Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
11/6/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 17." In Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 849-886). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew chapter 17 begins with an account of Jesus' transfiguration. Gibbs notes that having seen and heard of Jesus' humiliation the disciples now have an opportunity to glimpse him in glory (Gibbs 2010, p. 851). It is necessary for some of Jesus' splendor to be shown, as he is engaged in difficult teachings about his death. Matthew 17:1-8 accomplishes this.
Gibbs links the transfiguration with Jesus' statement in 16:28, as here some get to see Jesus in his glory (Gibbs 2010, p. 853). Peter, James, and John constitute "some" of those Jesus had spoken to in 16:28. While some see a parallel to Exodus 24 and the elders of Israel seeing God's glory, Gibbs notes numerous differences which suggest it is not necessarily a strong parallel (Gibbs 2010, p. 854).
In Matthew 17:3-4, the three apostles see Jesus, in glory, talking with Moses and Elijah (Gibbs 2010, p. 855). Gibbs notes this event certainly recalls Moses' reception of the commandments on the mountain of God. Moses and Elijah are regularly understood as representing God's Law and the Prophets. However, Gibbs observes some problems, both regarding Elijah, who was not a writing prophet so may not be the most natural candidate for representing the canonical prophetic works (Gibbs 2010, p. 856). Gibbs does observe that Matthew uses references to Elijah in a particular way. Referencing the similarity of Elijah and John the Baptist, Gibbs considers that Elijah's presence here may symbolize God breaking into history through the announcements that Elijah and John the Baptist make. Elijah is speaking with Jesus, which draws the attention not to himself but to Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p. 856). Peter's interruption with a plan for three shelters may be seen as an attempt to consider Moses, Elijah, and Jesus in the same terms as each other (Gibbs 2010, p. 857). The re-direct, from the voice of God, pushes Peter and the others to pay attention only to Jesus. Verses 6-8 describe the fearful reaction of the apostles, who are not relieved of their fear until Jesus raises them up and they just see him (Gibbs 2010, p. 859).
In Matthew 17:9-13, Jesus clarifies the role of John the Baptist for his disciples. Both John and Jesus proclaimed God's kingdom. The future hope is being fulfilled in Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p. 864). John's death could easily signal a failure in his mission. The assumption that death signals failure is perfectly common, even able to provoke Peter in his attempt to deny the coming death of Jesus. Despite the disciples' best judgment, they are not to speak of Jesus' glorification and are to expect his death. They had seen a sign of God's glory and the appearance of Elijah, so they expected the end very soon. Jesus affirms their interpretation of Elijah coming, then equates John the Baptist with Elijah (Gibbs 2010, p. 866). This affirms "that the Day of the Lord is at hand, but in a way scarcely envisioned by the disciples and able to be received only in faith" (Gibbs 2010, p. 867). The power of God does not mean that John or Jesus will not die. It is shown through what appears to be weakness.
Matthew 17:14-21 returns Jesus, Peter, James, and John to a crowd. Gibbs notes that not only does this exorcism narrative immediately follow an instance of Jesus showing his glory, but it is also followed by a passage in which he predicts his death. The overall message implies the importance of Jesus' glorious mission as that of bringing relief and rescue to suffering people (Gibbs 2010, p. 870).
The father of a son who has been troubled by a harmful demon begs Jesus for help, though his disciples had been unable to help (Gibbs 2010, p. 871). Jesus responds, with a frustrated comment, though not addressed to the father. Gibbs observes the father had approached him as a faithful disciple. Jesus' question about bearing with "you" is addressed to a plural "you," thus indicating his own disciples. Gibbs points out that Jesus had given them authority over demons in Matthew 10, but they failed in this instance (Gibbs 2010, p. 872). The "faith like a seed of mustard" which the disciples do not have in 17:20 has not grown as it should have, according to Matthew 13:31-32. That caused their failure. What he has given them has not yet grown (Gibbs 2010, p. 874). As they rely on Jesus, it will grow. This indicates the reality of Jesus' promise in verse 20. What is impossible in our view is quite possible in God's kingdom (Gibbs 2010, p. 875). Gibbs does contend that Jesus' promise is not about the disciples doing anything they can imagine. On the contrary, they can do anything Jesus has given them authority to do, according to his means, not theirs (Gibbs 2010, p. 876).
In Matthew 17:22-27, Jesus makes a second prediction of his death. Gibbs notes the stark contrast of this passage with 17:20, where nothing is impossible for the disciples. Here, there is no option for Jesus but to be arrested (Gibbs 2010, p. 880). In contrast, Jesus looks forward to his resurrection, which the disciples can't comprehend. The language of betrayal and the location of Jerusalem take more prominence.
The teaching about the temple tax is found only in Matthew. Gibbs takes the order of reported events here to be purposeful, and the statement about the temple tax to be a commentary on Jesus' prediction of his death (Gibbs 2010, p. 882). The tax, probably instituted in Nehemiah 10, about 445 BC, was to provide for the expenses of the offerings in the temple. It seems to be voluntary, and was a modest amount, about a day's wage per person per year (Gibbs 2010, p. 883). Jesus' statement to Peter that the "sons" of the king are free from taxes identifies Peter with Jesus and with God the Father as a son rather than a subject of a king (Gibbs 2010, p. 885). The donation for the temple is not required, because Jesus is going to die and rise again. This ends all obligation to support the sacrificial system. Jesus is thus shown to be greater than the temple. The contribution is therefore only for the purpose of avoiding offense, not due to any other obligation.
11/6/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 17." In Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 849-886). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew chapter 17 begins with an account of Jesus' transfiguration. Gibbs notes that having seen and heard of Jesus' humiliation the disciples now have an opportunity to glimpse him in glory (Gibbs 2010, p. 851). It is necessary for some of Jesus' splendor to be shown, as he is engaged in difficult teachings about his death. Matthew 17:1-8 accomplishes this.
Gibbs links the transfiguration with Jesus' statement in 16:28, as here some get to see Jesus in his glory (Gibbs 2010, p. 853). Peter, James, and John constitute "some" of those Jesus had spoken to in 16:28. While some see a parallel to Exodus 24 and the elders of Israel seeing God's glory, Gibbs notes numerous differences which suggest it is not necessarily a strong parallel (Gibbs 2010, p. 854).
In Matthew 17:3-4, the three apostles see Jesus, in glory, talking with Moses and Elijah (Gibbs 2010, p. 855). Gibbs notes this event certainly recalls Moses' reception of the commandments on the mountain of God. Moses and Elijah are regularly understood as representing God's Law and the Prophets. However, Gibbs observes some problems, both regarding Elijah, who was not a writing prophet so may not be the most natural candidate for representing the canonical prophetic works (Gibbs 2010, p. 856). Gibbs does observe that Matthew uses references to Elijah in a particular way. Referencing the similarity of Elijah and John the Baptist, Gibbs considers that Elijah's presence here may symbolize God breaking into history through the announcements that Elijah and John the Baptist make. Elijah is speaking with Jesus, which draws the attention not to himself but to Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p. 856). Peter's interruption with a plan for three shelters may be seen as an attempt to consider Moses, Elijah, and Jesus in the same terms as each other (Gibbs 2010, p. 857). The re-direct, from the voice of God, pushes Peter and the others to pay attention only to Jesus. Verses 6-8 describe the fearful reaction of the apostles, who are not relieved of their fear until Jesus raises them up and they just see him (Gibbs 2010, p. 859).
In Matthew 17:9-13, Jesus clarifies the role of John the Baptist for his disciples. Both John and Jesus proclaimed God's kingdom. The future hope is being fulfilled in Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p. 864). John's death could easily signal a failure in his mission. The assumption that death signals failure is perfectly common, even able to provoke Peter in his attempt to deny the coming death of Jesus. Despite the disciples' best judgment, they are not to speak of Jesus' glorification and are to expect his death. They had seen a sign of God's glory and the appearance of Elijah, so they expected the end very soon. Jesus affirms their interpretation of Elijah coming, then equates John the Baptist with Elijah (Gibbs 2010, p. 866). This affirms "that the Day of the Lord is at hand, but in a way scarcely envisioned by the disciples and able to be received only in faith" (Gibbs 2010, p. 867). The power of God does not mean that John or Jesus will not die. It is shown through what appears to be weakness.
Matthew 17:14-21 returns Jesus, Peter, James, and John to a crowd. Gibbs notes that not only does this exorcism narrative immediately follow an instance of Jesus showing his glory, but it is also followed by a passage in which he predicts his death. The overall message implies the importance of Jesus' glorious mission as that of bringing relief and rescue to suffering people (Gibbs 2010, p. 870).
The father of a son who has been troubled by a harmful demon begs Jesus for help, though his disciples had been unable to help (Gibbs 2010, p. 871). Jesus responds, with a frustrated comment, though not addressed to the father. Gibbs observes the father had approached him as a faithful disciple. Jesus' question about bearing with "you" is addressed to a plural "you," thus indicating his own disciples. Gibbs points out that Jesus had given them authority over demons in Matthew 10, but they failed in this instance (Gibbs 2010, p. 872). The "faith like a seed of mustard" which the disciples do not have in 17:20 has not grown as it should have, according to Matthew 13:31-32. That caused their failure. What he has given them has not yet grown (Gibbs 2010, p. 874). As they rely on Jesus, it will grow. This indicates the reality of Jesus' promise in verse 20. What is impossible in our view is quite possible in God's kingdom (Gibbs 2010, p. 875). Gibbs does contend that Jesus' promise is not about the disciples doing anything they can imagine. On the contrary, they can do anything Jesus has given them authority to do, according to his means, not theirs (Gibbs 2010, p. 876).
In Matthew 17:22-27, Jesus makes a second prediction of his death. Gibbs notes the stark contrast of this passage with 17:20, where nothing is impossible for the disciples. Here, there is no option for Jesus but to be arrested (Gibbs 2010, p. 880). In contrast, Jesus looks forward to his resurrection, which the disciples can't comprehend. The language of betrayal and the location of Jerusalem take more prominence.
The teaching about the temple tax is found only in Matthew. Gibbs takes the order of reported events here to be purposeful, and the statement about the temple tax to be a commentary on Jesus' prediction of his death (Gibbs 2010, p. 882). The tax, probably instituted in Nehemiah 10, about 445 BC, was to provide for the expenses of the offerings in the temple. It seems to be voluntary, and was a modest amount, about a day's wage per person per year (Gibbs 2010, p. 883). Jesus' statement to Peter that the "sons" of the king are free from taxes identifies Peter with Jesus and with God the Father as a son rather than a subject of a king (Gibbs 2010, p. 885). The donation for the temple is not required, because Jesus is going to die and rise again. This ends all obligation to support the sacrificial system. Jesus is thus shown to be greater than the temple. The contribution is therefore only for the purpose of avoiding offense, not due to any other obligation.
RSS Feed