Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
12/4/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 21" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1031-1098). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew 21:1-11 describes the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, entering on a donkey, to the acclaim of his followers, much like a triumphant king coming in peace (Gibbs 2018, p. 1031). Gibbs observes that the narrative here is closely tied to the events preceding and following it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1036). The passage itself easily divides into verses 1-7, governed by Jesus' directions to his disciples, and the events' relation to Zechariah 9:9, then verses 8-11, governed by the reaction of the crowd and the city.
Verses 1-7 in Matthew 21 refer both to the disciples and to the men Jesus had healed of blindness in 20:30-34, who stand as a contrast to James and John (Gibbs 2018, p. 1037). Gibbs notes that, in contrast to others, these blind men had recognized Jesus as the Davidic king. In chapter 21, then, we see a larger contrast between those welcoming Jesus as king and the city in general, which will reject Jesus. The entry itself is on a donkey colt, a move Gibbs sees as purposely significant of the right of the king described in Zechariah chapter nine (Gibbs 2018, p. 1038). The specific descriptor "humble" resolves any doubt as to the significance of Jesus' entry to the city. Matthew is particularly setting Jesus apart from the normal, earthly king (Gibbs 2018, p. 1039).
In Matthew 21:8-11 we read about the response of the crowds and of Jerusalem in general to Jesus' entry into the city (Gibbs 2018, p. 1040). The crowd calls on Jesus and honors him as the Son of David. Gibbs notes that Psalm 118, a song of ascents, would have been used by people going up to Passover, so it is applied to Jesus as well here. While Gibbs is uncertain whether the crowd knew the significance of the action at the time or recognized it only later, they seem aware of an event of importance (Gibbs 2018, p. 1041). The crowds, when questioned by the people of the city, are not able to resolve the city's perplexity. Gibbs reflects briefly on several possible ways of misunderstanding Jesus' nature and work, both in the time of Matthew 21 and today (Gibbs 2018, p. 1042).
The three other Gospels record Jesus' entry into Jerusalem mounted on one animal, while Matthew alone adduces a mare and a colt (Gibbs 2018, p. 1043). Matthew's citation of Zechariah 9 is clear about two animals. However, in Gibbs' opinion, Matthew has misconstrued the parallelism of Zechariah 9, which repeats the mention of the donkey on adjacent lines (Gibbs 2018, p. 1044). Gibbs briefly explores the plausible ways of coming to the conclusion of two animals and of Jesus riding both. He concludes that there were in fact two donkeys, that Jesus rode on only one, but on multiple garments, and that the other evangelists only mentioned the one donkey which carried Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1046).
Matthew 21:12-17 describes Jesus in the temple, in conflict with the authorities who allow money changing and buying and selling animals for sacrifice there (Gibbs 2018, p. 1047). Gibbs, having made grammatical notes on 21:12-17, interrupts his flow somewhat with an introduction to the context of Matthew 21:12-23:39 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1050). He observes that verses 1-11 and the chapters leading up to it serve to anticipate Jesus' purpose, bringing him into the room, so to speak. Now, through 2339, Jesus is present in Jerusalem, actively engaged with an openly hostile audience. His questioners are attempting to destroy him. In all the interactions, Jesus refuses to allow his questioners to pursue their intentions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1051). Gibbs encourages careful attention to the combative context so as to rightly interpret passages in this portion of Matthew.
Gibbs describes the precincts of the temple, the scene of much activity, in some detail (Gibbs 2018, p. 1053). At this time there were numerous buildings in the precincts. A low wall separated the areas open to all from the area open only to Jews (Gibbs 2018, p. 1054). Going beyond this barrier, there was an area where Jewish males and females could go. As one ascended the steps, women who were not bearing sacrifices were excluded, then all but the priests were prohibited. The most likely place for Jesus' actions in Matthew 21:12-13 would have been near the lower edge of the outer court. Gibbs notes that this would have been a busy area and was approximately 300 yards across, so it is entirely possible that not everyone in the area would have noticed Jesus' actions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1054).
The circumstances suggest to Gibbs that we should re-evaluate Matthew 21:12-17. Rather than consider it a cleansing of the temple, preparatory to restoring it to its purpose as a place of sacrifice, Gibbs considers it as a judgment against the failed system (Gibbs 2018, p. 1055). The movement into the court of the Gentiles in verse 12 and the later move away from the temple in verse 17 suggest a concern not with Israel but with the Gentile world. In verses 12-14, Jesus depicts God's judgment on the temple establishment in terms of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11v (Gibbs 2018, p. 1056). Gibbs sees the use of Isaiah and Jeremiah to contradict the idea of Jesus' actions as a protest against commerce or dishonesty. Rather, his action symbolically interferes with the supply of animals for sacrifice (Gibbs 2018, p. 1057). The sin being judged, based on Jeremiah, is apparently that of refusing to repent and believe in Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1059). Gibbs observes that in this context, Jesus' action of healing people in Matthew 21:14 is all the more startling. He has come into a setting where he demonstrates God's judgment and redemption together.
Matthew 21:15-17 shows the opposition to Jesus, as authorities object to the cries of "Hosanna" from children (Gibbs 2018, p. 1060). jesus' response to the questioners acknowledges hearing the people but refuses to agree with the premise. In this way, he takes control of the situation again.
Matthew 21:18-22 describes Jesus' cursing a fig tree and his disciples' failure to understand the event (Gibbs 2018, p. 1063). Gobbs observes there is considerable debate about whether, and in what way, the passage may relate to surrounding contexts. The event is rather clearly a symbolic judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1064). An important question is what the tree symbolizes. Gibbs entertains the ideas of the tree as a symbol of Israel or as a symbol of the temple and the religious authorities, settling on the latter. Not all Israel is judged. However, the temple sacrificial system is coming to an end. Verses 20-22, then, is taken to refer not to prayer in general, but to the replacement of the sacrificial system with faith in Jesus' sacrificial death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1066). The context of the miracle and Jesus' teaching urges a recognition that the actions and words are related to Jesus' judgment on the sacrifices of the temple, not as a disconnected, abstract teaching about prayer (Gibbs 2018, p. 1067). The apostles will engage in the rejection of the symbolic fig tree, and will do other things as well. This is implicit in their witness to the world. Gibbs, then, takes the proper application of the passage to be a call to do what Jesus has entrusted to his followers (Gibbs 2018, p. 1069).
In Matthew 21:23-32 the authorities in Jerusalem ask Jesus a question about his authority to do his miracles. Jesus again denies the premise of the question and turns it on his questioners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1071). In effect, Gibbs sees Jesus as demanding repentance from the chief priests and elders, thus challenging their legitimacy (Gibbs 2018, p. 1076). At issue is the failure of the leaders to repent at the preaching of John the Baptist (Gibbs 2018, p. 1077).
Gibbs observes that Jesus' refusal to answer the question in Matthew 21:23 is followed by a question from Jesus in the form of the parable of the two children (Gibbs 2018, p. 1078). This parable has a number of textual variants, chiefly in the ordering of the two children, rather than in the overall thrust of the parable. However, Gibbs observes that the parable is somewhat out of place in its context. "The religious leaders do not obviously correspond to either child in the parable" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1078). This makes it difficult to interpret the purpose of the parable. The leaders do rightly identify the child who did the father's will. Then Jesus, in verse 32, points out that the leaders are not like either of the characters in the parable. They lose, but not due to association with a party to the question. A solution to the interpretive problem may be to conclude that both the children in the parable are actually partially obedient, while the chief priests were not even partially obedient (Gibbs 2018, p. 1079).
Gibbs asks one more question regarding Jesus' words in Matthew 21:32. What, in Jesus' statement, is the "way of righteousness" that John the Baptist taught (Gibbs 2018, p. 1081)? A common view is that this is wrapped up in morality consistent with God's revelation. Gibbs, however, thinks it is appropriate to interpret this in terms of Matthew 3:15, when Jesus' baptism is "to fulfill all righteousness" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1081). This urges a view of Joh's teaching not in terms of our righteous acts but of God's works of salvation and of judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1082). The emphasis is on what God is doing in Christ rather than on what we do.
Matthew 21 closes with a parable regarding wicked tenant farmers (21:33-46). Gibbs takes this parable to be directed against Israel's religious leaders, not against the overall unbelieving generation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1089). Though the people in general are at fault, Jesus' audience of chief priests recognize the parable attacks them directly. The problem in the vineyard is those who are governing it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1090).
Matthew 21:33 begins with Jesus' request that people should hear a parable. This language, in Matthew, typically indicates some urgency. Jesus particularly wants his words to be heard and understood (Gibbs 2018, p. 1091). Gibbs sees the parable as a "strange" story. While there is an allusion to Isaiah 5:1-7, the story quickly moves into a different realm. The tenant farmers reject regular authority in a strikingly violent way (Gibbs 2018, p. 1092). The owner departs from normal behavior by showing incredible patience (Gibbs 2018, p. 1093). He refuses to use his ability to cast out and destroy his tenants. From an interpretive standpoint, it is fairly straightforward to see the owner as God, the servants as prophets, the son as Jesus, and the tenants as the religious authorities (Gibbs 2018, p. 1093-1094).
Jesus' opponents, in Matthew 21:41, essentially condemn themselves, saying the vineyard should be given to someone else (Gibbs 2018, p. 1094). Jesus then, in verses 42-46, applies Old Testament imagery to himself, using material from Psalm 118. Gibbs briefly provides an exegesis of Psalm 118, demonstrating the understanding which the chief priests should reach, that Jesus, the rejected stone, is vindicated in the end (Gibbs 2018, p. 1095). When the realm of God is taken from the religious elites of Israel and given to someone else, something must change. Yet it is a matter of debate what the actual thing to be taken away is (Gibbs 2018, p. 1097). Gibbs takes it to be the blessing and salvation of God which will be taken from the priestly authorities and given, first to the eleven apostles, then to others following them. This does not necessarily imply Gentiles, though in practice that is what happened relatively quickly. In either case, the rejected stone will be the undoing of the Jewish authorities who have rejected Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1098).
12/4/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 21" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1031-1098). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew 21:1-11 describes the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, entering on a donkey, to the acclaim of his followers, much like a triumphant king coming in peace (Gibbs 2018, p. 1031). Gibbs observes that the narrative here is closely tied to the events preceding and following it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1036). The passage itself easily divides into verses 1-7, governed by Jesus' directions to his disciples, and the events' relation to Zechariah 9:9, then verses 8-11, governed by the reaction of the crowd and the city.
Verses 1-7 in Matthew 21 refer both to the disciples and to the men Jesus had healed of blindness in 20:30-34, who stand as a contrast to James and John (Gibbs 2018, p. 1037). Gibbs notes that, in contrast to others, these blind men had recognized Jesus as the Davidic king. In chapter 21, then, we see a larger contrast between those welcoming Jesus as king and the city in general, which will reject Jesus. The entry itself is on a donkey colt, a move Gibbs sees as purposely significant of the right of the king described in Zechariah chapter nine (Gibbs 2018, p. 1038). The specific descriptor "humble" resolves any doubt as to the significance of Jesus' entry to the city. Matthew is particularly setting Jesus apart from the normal, earthly king (Gibbs 2018, p. 1039).
In Matthew 21:8-11 we read about the response of the crowds and of Jerusalem in general to Jesus' entry into the city (Gibbs 2018, p. 1040). The crowd calls on Jesus and honors him as the Son of David. Gibbs notes that Psalm 118, a song of ascents, would have been used by people going up to Passover, so it is applied to Jesus as well here. While Gibbs is uncertain whether the crowd knew the significance of the action at the time or recognized it only later, they seem aware of an event of importance (Gibbs 2018, p. 1041). The crowds, when questioned by the people of the city, are not able to resolve the city's perplexity. Gibbs reflects briefly on several possible ways of misunderstanding Jesus' nature and work, both in the time of Matthew 21 and today (Gibbs 2018, p. 1042).
The three other Gospels record Jesus' entry into Jerusalem mounted on one animal, while Matthew alone adduces a mare and a colt (Gibbs 2018, p. 1043). Matthew's citation of Zechariah 9 is clear about two animals. However, in Gibbs' opinion, Matthew has misconstrued the parallelism of Zechariah 9, which repeats the mention of the donkey on adjacent lines (Gibbs 2018, p. 1044). Gibbs briefly explores the plausible ways of coming to the conclusion of two animals and of Jesus riding both. He concludes that there were in fact two donkeys, that Jesus rode on only one, but on multiple garments, and that the other evangelists only mentioned the one donkey which carried Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1046).
Matthew 21:12-17 describes Jesus in the temple, in conflict with the authorities who allow money changing and buying and selling animals for sacrifice there (Gibbs 2018, p. 1047). Gibbs, having made grammatical notes on 21:12-17, interrupts his flow somewhat with an introduction to the context of Matthew 21:12-23:39 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1050). He observes that verses 1-11 and the chapters leading up to it serve to anticipate Jesus' purpose, bringing him into the room, so to speak. Now, through 2339, Jesus is present in Jerusalem, actively engaged with an openly hostile audience. His questioners are attempting to destroy him. In all the interactions, Jesus refuses to allow his questioners to pursue their intentions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1051). Gibbs encourages careful attention to the combative context so as to rightly interpret passages in this portion of Matthew.
Gibbs describes the precincts of the temple, the scene of much activity, in some detail (Gibbs 2018, p. 1053). At this time there were numerous buildings in the precincts. A low wall separated the areas open to all from the area open only to Jews (Gibbs 2018, p. 1054). Going beyond this barrier, there was an area where Jewish males and females could go. As one ascended the steps, women who were not bearing sacrifices were excluded, then all but the priests were prohibited. The most likely place for Jesus' actions in Matthew 21:12-13 would have been near the lower edge of the outer court. Gibbs notes that this would have been a busy area and was approximately 300 yards across, so it is entirely possible that not everyone in the area would have noticed Jesus' actions (Gibbs 2018, p. 1054).
The circumstances suggest to Gibbs that we should re-evaluate Matthew 21:12-17. Rather than consider it a cleansing of the temple, preparatory to restoring it to its purpose as a place of sacrifice, Gibbs considers it as a judgment against the failed system (Gibbs 2018, p. 1055). The movement into the court of the Gentiles in verse 12 and the later move away from the temple in verse 17 suggest a concern not with Israel but with the Gentile world. In verses 12-14, Jesus depicts God's judgment on the temple establishment in terms of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11v (Gibbs 2018, p. 1056). Gibbs sees the use of Isaiah and Jeremiah to contradict the idea of Jesus' actions as a protest against commerce or dishonesty. Rather, his action symbolically interferes with the supply of animals for sacrifice (Gibbs 2018, p. 1057). The sin being judged, based on Jeremiah, is apparently that of refusing to repent and believe in Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1059). Gibbs observes that in this context, Jesus' action of healing people in Matthew 21:14 is all the more startling. He has come into a setting where he demonstrates God's judgment and redemption together.
Matthew 21:15-17 shows the opposition to Jesus, as authorities object to the cries of "Hosanna" from children (Gibbs 2018, p. 1060). jesus' response to the questioners acknowledges hearing the people but refuses to agree with the premise. In this way, he takes control of the situation again.
Matthew 21:18-22 describes Jesus' cursing a fig tree and his disciples' failure to understand the event (Gibbs 2018, p. 1063). Gobbs observes there is considerable debate about whether, and in what way, the passage may relate to surrounding contexts. The event is rather clearly a symbolic judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1064). An important question is what the tree symbolizes. Gibbs entertains the ideas of the tree as a symbol of Israel or as a symbol of the temple and the religious authorities, settling on the latter. Not all Israel is judged. However, the temple sacrificial system is coming to an end. Verses 20-22, then, is taken to refer not to prayer in general, but to the replacement of the sacrificial system with faith in Jesus' sacrificial death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1066). The context of the miracle and Jesus' teaching urges a recognition that the actions and words are related to Jesus' judgment on the sacrifices of the temple, not as a disconnected, abstract teaching about prayer (Gibbs 2018, p. 1067). The apostles will engage in the rejection of the symbolic fig tree, and will do other things as well. This is implicit in their witness to the world. Gibbs, then, takes the proper application of the passage to be a call to do what Jesus has entrusted to his followers (Gibbs 2018, p. 1069).
In Matthew 21:23-32 the authorities in Jerusalem ask Jesus a question about his authority to do his miracles. Jesus again denies the premise of the question and turns it on his questioners (Gibbs 2018, p. 1071). In effect, Gibbs sees Jesus as demanding repentance from the chief priests and elders, thus challenging their legitimacy (Gibbs 2018, p. 1076). At issue is the failure of the leaders to repent at the preaching of John the Baptist (Gibbs 2018, p. 1077).
Gibbs observes that Jesus' refusal to answer the question in Matthew 21:23 is followed by a question from Jesus in the form of the parable of the two children (Gibbs 2018, p. 1078). This parable has a number of textual variants, chiefly in the ordering of the two children, rather than in the overall thrust of the parable. However, Gibbs observes that the parable is somewhat out of place in its context. "The religious leaders do not obviously correspond to either child in the parable" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1078). This makes it difficult to interpret the purpose of the parable. The leaders do rightly identify the child who did the father's will. Then Jesus, in verse 32, points out that the leaders are not like either of the characters in the parable. They lose, but not due to association with a party to the question. A solution to the interpretive problem may be to conclude that both the children in the parable are actually partially obedient, while the chief priests were not even partially obedient (Gibbs 2018, p. 1079).
Gibbs asks one more question regarding Jesus' words in Matthew 21:32. What, in Jesus' statement, is the "way of righteousness" that John the Baptist taught (Gibbs 2018, p. 1081)? A common view is that this is wrapped up in morality consistent with God's revelation. Gibbs, however, thinks it is appropriate to interpret this in terms of Matthew 3:15, when Jesus' baptism is "to fulfill all righteousness" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1081). This urges a view of Joh's teaching not in terms of our righteous acts but of God's works of salvation and of judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1082). The emphasis is on what God is doing in Christ rather than on what we do.
Matthew 21 closes with a parable regarding wicked tenant farmers (21:33-46). Gibbs takes this parable to be directed against Israel's religious leaders, not against the overall unbelieving generation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1089). Though the people in general are at fault, Jesus' audience of chief priests recognize the parable attacks them directly. The problem in the vineyard is those who are governing it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1090).
Matthew 21:33 begins with Jesus' request that people should hear a parable. This language, in Matthew, typically indicates some urgency. Jesus particularly wants his words to be heard and understood (Gibbs 2018, p. 1091). Gibbs sees the parable as a "strange" story. While there is an allusion to Isaiah 5:1-7, the story quickly moves into a different realm. The tenant farmers reject regular authority in a strikingly violent way (Gibbs 2018, p. 1092). The owner departs from normal behavior by showing incredible patience (Gibbs 2018, p. 1093). He refuses to use his ability to cast out and destroy his tenants. From an interpretive standpoint, it is fairly straightforward to see the owner as God, the servants as prophets, the son as Jesus, and the tenants as the religious authorities (Gibbs 2018, p. 1093-1094).
Jesus' opponents, in Matthew 21:41, essentially condemn themselves, saying the vineyard should be given to someone else (Gibbs 2018, p. 1094). Jesus then, in verses 42-46, applies Old Testament imagery to himself, using material from Psalm 118. Gibbs briefly provides an exegesis of Psalm 118, demonstrating the understanding which the chief priests should reach, that Jesus, the rejected stone, is vindicated in the end (Gibbs 2018, p. 1095). When the realm of God is taken from the religious elites of Israel and given to someone else, something must change. Yet it is a matter of debate what the actual thing to be taken away is (Gibbs 2018, p. 1097). Gibbs takes it to be the blessing and salvation of God which will be taken from the priestly authorities and given, first to the eleven apostles, then to others following them. This does not necessarily imply Gentiles, though in practice that is what happened relatively quickly. In either case, the rejected stone will be the undoing of the Jewish authorities who have rejected Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1098).
RSS Feed