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.
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.
RSS Feed