New Testament Studies
2/13/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 25" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew 25:1-13, the parable of the ten virgins, contains more manuscript variants than normal. Gibbs reviews the variants, observing that only in verse nine is there one which has an impact on the interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1311). In that verse, Gibbs finds four possible variant readings. Of the readings, two make little grammatical sense and one appears to be an attempt to smooth out a slightly difficult reading by avoiding a repeated word in a double negative (Gibbs 2018, p. 1313). At issue is whether the people, when asked to share their oil, reply "no" or whether they simply give the reason for their refusal, "lest it not suffice." Gibbs prefers the grammatically more challenging answer, "no, lest it not suffice" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1313).
Gibbs observes that when reading parables about the kingdom of heaven in Matthew we should expect they will not appear entirely true to life (Gibbs 2018, p. 1314). There will normally be some elements which would break from typical human behavior. In the case of the parable of the ten virgins, there are enough elements of wedding customs that we don't know that we have to speculate about what would be unusual (Gibbs 2018, p. 1315). It may be possible to discern some of the intended meaning by means of an analysis of the details of the kingdom of heaven as described in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1316). Gibbs evaluates Jonathan Pennington's analysis of the kingdom of heaven at some length. Pennington considers that, at least in some way, there may be a spatial element (Gibbs 2018, p. 1318). Yet Gibbs considers the primary element of the kingdom in Matthew to be the deeds of God in Christ.
Matthew 25:1-5 describes a gathering in which ten virgins are to be in attendance on a bridegroom as he arrives at a wedding feast (Gibbs 2018, p. 1319). The groom is apparently a person of some importance, as he is addressed in a respectful manner in verse eleven. Some sort of a lit procession is to occur. Those who have brought enough oil cannot share, for fear that all the lights would go out prematurely (Gibbs 2018, p. 1320). The groom delays, and the lamps have gone out by the time of his arrival. Some of the virgins were prepared, while others were not (Gibbs 2018, p. 1321).
In verses 6-13, the important element is that those who were prepared could honor the groom when he arrived. Those who were not prepared were sent away and even when they returned later they were rejected (Gibbs 2018, p. 1321). It was essential that they should be alert and ready to honor the groom.
Taking Jesus to be represented by the bridegroom, as in all parables which feature a groom, the clear meaning of the parable is to be prepared for Jesus' coming, though he may not come immediately (Gibbs 2018, p. 1322). The virgins, representing all Christians, demonstrate that some are ready and others are not. All should be ready to honor Jesus at his coming, though not all will be ready (Gibbs 2018, p. 1323). Gibbs considers the oil to represent whatever characteristics may be helpful to our ability to honor Jesus at his return.
In a more extended parable, the "parable of the talents" (25:14-30), Jesus describes a master who entrusts money to three servants before departing on a journey. Gibbs emphasizes that this parable is not to be understood as speaking of three slaves, but about two kinds of slaves who respond to the trust they are given (Gibbs 2018, p. 1328). The narrative carefully ties the first two slaves together in their character and actions, then demonstrates the third is very different (Gibbs 2018, p. 1329). Of special note to Gibbs is the fact that the third slave's verbal interaction with the master is much more extensive than the first two. He uses thirty words, compared to the ten of the other two. The master's response is similarly much longer, at sixty-five (some manuscripts have eighty-two) words (Gibbs 2018, p. 1330).
The departing master, in verses 14-15, is careful. He entrusts to each slave an amount according to his ability. Each slave is entrusted with a large amount of money. Gibbs observes that the one talent referenced was likely about twenty years' salary (Gibbs 2018, p. 1331). The master did not return unexpectedly, so surprise was not an issue in the story. The first two slaves work in accord with the master's trust. The third does not. Upon the master's return, the first two show identical results, use identical words, and receive identical commendations (Gibbs 2018, p. 1332). Gibbs notes that the third slave's answer shows his fear of his master, based on his understanding of the master's priorities (Gibbs 2018, p. 1333). The master's response rejects the slave, who failed to do even the reasonable action of investing the money for some interest. Gibbs observes that within this parable there are multiple signs that the third slave's assessment of the master is completely wrong. He was not a harsh master, he entrusted his possessions to others, and made no secret of his trust. Further, it would be clear to Matthew's readers that the master represents Jesus, not an evil master (Gibbs 2018, p. 1334). This should influence our interpretation of the parable.
The identification of the "talents" in the parable poses significant challenges to interpreters of Matthew 25:14-30. Interpreters suggest the trust delivered could be knowledge of God's heavenly realm, the gospel, or the great commission, among other things (Gibbs 2018, p. 1336). Other details of the parable are similarly challenging. Gibbs observes that there is an eschatological thrust in the reward of the first two slaves and in the penalty of the third. The timing, however, is not clear.
Gibbs considers "the contrast between the two kinds of slaves" to be of great help in interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1337). The first two were moved to faithful activity, while the other was unmoved and did nothing. The first two have an unexplained motive, but the other makes an explanation. His refusal to act was rooted in fear and distrust. By contrast, we recognize the first two understood and trusted the master. The exhortation of the parable is, then, to remember Jesus as the master and to act in concord with his character.
Matthew 25 closes, in verses 31-46, with a description of the end of the age, in the separation of the sheep and the goats (Gibbs 2018, p. 1339). Gibbs' textual notes on the passage bring out the carefully balanced structure of the parable with its extensive parallelism. Gibbs notes that in the 20th and 21st century interpreters have largely taken the text to urge care for the needy, wherever they are (Gibbs 2018, p. 1343). However, Gibbs considers this interpretation to be inconsistent with Matthew's context. The social care interpretation, however, is so commonly made that Gibbs explains its implications in considerable detail. While the doctrinal outcome of the interpretation is perfectly orthodox, Gibbs takes it to be a poor fit for the context of the narrative in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1345). Jesus never refers to needy people in Matthew as his true family. He doesn't make care for the poor a central issue elsewhere in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1346). Christians are to care for others, but that is not the center of Christianity. Third, the groups in the passage are never said to be surprised, as in a pop quiz judgment. Followers of Jesus can be expected to be aware that their actions of service to others also are directed by Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1347).
The reading of Matthew 25:314-46 which Gibbs advocates recognizes that Jesus' 'brothers" are his disciples, those born to him by faith (Gibbs 2018, p. 1348). The nations to be gathered, as we can take from Matthew 28:19, are those his disciples have made into disciples until the end of the age. The sending of generation after generation results in nations of Jesus' brothers who will be gathered together (Gibbs 2018, p. 1349). Within this essential framework, all the mentions of the nations in Matthew's Gospel can be held together coherently. They involve both those who receive Jesus' gospel and those who don't, faithful and persecutors alike (Gibbs 2018, p. 1350). When the righteous and unrighteous are given their assignment to paradise or torment, Gibbs suggests the presence of Jesus' "brothers" from 25:40 as a separate group, those who were faithful or not in their ministry and care for others. Their work with the sheep or the goats is an element of their judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1352).
Gibbs goes on to identify the people Jesus calls "brothers" in 25:40 as Jesus' disciples, Christians. This is consistent with Matthew's pattern of referring to the disciples in familial terms (Gibbs 2018, p. 1353). Jesus never refers to strangers as "brothers." In Matthew 28:10, Jesus refers very specifically to the disciples as his brothers. These are then the people Jesus commands to go and make more disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1353). This work, significantly, continues until the consummation of the age, the scene depicted in Matthew 25. While all Christians are to share the news of Jesus, his "brothers" are those who are specifically engaged in that task on a regular basis (Gibbs 2018, p. 1355). Further, Gibbs argues that throughout the New Testament, hospitality shown to a messenger implies reception of the message as well as the messenger (Gibbs 2018, p. 1356). Gibbs describes this as a well documented theme in the New Testament. In this passage, rejecting Jesus' messengers is tantamount to rejecting Jesus himself (Gibbs 2018, p. 1357).
2/13/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 25" In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Matthew 25:1-13, the parable of the ten virgins, contains more manuscript variants than normal. Gibbs reviews the variants, observing that only in verse nine is there one which has an impact on the interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1311). In that verse, Gibbs finds four possible variant readings. Of the readings, two make little grammatical sense and one appears to be an attempt to smooth out a slightly difficult reading by avoiding a repeated word in a double negative (Gibbs 2018, p. 1313). At issue is whether the people, when asked to share their oil, reply "no" or whether they simply give the reason for their refusal, "lest it not suffice." Gibbs prefers the grammatically more challenging answer, "no, lest it not suffice" (Gibbs 2018, p. 1313).
Gibbs observes that when reading parables about the kingdom of heaven in Matthew we should expect they will not appear entirely true to life (Gibbs 2018, p. 1314). There will normally be some elements which would break from typical human behavior. In the case of the parable of the ten virgins, there are enough elements of wedding customs that we don't know that we have to speculate about what would be unusual (Gibbs 2018, p. 1315). It may be possible to discern some of the intended meaning by means of an analysis of the details of the kingdom of heaven as described in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1316). Gibbs evaluates Jonathan Pennington's analysis of the kingdom of heaven at some length. Pennington considers that, at least in some way, there may be a spatial element (Gibbs 2018, p. 1318). Yet Gibbs considers the primary element of the kingdom in Matthew to be the deeds of God in Christ.
Matthew 25:1-5 describes a gathering in which ten virgins are to be in attendance on a bridegroom as he arrives at a wedding feast (Gibbs 2018, p. 1319). The groom is apparently a person of some importance, as he is addressed in a respectful manner in verse eleven. Some sort of a lit procession is to occur. Those who have brought enough oil cannot share, for fear that all the lights would go out prematurely (Gibbs 2018, p. 1320). The groom delays, and the lamps have gone out by the time of his arrival. Some of the virgins were prepared, while others were not (Gibbs 2018, p. 1321).
In verses 6-13, the important element is that those who were prepared could honor the groom when he arrived. Those who were not prepared were sent away and even when they returned later they were rejected (Gibbs 2018, p. 1321). It was essential that they should be alert and ready to honor the groom.
Taking Jesus to be represented by the bridegroom, as in all parables which feature a groom, the clear meaning of the parable is to be prepared for Jesus' coming, though he may not come immediately (Gibbs 2018, p. 1322). The virgins, representing all Christians, demonstrate that some are ready and others are not. All should be ready to honor Jesus at his coming, though not all will be ready (Gibbs 2018, p. 1323). Gibbs considers the oil to represent whatever characteristics may be helpful to our ability to honor Jesus at his return.
In a more extended parable, the "parable of the talents" (25:14-30), Jesus describes a master who entrusts money to three servants before departing on a journey. Gibbs emphasizes that this parable is not to be understood as speaking of three slaves, but about two kinds of slaves who respond to the trust they are given (Gibbs 2018, p. 1328). The narrative carefully ties the first two slaves together in their character and actions, then demonstrates the third is very different (Gibbs 2018, p. 1329). Of special note to Gibbs is the fact that the third slave's verbal interaction with the master is much more extensive than the first two. He uses thirty words, compared to the ten of the other two. The master's response is similarly much longer, at sixty-five (some manuscripts have eighty-two) words (Gibbs 2018, p. 1330).
The departing master, in verses 14-15, is careful. He entrusts to each slave an amount according to his ability. Each slave is entrusted with a large amount of money. Gibbs observes that the one talent referenced was likely about twenty years' salary (Gibbs 2018, p. 1331). The master did not return unexpectedly, so surprise was not an issue in the story. The first two slaves work in accord with the master's trust. The third does not. Upon the master's return, the first two show identical results, use identical words, and receive identical commendations (Gibbs 2018, p. 1332). Gibbs notes that the third slave's answer shows his fear of his master, based on his understanding of the master's priorities (Gibbs 2018, p. 1333). The master's response rejects the slave, who failed to do even the reasonable action of investing the money for some interest. Gibbs observes that within this parable there are multiple signs that the third slave's assessment of the master is completely wrong. He was not a harsh master, he entrusted his possessions to others, and made no secret of his trust. Further, it would be clear to Matthew's readers that the master represents Jesus, not an evil master (Gibbs 2018, p. 1334). This should influence our interpretation of the parable.
The identification of the "talents" in the parable poses significant challenges to interpreters of Matthew 25:14-30. Interpreters suggest the trust delivered could be knowledge of God's heavenly realm, the gospel, or the great commission, among other things (Gibbs 2018, p. 1336). Other details of the parable are similarly challenging. Gibbs observes that there is an eschatological thrust in the reward of the first two slaves and in the penalty of the third. The timing, however, is not clear.
Gibbs considers "the contrast between the two kinds of slaves" to be of great help in interpretation (Gibbs 2018, p. 1337). The first two were moved to faithful activity, while the other was unmoved and did nothing. The first two have an unexplained motive, but the other makes an explanation. His refusal to act was rooted in fear and distrust. By contrast, we recognize the first two understood and trusted the master. The exhortation of the parable is, then, to remember Jesus as the master and to act in concord with his character.
Matthew 25 closes, in verses 31-46, with a description of the end of the age, in the separation of the sheep and the goats (Gibbs 2018, p. 1339). Gibbs' textual notes on the passage bring out the carefully balanced structure of the parable with its extensive parallelism. Gibbs notes that in the 20th and 21st century interpreters have largely taken the text to urge care for the needy, wherever they are (Gibbs 2018, p. 1343). However, Gibbs considers this interpretation to be inconsistent with Matthew's context. The social care interpretation, however, is so commonly made that Gibbs explains its implications in considerable detail. While the doctrinal outcome of the interpretation is perfectly orthodox, Gibbs takes it to be a poor fit for the context of the narrative in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1345). Jesus never refers to needy people in Matthew as his true family. He doesn't make care for the poor a central issue elsewhere in Matthew (Gibbs 2018, p. 1346). Christians are to care for others, but that is not the center of Christianity. Third, the groups in the passage are never said to be surprised, as in a pop quiz judgment. Followers of Jesus can be expected to be aware that their actions of service to others also are directed by Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1347).
The reading of Matthew 25:314-46 which Gibbs advocates recognizes that Jesus' 'brothers" are his disciples, those born to him by faith (Gibbs 2018, p. 1348). The nations to be gathered, as we can take from Matthew 28:19, are those his disciples have made into disciples until the end of the age. The sending of generation after generation results in nations of Jesus' brothers who will be gathered together (Gibbs 2018, p. 1349). Within this essential framework, all the mentions of the nations in Matthew's Gospel can be held together coherently. They involve both those who receive Jesus' gospel and those who don't, faithful and persecutors alike (Gibbs 2018, p. 1350). When the righteous and unrighteous are given their assignment to paradise or torment, Gibbs suggests the presence of Jesus' "brothers" from 25:40 as a separate group, those who were faithful or not in their ministry and care for others. Their work with the sheep or the goats is an element of their judgment (Gibbs 2018, p. 1352).
Gibbs goes on to identify the people Jesus calls "brothers" in 25:40 as Jesus' disciples, Christians. This is consistent with Matthew's pattern of referring to the disciples in familial terms (Gibbs 2018, p. 1353). Jesus never refers to strangers as "brothers." In Matthew 28:10, Jesus refers very specifically to the disciples as his brothers. These are then the people Jesus commands to go and make more disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1353). This work, significantly, continues until the consummation of the age, the scene depicted in Matthew 25. While all Christians are to share the news of Jesus, his "brothers" are those who are specifically engaged in that task on a regular basis (Gibbs 2018, p. 1355). Further, Gibbs argues that throughout the New Testament, hospitality shown to a messenger implies reception of the message as well as the messenger (Gibbs 2018, p. 1356). Gibbs describes this as a well documented theme in the New Testament. In this passage, rejecting Jesus' messengers is tantamount to rejecting Jesus himself (Gibbs 2018, p. 1357).
RSS Feed