New Testament Studies
3/13/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 26" (part 2) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
"Matthew 26:36-46 The Perfect Son Prays and the Father's Will Is Done." (pp. 1426-1442).
Gibbs notes that Matthew 26:36-46 uses a number of historical present verbs. The only other passage which uses many is Matthew 4:1-11 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1426). While Gibbs makes no strong conclusion as to a particular narrative purpose, he does think the two passages are intended to show vivid intensity (Gibbs 2018, p. 1427).
In Matthew 26:36-38 Jesus enters the garden with his disciples, who have all insisted that they would remain with him. While three remain with Jesus as he moves farther into the garden, Gibbs points out they also are not there for the same purpose as Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1432). While Jesus prays for his disciples, he never asks them to pray for him. Rather, he warns them of the coming temptation. This is one of the few places in Matthew where Jesus' emotional life comes to the surface of the narrative (Gibbs 2018, p. 1433). Jesus clearly expresses extreme sorrow, though it is not entirely clear which of the troubles at hand is predominant in his thought. Despite the sorrow, Jesus continues his mission.
In verses 39-44, then, Jesus prays as his disciples fail to do his will. It is significant that Jesus prays in essentially the same manner three times, and that there is somewhat of a time marker in Matthew 26:40, where he refers to "one hour" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1434). This suggests a fairly literal amount of time. In any case, it was late enough and long enough that the disciples fell asleep, a form of falling away.
Jesus' prayer is summarized in Matthew 26:39, 42, and 44. He addresses God the Father and asks that the cup would pass from him, if possible. Gibbs observes that Jesus has known this plan all along. The "if possible" expresses a desire, but one which Jesus knows is not possible (Gibbs 2018, p. 1435). Jesus further affirms that his desire is to do the desire of the Father. The grief is real, as is the commitment. Gibbs reflects briefly on the nature of "this cup" which Jesus would like to avoid. The imagery of bitter death predominates throughout the Old Testament (Gibbs 2018, p. 1436). Gibbs concludes that, though the cup Jesus gives his disciples in the Last Supper is full of his death, it does not have the bitter element of the cup of suffering Jesus drinks.
The failure of the disciples while Jesus prays is recorded in Matthew 26:40, 41, 43, and 45. Even as Jesus prays three times, the disciples fail to watch or pray, but rather they sleep (Gibbs 2018, p. 1437). The disciples are in great danger of temptation, which Jesus knows will cause them to stumble.
Matthew 26:45-46 moves from Jesus' prayers into the fearful events he has been praying about. The disciples have been sleeping but now is the time of their temptation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1438). Jesus is given into the hands of sinners (v. 45), though it is part of his divine plan.
Gibbs discusses Matthew 26:36-46 as a passage which makes significant Christological statements (Gibbs 2018, p. 1439). He followed a difficult path, one which his disciples could not follow. He is shown as the one who obeys the Father perfectly. He exercises his reign as the Son of David in ways we will never understand (Gibbs 2018, p. 1440). Above all, Gibbs finds this text to illustrate the uniqueness of Jesus. He is unlike any of his disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1441).
"Matthew 26:47-56 Two Plans, a Common Goal: Jesus Is Arrested." (pp. 1443-1457).
Gibbs makes substantial textual comments on Matthew 26:47-56 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1443-1448). The passage detailing Jesus' betrayal and arrest is intricately composed. Furthermore, Matthew uses vocabulary and style which emphasize the critical tension of the scene. In this passage, the culmination of God's ancient plan is nearing as Jesus is bringing the start of his eschatological reign to the present (Gibbs 2018, p. 1449). Gibbs particularly notes the element of time in Matthew 26:36-46. We have recently seen mention of praying for hours. Now the time has come and all is prepared for Jesus' arrest.
The events at the end of Matthew 26 point up the fact that there are two different plans involving Jesus' arrest. In God's plan, Jesus is being taken so as to die for mankind's sin. In the plan of the Jewish leaders, the one threatening their power is being taken out of the way. Jesus rejects the attempts of his disciples to rescue him from arrest (Gibbs 2018, p. 1450).
In Matthew 26:47-48 it becomes clear that the plan Judas had made with the Jewish authorities was intricately worked out. They had a substantial arresting force, knew their destination, and had a means of identifying Jesus, even at night (Gibbs 2018, p. 1450). While Gibbs notes that the size of the arresting force is undetermined, and I agree, I think it is worth noting that in John's account, the term used is normally applied to a military force of about 600 people.
In verses 49-50, Judas greets Jesus with a kiss, calling him "Rabbi." Gibbs observes that we have little knowledge of the typical dynamics involving rabbis and their disciples at this time, nor of any special habits that Jesus and his disciples may have had. Gibbs does, however, note that Matthew's readers would catch the significance of Judas calling Jesus "Rabbi" rather than "Lord," and may have seen some significance of Jesus calling Judas "friend" in return (Gibbs 2018, p. 1451). Jesus is accepting of the arrest. Gibbs again observes that the divine and human plans agree in that Jesus must be arrested and must die (Gibbs 2018, p. 1452).
Matthew 26:51-54 describes an attempt to interfere with the plan to arrest Jesus. A disciple attacks a slave of the high priest. Gibbs suggests that this person may have held a position of authority or leadership, thus putting him into the place he would be a target (Gibbs 2018, p. 1452). The disciple, in all probability, was trying to kill the slave, but only wounded him. Gibbs theorizes that the disciple with the sword probably had no good plan to stop the arrest. However, he didn't accept the concept that Jesus was supposed to be arrested (Gibbs 2018, p. 1453). Jesus' action, by which he rebukes the disciple and rejects the use of force to establish God's reign is striking to Gibbs. There is no suggestion that there was a retaliation against the disciple. Jesus shows himself to be able to govern the entire incident. Gibbs continues with a substantial reflection on the futility of human means (force and violence) which intend to establish God's reign (Gibbs 2018, p. 1454ff). The kingdom belongs to God and will be established by his means and in his time.
The arrest of Jesus concludes with Jesus addressing the crowds in Matthew 26:55-56 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1456). Jesus speaks to the contradiction inherent in the way he is being arrested. If he were a danger to society, he would have been arrested easily, by day, as he was engaged in teaching in public. This arrest was not for that reason. Rather, it is indicative of Jesus being treated as a persecuted prophet.
"Matthew 26:57-68 In the Face of Danger, Part 1: Faithful Jesus before the Sanhedrin." (pp. 1458-1480).
In Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus is taken away for trial before the Sanhedrin, a court of Jewish elders (Gibbs 2018, p. 1458). Gibbs notes that in this passage, as compared with earlier passages, Jesus' conflict is no longer with relatively anonymous religious leaders. Here he is taken to a particular council, the Sanhedrin, which has assembled specifically to see that Jesus is killed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1462).
Gibbs briefly reviews what we know about the Sanhedrin at this time in history (Gibbs 2018, p. 1463). It was a body which had both religious and civil functions, and was at the time a single group, though in more recent history there is evidence that there may have been two such groups. At least at this time the high priest could preside (Gibbs 2018, p. 1464). The council did not have authority to execute people without Roman permission. Gibbs observes that there was likely division within the Sanhedrin about the nature of Jesus and the charges against him. Particularly, when Matthew says (26:59) that the court was seeking false witnesses, at least some of the court was probably seeking reliable and accurate testimony, but that the testimony they would accept was colored by a lack of trust in Jesus' claims to be the Messiah (Gibbs 2018, p. 1465).
When compared with records of Jewish council procedure from approximately AD 200, the examination of Jesus does not align well (Gibbs 2018, p. 1465). We do not know what the accepted procedure was for a capital case around AD 30. Yet the hearing is deficient in numerous areas. It was held at night, there is no attempt to demonstrate innocence, it is on the eve of a Sabbath, and the verdict occurs on the same day. All this violates process as described later, about AD 200 in the Mishna (Gibbs 2018, p. 1466). Gibbs observes that the contradiction can be explained in various ways, but that his leaning is to consider that this was not a capital trial. If the hearing was intended either to gather information prior to a trial, or if it was intended to collect evidence which would be presented to a Roman court, the procedures would not be as important (Gibbs 2018, p. 1467). In fact, the council has difficulty reaching a verdict, only gaining consensus when Jesus replies to Caiaphas in verses 63-64.
Gibbs takes Matthew's shift of focus in 26:57-58 as highly significant. After all the disciples fled, Peter followed Jesus, though at a distance (Gibbs 2018, p. 1469). It may suggest that Peter has not fallen away, or it may suggest that Peter has also failed to be faithful in staying with Jesus. The juxtaposition of the various elements is highly significant. After placing Peter in the courtyard, Matthew makes no more mention of him until verse 69. The contrast, therefore, is not between Peter and the other disciples, but between Peter and Jesus.
The hearing of Jesus, meanwhile, is unable to make much headway due to the inadequate witnesses and Jesus' own refusal to speak (Gibbs 2018, p. 1470). In the end, two witnesses did agree, though there is no evidence for its truth, that Jesus had said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days. Jesus' failure to respond to this charge still hindered the progress of the hearing. Gibbs observes that the charges against Jesus still do not rise to the level of a capital crime. However, for a referral to Pilate, the Sanhedrin needed some allegation that Jesus would cause civil unrest. This charge would rise to that level in Roman thought (Gibbs 2018, p. 1471). Eventually, Caiaphas pursued the task of clarifying Jesus' identity as the Messiah, asking him directly (Gibbs 2018, p. 1472). Jesus' response is an affirmative, but one which presses the reader to realize that Caiaphas has identified him as the Messiah. He then continues with words which speak to his divine authority (Gibbs 2018, p. 1473). This assures everyone that he will be condemned to death. From this point the mystery will only grow. Gibbs notes that Jesus would have to be alive to do the apocalyptic signs promised. His death should be expected to put an end to all that he taught (Gibbs 2018, p. 1474). The fulfillment, then, begins not immediately but only four days later, with the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1475). Jesus is accordingly condemned with a charge of blasphemy, worthy of death in the understanding of the Sanhedrin. Gibbs moves on with a discursus considering the various types of words and actions which would constitute blasphemy at this time (Gibbs 2018, p. 1476ff).
"Matthew 26:69-75 In the Face of Danger, Part 2: Faithless Peter before the Bystanders." (pp. 1481-1489).
Matthew 26:69-75 turns our attention from Jesus, who has been faithful in all things, to Peter, who will prove unfaithful (Gibbs 2018, p. 1481). It is particularly significant to Gibbs that Peter had specifically boasted of his faithfulness in contrast to the other disciples. Gibbs cites 2 Corinthians 12:9 and 1 Corinthians 10:12 as Pauline statements about exactly what happens in this passage (Gibbs 2018, p. 1484). Peter trusted his own strength, the very thing which led to his desertion of Jesus. The structure of the passage rather clearly shows three denials of Jesus, with Peter's departure from the courtyard as the final stroke (Gibbs 2018, p. 1485). In the first encounter it becomes apparent that Peter had been with Jesus. However, based on his interaction it is no longer clear that he presently is with Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1485).
After the first denial, Peter moved farther away, to the gate of the courtyard, a move which Gibbs sees as indicating his departure from Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1486). Here, the accusation is that Peter was formerly with Jesus, who here is described as a Nazarene, a typical cultural slur. Peter insists that he does not know Jesus, whom he calls "the man" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1487).
Finally, people standing around think Peter was one of the disciples. Gibbs notes the irony that the disciples, of whom Peter was often the standout, had fled. Now Peter has also forsaken Jesus. He is one of them. Peter has not only rejected Jesus, but now he rejects the other disciples, with oaths (Gibbs 2018, p. 1488). His rejection is complete by the time he hears the rooster, which reminds him of Jesus' earlier words.
3/13/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 26" (part 2) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
"Matthew 26:36-46 The Perfect Son Prays and the Father's Will Is Done." (pp. 1426-1442).
Gibbs notes that Matthew 26:36-46 uses a number of historical present verbs. The only other passage which uses many is Matthew 4:1-11 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1426). While Gibbs makes no strong conclusion as to a particular narrative purpose, he does think the two passages are intended to show vivid intensity (Gibbs 2018, p. 1427).
In Matthew 26:36-38 Jesus enters the garden with his disciples, who have all insisted that they would remain with him. While three remain with Jesus as he moves farther into the garden, Gibbs points out they also are not there for the same purpose as Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1432). While Jesus prays for his disciples, he never asks them to pray for him. Rather, he warns them of the coming temptation. This is one of the few places in Matthew where Jesus' emotional life comes to the surface of the narrative (Gibbs 2018, p. 1433). Jesus clearly expresses extreme sorrow, though it is not entirely clear which of the troubles at hand is predominant in his thought. Despite the sorrow, Jesus continues his mission.
In verses 39-44, then, Jesus prays as his disciples fail to do his will. It is significant that Jesus prays in essentially the same manner three times, and that there is somewhat of a time marker in Matthew 26:40, where he refers to "one hour" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1434). This suggests a fairly literal amount of time. In any case, it was late enough and long enough that the disciples fell asleep, a form of falling away.
Jesus' prayer is summarized in Matthew 26:39, 42, and 44. He addresses God the Father and asks that the cup would pass from him, if possible. Gibbs observes that Jesus has known this plan all along. The "if possible" expresses a desire, but one which Jesus knows is not possible (Gibbs 2018, p. 1435). Jesus further affirms that his desire is to do the desire of the Father. The grief is real, as is the commitment. Gibbs reflects briefly on the nature of "this cup" which Jesus would like to avoid. The imagery of bitter death predominates throughout the Old Testament (Gibbs 2018, p. 1436). Gibbs concludes that, though the cup Jesus gives his disciples in the Last Supper is full of his death, it does not have the bitter element of the cup of suffering Jesus drinks.
The failure of the disciples while Jesus prays is recorded in Matthew 26:40, 41, 43, and 45. Even as Jesus prays three times, the disciples fail to watch or pray, but rather they sleep (Gibbs 2018, p. 1437). The disciples are in great danger of temptation, which Jesus knows will cause them to stumble.
Matthew 26:45-46 moves from Jesus' prayers into the fearful events he has been praying about. The disciples have been sleeping but now is the time of their temptation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1438). Jesus is given into the hands of sinners (v. 45), though it is part of his divine plan.
Gibbs discusses Matthew 26:36-46 as a passage which makes significant Christological statements (Gibbs 2018, p. 1439). He followed a difficult path, one which his disciples could not follow. He is shown as the one who obeys the Father perfectly. He exercises his reign as the Son of David in ways we will never understand (Gibbs 2018, p. 1440). Above all, Gibbs finds this text to illustrate the uniqueness of Jesus. He is unlike any of his disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1441).
"Matthew 26:47-56 Two Plans, a Common Goal: Jesus Is Arrested." (pp. 1443-1457).
Gibbs makes substantial textual comments on Matthew 26:47-56 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1443-1448). The passage detailing Jesus' betrayal and arrest is intricately composed. Furthermore, Matthew uses vocabulary and style which emphasize the critical tension of the scene. In this passage, the culmination of God's ancient plan is nearing as Jesus is bringing the start of his eschatological reign to the present (Gibbs 2018, p. 1449). Gibbs particularly notes the element of time in Matthew 26:36-46. We have recently seen mention of praying for hours. Now the time has come and all is prepared for Jesus' arrest.
The events at the end of Matthew 26 point up the fact that there are two different plans involving Jesus' arrest. In God's plan, Jesus is being taken so as to die for mankind's sin. In the plan of the Jewish leaders, the one threatening their power is being taken out of the way. Jesus rejects the attempts of his disciples to rescue him from arrest (Gibbs 2018, p. 1450).
In Matthew 26:47-48 it becomes clear that the plan Judas had made with the Jewish authorities was intricately worked out. They had a substantial arresting force, knew their destination, and had a means of identifying Jesus, even at night (Gibbs 2018, p. 1450). While Gibbs notes that the size of the arresting force is undetermined, and I agree, I think it is worth noting that in John's account, the term used is normally applied to a military force of about 600 people.
In verses 49-50, Judas greets Jesus with a kiss, calling him "Rabbi." Gibbs observes that we have little knowledge of the typical dynamics involving rabbis and their disciples at this time, nor of any special habits that Jesus and his disciples may have had. Gibbs does, however, note that Matthew's readers would catch the significance of Judas calling Jesus "Rabbi" rather than "Lord," and may have seen some significance of Jesus calling Judas "friend" in return (Gibbs 2018, p. 1451). Jesus is accepting of the arrest. Gibbs again observes that the divine and human plans agree in that Jesus must be arrested and must die (Gibbs 2018, p. 1452).
Matthew 26:51-54 describes an attempt to interfere with the plan to arrest Jesus. A disciple attacks a slave of the high priest. Gibbs suggests that this person may have held a position of authority or leadership, thus putting him into the place he would be a target (Gibbs 2018, p. 1452). The disciple, in all probability, was trying to kill the slave, but only wounded him. Gibbs theorizes that the disciple with the sword probably had no good plan to stop the arrest. However, he didn't accept the concept that Jesus was supposed to be arrested (Gibbs 2018, p. 1453). Jesus' action, by which he rebukes the disciple and rejects the use of force to establish God's reign is striking to Gibbs. There is no suggestion that there was a retaliation against the disciple. Jesus shows himself to be able to govern the entire incident. Gibbs continues with a substantial reflection on the futility of human means (force and violence) which intend to establish God's reign (Gibbs 2018, p. 1454ff). The kingdom belongs to God and will be established by his means and in his time.
The arrest of Jesus concludes with Jesus addressing the crowds in Matthew 26:55-56 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1456). Jesus speaks to the contradiction inherent in the way he is being arrested. If he were a danger to society, he would have been arrested easily, by day, as he was engaged in teaching in public. This arrest was not for that reason. Rather, it is indicative of Jesus being treated as a persecuted prophet.
"Matthew 26:57-68 In the Face of Danger, Part 1: Faithful Jesus before the Sanhedrin." (pp. 1458-1480).
In Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus is taken away for trial before the Sanhedrin, a court of Jewish elders (Gibbs 2018, p. 1458). Gibbs notes that in this passage, as compared with earlier passages, Jesus' conflict is no longer with relatively anonymous religious leaders. Here he is taken to a particular council, the Sanhedrin, which has assembled specifically to see that Jesus is killed (Gibbs 2018, p. 1462).
Gibbs briefly reviews what we know about the Sanhedrin at this time in history (Gibbs 2018, p. 1463). It was a body which had both religious and civil functions, and was at the time a single group, though in more recent history there is evidence that there may have been two such groups. At least at this time the high priest could preside (Gibbs 2018, p. 1464). The council did not have authority to execute people without Roman permission. Gibbs observes that there was likely division within the Sanhedrin about the nature of Jesus and the charges against him. Particularly, when Matthew says (26:59) that the court was seeking false witnesses, at least some of the court was probably seeking reliable and accurate testimony, but that the testimony they would accept was colored by a lack of trust in Jesus' claims to be the Messiah (Gibbs 2018, p. 1465).
When compared with records of Jewish council procedure from approximately AD 200, the examination of Jesus does not align well (Gibbs 2018, p. 1465). We do not know what the accepted procedure was for a capital case around AD 30. Yet the hearing is deficient in numerous areas. It was held at night, there is no attempt to demonstrate innocence, it is on the eve of a Sabbath, and the verdict occurs on the same day. All this violates process as described later, about AD 200 in the Mishna (Gibbs 2018, p. 1466). Gibbs observes that the contradiction can be explained in various ways, but that his leaning is to consider that this was not a capital trial. If the hearing was intended either to gather information prior to a trial, or if it was intended to collect evidence which would be presented to a Roman court, the procedures would not be as important (Gibbs 2018, p. 1467). In fact, the council has difficulty reaching a verdict, only gaining consensus when Jesus replies to Caiaphas in verses 63-64.
Gibbs takes Matthew's shift of focus in 26:57-58 as highly significant. After all the disciples fled, Peter followed Jesus, though at a distance (Gibbs 2018, p. 1469). It may suggest that Peter has not fallen away, or it may suggest that Peter has also failed to be faithful in staying with Jesus. The juxtaposition of the various elements is highly significant. After placing Peter in the courtyard, Matthew makes no more mention of him until verse 69. The contrast, therefore, is not between Peter and the other disciples, but between Peter and Jesus.
The hearing of Jesus, meanwhile, is unable to make much headway due to the inadequate witnesses and Jesus' own refusal to speak (Gibbs 2018, p. 1470). In the end, two witnesses did agree, though there is no evidence for its truth, that Jesus had said he would tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days. Jesus' failure to respond to this charge still hindered the progress of the hearing. Gibbs observes that the charges against Jesus still do not rise to the level of a capital crime. However, for a referral to Pilate, the Sanhedrin needed some allegation that Jesus would cause civil unrest. This charge would rise to that level in Roman thought (Gibbs 2018, p. 1471). Eventually, Caiaphas pursued the task of clarifying Jesus' identity as the Messiah, asking him directly (Gibbs 2018, p. 1472). Jesus' response is an affirmative, but one which presses the reader to realize that Caiaphas has identified him as the Messiah. He then continues with words which speak to his divine authority (Gibbs 2018, p. 1473). This assures everyone that he will be condemned to death. From this point the mystery will only grow. Gibbs notes that Jesus would have to be alive to do the apocalyptic signs promised. His death should be expected to put an end to all that he taught (Gibbs 2018, p. 1474). The fulfillment, then, begins not immediately but only four days later, with the resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1475). Jesus is accordingly condemned with a charge of blasphemy, worthy of death in the understanding of the Sanhedrin. Gibbs moves on with a discursus considering the various types of words and actions which would constitute blasphemy at this time (Gibbs 2018, p. 1476ff).
"Matthew 26:69-75 In the Face of Danger, Part 2: Faithless Peter before the Bystanders." (pp. 1481-1489).
Matthew 26:69-75 turns our attention from Jesus, who has been faithful in all things, to Peter, who will prove unfaithful (Gibbs 2018, p. 1481). It is particularly significant to Gibbs that Peter had specifically boasted of his faithfulness in contrast to the other disciples. Gibbs cites 2 Corinthians 12:9 and 1 Corinthians 10:12 as Pauline statements about exactly what happens in this passage (Gibbs 2018, p. 1484). Peter trusted his own strength, the very thing which led to his desertion of Jesus. The structure of the passage rather clearly shows three denials of Jesus, with Peter's departure from the courtyard as the final stroke (Gibbs 2018, p. 1485). In the first encounter it becomes apparent that Peter had been with Jesus. However, based on his interaction it is no longer clear that he presently is with Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1485).
After the first denial, Peter moved farther away, to the gate of the courtyard, a move which Gibbs sees as indicating his departure from Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1486). Here, the accusation is that Peter was formerly with Jesus, who here is described as a Nazarene, a typical cultural slur. Peter insists that he does not know Jesus, whom he calls "the man" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1487).
Finally, people standing around think Peter was one of the disciples. Gibbs notes the irony that the disciples, of whom Peter was often the standout, had fled. Now Peter has also forsaken Jesus. He is one of them. Peter has not only rejected Jesus, but now he rejects the other disciples, with oaths (Gibbs 2018, p. 1488). His rejection is complete by the time he hears the rooster, which reminds him of Jesus' earlier words.
RSS Feed