hand, we entrust our resources, our energy, our very lives to God in his gracious mercy as shown through Jesus, all will work out well. It is our trust in God or our trust in ourselves that makes the difference between being like the rich man and like Lazarus. Let’s be more like Lazarus. He receives his comfort. That’s a very good thing.

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

By Matthew the Tax Collector Turned Apostle

6/11/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/11/20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 John 4:16-21 - Lectionary for Trinity 1

6/10/2020

6/10/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Our reading from 1 John 4:16-21 is a corrective about our general inclinations when we think about love. After all, we think, we all know what love is. Right? All you need is love. And if you hang something on your wall about love being a deep feeling of affection for those who are special to you, you must not be too far off, right? Live, love, laugh, and all that?

What is God’s love for us. His love is the kind of love that finds us when we were still sinners. It is the kind of love that makes us able to live in God’s presence. It is the kind of love that takes away all fear because it has negated punishment. Oh, yes, there’s still punishment but it is for those who are not in Christ. In Christ, there is no fear of anything.

Is true love something we do? Not at all. We love because he first loved us. We would have no capacity for genuine love except that God has initiated it in us. And we have an inkling that the love of God is working in us because we develop the kind of care God has shown us for others in our lives. We love our brother, who we have seen, and it is a sign of love for God who we have not seen.

Does that mean that we also engage in no judgment, that everything anyone else would do is all right? On one level, we leave judgment up to God. However, he has given us a lot of clear statements in Scripture about what is acceptable and unacceptable in his sight. We love our neighbor enough to help him see when he is in danger of God’s judgment. While we ourselves aren’t hostile about it, the ideas may well be perceived as hostile and result in retaliation by those who are in danger of God’s judgment and react in fear, seeking to avoid punishment by punishing us. That’s a very real possibility, which happens to countless people every day.

Yet our attitude remains the same. As we are secure in Christ’s love for us, we are free to love our neighbor. And our love for our neighbor might just help that neighbor see God’s love for him in Christ.

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

John 3:1-17 - Lectionary for Trinity Sunday

6/4/2020

6/4/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In the third chapter of John’s Gospel Jesus affirms God’s supernatural character. He gives birth, even to old people like Nicodemus. But, in verse eight, he does it through means that we will not completely understand.

Do we see some irony here, at least a little bit, when Nicodemus affirms that he doesn’t understand? He want to understand. He’s trying to understand. He assumes that he will eventually be able to understand, because he’s a smart guy!

This is exactly the problem, and it’s a problem that most of us have. We want the kingdom of God to be something that we can grasp clearly with our senses, that we can wrap our mind around. We want to be able to describe everything, and not only describe it, but explain it. When we observe that the world is full of complexities which we can’t explain, such as gravity, which we seem only able to describe, our world will tell us that science is complex because it’s real, but religion is something different.

The fact is, the God who created all this complexity is himself able to be just as complex as he wants to. He gives some descriptions of himself in Scripture, and he allows us to make some sense out of his creation, which may help us understand him a little better, but he remains the one who is inexplicable.

This Trinity Sunday, then, when we confess that God is one in being and three in person, that he has one will and one desire but three persons who arevery different in appearance, yet he is really one, all at the same time, all eternal, all unchanging, we are confessing something we cannot possibly explain without lapsing into some sort of heresy. Like Nicodemus, we can’t fully wrap our heads around God. But he remains the one who is working in our world. He is still the one who rescues us from sin, death, and the grave, through means we really don’t think should be able to do that.

Like Nicodemus, then, we are called to believe on the Lord, not to explain the Lord. Believe on him. He is the redeemer of the world.

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

Matthew's Message of the Kingdom

6/4/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
6/4/20

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 11:33-36 - Lectionary for Trinity Sunday

6/3/2020

6/3/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

For Trinity Sunday our Epistle features what is probably a piece of writing that is older than the rest of the letter to the Romans. In Romans 11 verses 34-36 are typically set off in a way that suggests a quotation, but the quotation is not from anything in the Old Testament. Many scholars would suggest that these passages were theological statements used by the early Christians in their worship, which were then included in the New Testament writings because the familiar snippet accurately reflected what the author wanted to express. By the time Paul is writing Romans they aren’t old enough to be considered ancient, but they may have dated back to the earliest weeks and months of the Christian period, some twenty or so years before the apostle wrote the letter.

Who has known the mind of the Lord? Who is worthy to correct God. Really, who is qualified to say, “God’s Word says [fill in a moral or ethical statement] but we actually know [fill in the opposite]? That’s the work of those who deny the Holy Spirit. It says that God really didn’t know what he was talking about and that if the people he was inspiring to write an authoritative account of his will failed to understand something he was unable to prompt them in the right direction. It’s the height of arrogance, for it places our human reason on the throne and says that God, the creator, redeemer, and sustainer of all is answerable to my inclination.

Really? Do we think we give anything to God so that he owes us something in return? Christianity has always confessed that everything that is good comes from God’s gracious hand, including the things we need and the things we don’t need, in times of poverty and in times of abundance. And we think we are in a position to bargain with God, to loan him something and make him repay?

No, we can do nothing of the sort, nor should we try. All that we have comes from God. We simply return to Him what he has let us borrow.

The entire idea is summed up by the fact that all glory goes to God, forever. We may come up with some sort of glory that seems, at times, to be ours. This is because we are created in the image of God. But it’s just a faint reflection of God’s glory. It’s just enough light to make us think it would be good to have more light.

God’s riches, yes, that’s what we need. And the Lord has graciously poured out those riches upon his people, giving them the gifts they need. Thanks be to God.

Back to the fact that we were apparently quoting something? As long as there has been Christianity, there have been people proclaiming God’s glory. We join with countless other people to do the same.

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

John 14:23-31 - Lectionary for Pentecost Sunday

5/28/2020

5/28/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In John 14:27 we are given a great promise by Jesus, sadly a promise that we ignore. Jesus promises to give his peace to his people, not the kind of peace that the world gives, but a divine peace. They should not let their hearts be troubled. Why? Because they have God’s peace with them.

The increasing secularization of some parts of the West have also been filled with increasing strife and anger. To this bush league analyst, the anger seems to be rooted in an insecurity. “Our world is falling apart, it isn’t working the way we want it to, we want to have love and peace, but it isn’t where we expected to find it. It’s threatened, so we’re going to scream profanities and break things.” It seems to me that the people who would like to be known as being all about tolerance, love, and peace are the exact same people who threaten violence against others who are not like them, especially against Christians.

Some Christians have, at times, responded with anger, or at least frustration. That isn’t the right response. What did Jesus promise? He promised the peace of God. This is a peace which passes all understanding. It is able to guard us from fear. It has proven able to keep the Chrsitian saints and martyrs over the ages. It has enabled many to go fearlessly with the message of the Gospel to warring factions, to tribes of headhunters, to the sickbeds of people suffering from plagues, and to lay down their lives in countless other ways.

Why can we do this? It’s because in God’s peace our hearts are not troubled.

My thoughts may be troubled by the evils all around me. They should be. My actions may be changed because of knowledge of risks and dangers. That’s fine. But my heart cannot be troubled if it is kept in Christ’s peace.

This is perplexing to those who have been taught that Christianity is about power, oppression, bigotry, and hostility. They don’t know what to do when they encounter the love of God. They may be mistrustful. We can understand it. They may be frustrated to find that people they thought were no different are, in fact, different because of the work of the God they were taught was an illusion. They may scream. They may threaten violence. They may break things, including our bodies. But they cannot shake the peace of God, though they try.

How does the Christian respond? Come, you frustrated, anxious, troubled people. The peace of God is there for you as well. Trust that Jesus is the one who sends the Holy Spirit, who works forgiveness, who breaks down the alienation between you and God, and who gives life and immortality. Receive the peace of God which passes all understanding. It is for you as well.

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

Matthew As Self-Contained Narrative

5/28/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
5/28/20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 2:1-21 - Lectionary for Pentecost Sunday

5/27/2020

5/27/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Apocalyptic. For some reason, that’s become a popular descriptor of unpopular situations. Plagues, famines, earthquakes, tidal waves, acts of war. Apocalyptic. Dare I mention . . . no, better not. Everyone’s been talking about that for the last two weeks to flatten the curve.

In Acts chapter two, the disciples start speaking of the glories of God. The people from many different nations, cultures, and language groups, all gathered in Jerusalem because of their desire to be present for the feast of Pentecost, hear them speaking in their native languages, from all around the region. God is communicating with them all about his glory, telling them about it in the language dear to their hearts, the language in which they dream.

Is it necessary for God to provide this gift so they would understand? Yes and no. Notice when Peter explains it to them, he does not seem to have the gift operating. He is heard from them in the very language in which he speaks, and he is understood. The people can understand what is happening. They didn’t need a translator. But they did need an interpreter.

How often are we confronted with God’s glory, his majesty, his works of mercy, and we fail to notice? We don’t need a translator, but we do need an interpreter. We need to be kicked in the shins and told to look at how Jesus is working a miracle when a baby is brought for baptism. We need someone to tug on our ears and remind us to listen up to the reading of God’s Word because he will create faith through it. Our minds wander in prayer and we need someone to catch our attention and tell us, once again, that this is a real live chance to bring our needs before God and that He is listening. We need that interpreter to tell us about the times.

Sometimes, though, we realize that the situation is apocalyptic. It is going to lead to an unveiling of God, which will bring a final judgment. We still need the interpreter for this. Some of the people in Jerusalem who were having faith created in their hearts by God’s Word were fearful about the time of the end. Some people in our culture are as well. Notice I used the term “apocalyptic” only for things we would consider to be terribly destructive? What does Peter have to say about them?

They are frightening, yes. But they are part of God bringing his people to himself at the end of time, gathering them as a mighty community from every place and every age, showing them that they are partakers of his mercy and grace, that nothing can harm them in the end. Peter gives apocalyptic signs as signs of hope.

In this coming season of Pentecost, may we have grace to watch for Jesus’ gracious presence and the signs of his coming. It will be a time to see!

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

John 15:26-16:4 - Lectionary for Easter 7

5/21/2020

5/21/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Jesus promises his followers an abundant life. He promises that he will always be with them. He promises that no harm will come to them. And in this week’s Gospel reading from John 15:26-16:4, He adds some promises. “They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God” (16:1-2, ESV).

These aren’t the daily promises from Jesus that you want to have come up on your phone app that gives you God’s word for the day, in bite size inspirational format. Really, when I say I want some good news, I don’t want an answer such as “it could be worse, much worse.”

There is, however, great hope in this passage. The reason that Christians may end up as outcasts and even targets of terrible, murderous acts, is that those who do these awful acts didn’t know the Father or the Son (16:3). People who are not partakers of God’s promises end up throwing all sorts of anger and hatred toward those who know God’s grace. People who have no hope of eternal life really have a hard time with those whose hope is steadfast.

Christians have a sure and certain hope, and it is a hope in the resurrection. We have an abundant life, a destiny of all we will ever or can ever need, in the future. It matters little what happens to us in the meantime. Our pleasure is found in the heavenly realms, and, sometimes - often - by God’s grace, to some extent, we have great comfort and pleasure in this life as well.

Christians have a promise of the presence of Jesus with them, day by day, through the end of the age. It’s the risen Lord, the one who has even been through death on our behalf. And if he is with us to the end of this age, he’ll be around when our mortal bodies wear out and die. It’s all right. He’s been there before. He defeated that enemy called death and promises us safe passage right on through.

Christians have a promise that no eternal harm will come to them. Will they be cast out of the synagogue? Sure. Will they be threatened? More than likely. Will some of them be killed? That’s without a doubt. But the promise isn’t against pain and suffering. It is that, regardless of what happens in this life, Christians are partakers of the resurrection. We may endure terrible things here and now, but our Lord Jesus is able to protect us and take us to our eternal home.

He didn’t tell the disciples all those things before he was about to leave them. He knew they would forget. In fact, they seem to have forgotten in the hours and days shortly before and after Jesus’ execution. But he showed them, through his resurrection and his appearances, that he is able to be with them.

Whatever the temporal situation, we have a confidence that will not fail.

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

Matthew as Its Own Thing

5/21/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
5/21/20

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

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

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

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

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

1 Peter 4:7-14 - Lectionary for Easter 7

5/20/2020

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

1 Peter 4:10-11 tells us to use the various gifts of God appropriately. Then, oddly enough, Peter gives us only two gifts as examples. Yet they are strong examples, which may well encapsulate all that we do. Let’s look at them.

First, the one who speaks should be “as the one who speaks oracles of God.” In whatever we speak, we should desire to be certain. We speak with confidence. We strive for accuracy and relevance. Among all the useless chatter of our age, which has been prevalent in every age, Chrsitians speak as those who know what God has said. We speak of reality, even when that reality is unseen. And, like the early Christians, we make efforts not to obscure meaning in the ramblings of the pagans and philosophers, but to cut directly to the truth. This applies to all our speech. Through those words we can bring refreshment and hope to those around us.

Second, the one who serves, does it by the strenth Christ supplies. Jesus, who rose from the dead, will raise us as well. Jesus, who cared for the poor and needy while he himself was walking around with just the clothes on his back, helps us care for the poor and needy as well. Jesus, who understands all the intricacies of our world of work, supplies us with wisdom and understanding to navigate that world. Jesus, who knows how to preserve life, enables us to preserve life as well. Jesus, who knows how all the rhythms of this world work, gives us a rhythm of work and of rest.

In the end, we find our life is shown to others in word and in deed, the two elements Peter has identified as gifts of God. When those gifts are used in subjection to the Lord, they prove of great benefit to our entire world.

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

John 16:23-33 - Lectionary for Easter 6

5/14/2020

5/14/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Jesus tells his disciples, in today’s Gospel reading, that there will come a time when they will be asking the Father directly for things, in Jesus name, and that they will receive what they are asking for. The disciples received this news joyfully. In verse 30 they seem to think it’s about time they were recognized as spiritual people who will no longer really need Jesus. They have decided, since he is now finally thinking highly of them, that he must have come from God.

Now that I put it that way, we see how tremendously haughty the disciples were, and how little they regarded Jesus. They don’t seem to care that he is their one and only hope for reconciliation with God. They don’t think it matters that God’s attitude of care for them is based on the fact that they have believed that Jesus came from the Father. They really haven’t latched on to anything Jesus has said about laying his life down for their sakes. Not at all. They are glad that Jesus has finally recognized that they are the kind of people who should be able to speak directly with the Father.

Sadly, I fear that many in my culture and generation have the same attitude toward Jesus. They are possibly glad that he came and did . . . something . . . but they aren’t really sure what it was, why it mattered, or how it applies to them. After all, we’re good people and the Father ought to be really glad that He knows us!

Am I the only one who finds this attitude offensive? And by that I mean, am I the only one who would look at it and honestly say it is offensive to God, who gave his one and only Son to die for the sake of sinners who were at enmity with God? Do we not see that the only way we can stand before the Father is because of the Son?

What happens when the disciples think they are able to stand in their own righteousness? Jesus is executed and the disciples scatter, plunged into hopelessness and despair. May it never be so for us. Rather, may we have the wisdom and grace to look to Jesus, the one and only savior, finding in his righteousness that we can stand before the Father. Jesus, who came from the Father and has exited from this world, now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for his people. Therefore, we can stand before God, clothed in the righteousness of the Son. This is our confidence.

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