New Testament Studies
3/6/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 26" (part 1) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
"Matthew 26:1-5 Two Plans, One Divine Will: Introduction to the Passion Narrative." (pp. 1365-1372).
Matthew 26:1 marks the transition from Matthew's fourth discourse (24:1-26:1) into his fifth discourse, the Passion Narrative, in 26:1-27:66 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1365). Gibbs particularly observes the slight change in the formula Matthew uses at the end of discourses. Here, "Jesus completed all these words," where previously the "all" was omitted (Gibbs 2018, p. 1368). From this point there is less speech. Rather, the attention centers on Jesus' action. Matthew deliberately juxtaposes Jesus' words to his disciples at this point with the plan made by the chief priests and elders. Both plans are laid out at the start of chapter 26 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1369). Gibbs observes that while the plan of the chief priests to arrest Jesus in secret, not during the festival, and to avoid a riot fails in all points. Jesus' plan is fulfilled (Gibbs 2018, p. 1370). This is a clear use of irony, as the plans are made and that of the organized leaders (the chief priests) fails because of people acting in ignorance. Those who respond to the plan of the leaders end up carrying out Jesus' plan (Gibbs 2018, p. 1371). Gibbs suggests the type of irony presented in Matthew's Gospel invites readers to understand the situations in ways which the chief priests did not (Gibbs 2018, p. 1372).
"Matthew 26:6-13 Jesus' Anointing in Bethany: An Enacted Passion Prediction." (pp. 1373-1383).
Gibbs divides Matthew 26P6-13 into three portions: verses 6-7, 8-9, and 10-13. The passage shows "the disciples' obtuseness and Jesus' steadfast focus on the goal of his ministry (Gibbs 2018, p. 1375). The incident, in Bethany at the home of one "Simon the leper" focuses on the preparation for Jesus' death and burial, though not on the woman who anoints Jesus or on the local household (Gibbs 2018, p. 1376). While Gibbs observes that we know little of the motive behind the woman's action, we are told the root of the response of the disciples. They respond in an indignant way at what they perceive as waste on the part of the woman (Gibbs 2018, p. 1377). They act as if they have no concept whatsoever of Jesus' coming move to death and resurrection. Gibbs is plain that the passage has nothing to do with a comparison of helping the poor versus bringing honor to Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1378). Jesus makes this plain as he rebukes his disciples in verses 10-13. They are to stop troubling the woman, who has performed "a beautiful work" for him (26:10). They can give to the poor at any time, but for now they are to recognize the special nature of the time they have with Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1379). The disciples, however, have no clue of the situation. Gibbs observes that the very same lack of understanding will be an important feature throughout the period leading to Jesus' death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1380).
Gibbs makes a brief discursus regarding the multiple accounts of Jesus' anointing by a woman, found in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; and John 12:1-8 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1382). In Gibbs' model, the four accounts refer to two different events. He takes the incident in Luke 7 to be separate from the one reported in Matthew, Mark, and John. Though the language used is similar, there are enough different details in Luke's account to warrant consideration of it as a different event.
"Matthew 26:14-19 Two Times at the Same Time: Preparations for Betrayal and for Sacrifice." (pp. 1384-1392).
After some brief grammatical analysis of Matthew 26:14-19, Gibbs observes that verses 14-16 could be treated as distinct from 17-19. However, they are brought together by Matthew, not only by the location in his narrative, but also by strong verbal parallels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1387). Both prepare the reader for the description of the Passion events. Judas, one of the Twelve, seeks out an agreement with the Pharisees to betray Jesus. Gibbs notes the strong irony of one of the Twelve betraying Jesus to his death at the time of the Passover (Gibbs 2018, p. 1388).
While Judas makes his preparations, the other disciples make preparations for the Passover meal (Gibbs 2018, p. 1389). Gibbs observes that while the disciples are apparently unaware of the bigger picture, Jesus is the one who is actually in control of it, and orchestrates the events accordingly.
The chronology of this passage is problematic. At issue is the relation of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday to the Passover and the Sabbath (Gibbs 2018, p. 1389). It is unclear whether 26:17, referring to "the first day of Unleavened Bread," refers to the actual Passover day or the day after, when the fasting actually begins. In part, this lack of clarity leads to questions about possible contradictions within the canonical Gospels. While the Synoptic Gospels lead to an expectation of a Passover meal followed by Jesus' arrest during Thursday night, John 18:28 shows the priests not entering Pilate's house on Friday in anticipation of a Passover meal to come (Gibbs 2018, p. 1390). Gibbs takes the account inJohn to refer to the priests' desire for ritual purity for additional events during the Passover season, and that the "preparation" referred to is preparation for the Sabbath, not for Passover proper (Gibbs 2018, p. 1391).
"Matthew 26:20-25 The Darkness Grows: One of Them Will Hand Jesus Over." (pp. 1393-1398).
Gibbs takes the meal shared as the Passover dinner (Gibbs 2018, p. 1395). It is in the context of this meal that Jesus makes it clear that one of his disciples who is with him will betray him, leading to his death. There are two specific predictions, each with a reaction by one or more disciples. Though the incident is introduced in verse 20, there is no clear conclusion in verse 25, which leaves the reader slightly off balance. In verses 21-22, Jesus makes it clear that one of his disciples will betray him. There is a general questioning of the ideas, along with a rejection of that action by Peter, with concurrence by the others (Gibbs 2018, p. 1396). In verses 23-25, Jesus makes it clear it will be someone who is eating with him at the present time. Judas is not particularly identified except by Matthew's recording of his particular question. Gibbs observes the irony in Judas' question, as he had possibly not responded to the first prediction, as he calls Jesus "Rabbi" rather than "Lord," and as Jesus responds to him alone (Gibbs 2018, p. 1397). Gibbs suggests the emphasis in this passage should be on the grace of Jesus who, knowing all that would happen to him, continues to care for his disciples, including Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1398).
"Matthew 26:26-29 A New Mal to Fulfill and Surpass the Old." (pp. 1399-1415).
Gibbs notes that Matthew 26:26-29 could well be seen as a continuation of the narrative started in verse 20, as it is introduced with the same verbal formula (Gibbs 2018, p. 1399). In his textual notes he briefly discusses the context of the being verb and of the word for "covenant," but treats the issues in more detail later in the commentary section.
The actual Passover ritual is not a matter which Matthew describes in detail. While an "intricate ritual" has developed over time, Gibbs notes that we are not entirely certain about the nature of the ritual at the time of this meal. At this time, the sacrificial system was still in operation. Yet many of the pieces of information we have about the meal practices come from after the end of the sacrificial system in A.D. 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1404). In general, Gibbs takes the practice to likely include the meal and three cups of wine accompanied by ritual words and actions. Matthew's account, however, makes no clear references to the particular stages of the meal (Gibbs 2018, p. 1405). Without a doubt, though, Jesus' statements about his body and blood would have created considerable discomfort (Gibbs 2018, p. 1406). In particular, a pouring out of blood was familiar, but drinking blood was unthinkable. Gibbs notes that there is no record of the disciples' response here, though there is to the events before and after this (Gibbs 2018, p. 1406). The emphasis is on Jesus, not on his disciples.
A challenge in interpretation of Matthew 26:26 is the fact that, while the Passover was a meal focused on the death of an animal and eating meat, the language of breaking is not applied to meat. Rather, it is applied to bread, which is routinely borken for consumption (Gibbs 2018, p. 1408). Jesus explains the action with the cup in more detail.
The concept of pouring the blood of a covenant out is an allusion to Exodus 24:5-8, where Moses puts blood on the altar of God and on the people of Israel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1408). Yet Gibbs observes that the Old Testament texts about the Passover do not treat the blood of the animal as something that forgives sins (Gibbs 2018, p. 1409). Jesus' association of the blood and forgiveness seems more like that found in the Day of Atonement. This draws the reader away from Passover toward sacrifices for sin (Gibbs 2018, p. 1410).
Gibbs notes that the suffering of Jesus has also directed interpreters to Isaiah 52:13-53:12, detailing God's suffering Servant (Gibbs 2018, p. 1411). Though the connections are primarily conceptual, there are some verbal resemblances as well.
By Matthew 26:29, it is clear that Jesus' intent is to give the Last Supper meal to the church, which will engage in the eating and drinking, but without his presence among the disciples as they have previously known it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1413). Gibbs is clear that this does not in any way deny the Lutheran view of Jesus' bodily presence in the bread and wine of the eucharist. However, unlike previous meals with Jesus present, he is feeding his disciples rather than dining with them (Gibbs 2018, p. 1414). Gibbs briefly considers that in the eucharist we receive both the forgiveness of sins, as in the Day of Atonement offerings, and the protective presence of God, as in the Passover offerings. If this is the case, the elements of the Supper are brought together in a comprehensive manner.
"Matthew 26:30-35 It Is God's Time to Strike and Scatter: Never, Lord! We Will Never Deny You!" (pp. 1416-1425).
The concepts of "stumbling" and "denying" Jesus are central to understanding Matthew 26:30-35. Gibbs reviews the concepts briefly (Gibbs 2018, p. 1420). In general, Matthew uses language of stumbling to indicate a fall into unbelief. It is thus a very serious matter when anyone is made to stumble. Denial of Jesus is a similarly serious matter. The result of denying Jesus is to be denied by Jesus before God the Father (Gibbs 2018, p. 1421). Matthew presents stumbling into unbelief and denial of Jesus as absolutely possible, and horrific, moves. However, Jesus also promises restoration for his disciples.
In Matthew 26:31, Jesus predicts the stumbling and denial of his disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1422). Jesus will be abandoned by his disciples and even by God the Father (Zech 13:7; Ps. 22). Gibbs observes that in verse 32, Jesus (again) specifically predicts his resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1423). The disciples utterly reject Jesus' prediction. In Matthew 26:33, Peter specifically says he will not reject Jesus. In response, Jesus says clearly and forcefully that Peter will deny him. Peter again rejects this concept in 26:35 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1424). Verse 35 then adds the other disciples, as a chorus, pledging their faithfulness. As always, Gibbs notes, Jesus is right and his disciples are not. They will fall away (Gibbs 2018, p. 1425).
3/6/25
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2018). "Matthew 26" (part 1) In Matthew 21:1-28:20. (pages 1310-1364). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
"Matthew 26:1-5 Two Plans, One Divine Will: Introduction to the Passion Narrative." (pp. 1365-1372).
Matthew 26:1 marks the transition from Matthew's fourth discourse (24:1-26:1) into his fifth discourse, the Passion Narrative, in 26:1-27:66 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1365). Gibbs particularly observes the slight change in the formula Matthew uses at the end of discourses. Here, "Jesus completed all these words," where previously the "all" was omitted (Gibbs 2018, p. 1368). From this point there is less speech. Rather, the attention centers on Jesus' action. Matthew deliberately juxtaposes Jesus' words to his disciples at this point with the plan made by the chief priests and elders. Both plans are laid out at the start of chapter 26 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1369). Gibbs observes that while the plan of the chief priests to arrest Jesus in secret, not during the festival, and to avoid a riot fails in all points. Jesus' plan is fulfilled (Gibbs 2018, p. 1370). This is a clear use of irony, as the plans are made and that of the organized leaders (the chief priests) fails because of people acting in ignorance. Those who respond to the plan of the leaders end up carrying out Jesus' plan (Gibbs 2018, p. 1371). Gibbs suggests the type of irony presented in Matthew's Gospel invites readers to understand the situations in ways which the chief priests did not (Gibbs 2018, p. 1372).
"Matthew 26:6-13 Jesus' Anointing in Bethany: An Enacted Passion Prediction." (pp. 1373-1383).
Gibbs divides Matthew 26P6-13 into three portions: verses 6-7, 8-9, and 10-13. The passage shows "the disciples' obtuseness and Jesus' steadfast focus on the goal of his ministry (Gibbs 2018, p. 1375). The incident, in Bethany at the home of one "Simon the leper" focuses on the preparation for Jesus' death and burial, though not on the woman who anoints Jesus or on the local household (Gibbs 2018, p. 1376). While Gibbs observes that we know little of the motive behind the woman's action, we are told the root of the response of the disciples. They respond in an indignant way at what they perceive as waste on the part of the woman (Gibbs 2018, p. 1377). They act as if they have no concept whatsoever of Jesus' coming move to death and resurrection. Gibbs is plain that the passage has nothing to do with a comparison of helping the poor versus bringing honor to Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1378). Jesus makes this plain as he rebukes his disciples in verses 10-13. They are to stop troubling the woman, who has performed "a beautiful work" for him (26:10). They can give to the poor at any time, but for now they are to recognize the special nature of the time they have with Jesus (Gibbs 2018, p. 1379). The disciples, however, have no clue of the situation. Gibbs observes that the very same lack of understanding will be an important feature throughout the period leading to Jesus' death (Gibbs 2018, p. 1380).
Gibbs makes a brief discursus regarding the multiple accounts of Jesus' anointing by a woman, found in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; and John 12:1-8 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1382). In Gibbs' model, the four accounts refer to two different events. He takes the incident in Luke 7 to be separate from the one reported in Matthew, Mark, and John. Though the language used is similar, there are enough different details in Luke's account to warrant consideration of it as a different event.
"Matthew 26:14-19 Two Times at the Same Time: Preparations for Betrayal and for Sacrifice." (pp. 1384-1392).
After some brief grammatical analysis of Matthew 26:14-19, Gibbs observes that verses 14-16 could be treated as distinct from 17-19. However, they are brought together by Matthew, not only by the location in his narrative, but also by strong verbal parallels (Gibbs 2018, p. 1387). Both prepare the reader for the description of the Passion events. Judas, one of the Twelve, seeks out an agreement with the Pharisees to betray Jesus. Gibbs notes the strong irony of one of the Twelve betraying Jesus to his death at the time of the Passover (Gibbs 2018, p. 1388).
While Judas makes his preparations, the other disciples make preparations for the Passover meal (Gibbs 2018, p. 1389). Gibbs observes that while the disciples are apparently unaware of the bigger picture, Jesus is the one who is actually in control of it, and orchestrates the events accordingly.
The chronology of this passage is problematic. At issue is the relation of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday to the Passover and the Sabbath (Gibbs 2018, p. 1389). It is unclear whether 26:17, referring to "the first day of Unleavened Bread," refers to the actual Passover day or the day after, when the fasting actually begins. In part, this lack of clarity leads to questions about possible contradictions within the canonical Gospels. While the Synoptic Gospels lead to an expectation of a Passover meal followed by Jesus' arrest during Thursday night, John 18:28 shows the priests not entering Pilate's house on Friday in anticipation of a Passover meal to come (Gibbs 2018, p. 1390). Gibbs takes the account inJohn to refer to the priests' desire for ritual purity for additional events during the Passover season, and that the "preparation" referred to is preparation for the Sabbath, not for Passover proper (Gibbs 2018, p. 1391).
"Matthew 26:20-25 The Darkness Grows: One of Them Will Hand Jesus Over." (pp. 1393-1398).
Gibbs takes the meal shared as the Passover dinner (Gibbs 2018, p. 1395). It is in the context of this meal that Jesus makes it clear that one of his disciples who is with him will betray him, leading to his death. There are two specific predictions, each with a reaction by one or more disciples. Though the incident is introduced in verse 20, there is no clear conclusion in verse 25, which leaves the reader slightly off balance. In verses 21-22, Jesus makes it clear that one of his disciples will betray him. There is a general questioning of the ideas, along with a rejection of that action by Peter, with concurrence by the others (Gibbs 2018, p. 1396). In verses 23-25, Jesus makes it clear it will be someone who is eating with him at the present time. Judas is not particularly identified except by Matthew's recording of his particular question. Gibbs observes the irony in Judas' question, as he had possibly not responded to the first prediction, as he calls Jesus "Rabbi" rather than "Lord," and as Jesus responds to him alone (Gibbs 2018, p. 1397). Gibbs suggests the emphasis in this passage should be on the grace of Jesus who, knowing all that would happen to him, continues to care for his disciples, including Judas (Gibbs 2018, p. 1398).
"Matthew 26:26-29 A New Mal to Fulfill and Surpass the Old." (pp. 1399-1415).
Gibbs notes that Matthew 26:26-29 could well be seen as a continuation of the narrative started in verse 20, as it is introduced with the same verbal formula (Gibbs 2018, p. 1399). In his textual notes he briefly discusses the context of the being verb and of the word for "covenant," but treats the issues in more detail later in the commentary section.
The actual Passover ritual is not a matter which Matthew describes in detail. While an "intricate ritual" has developed over time, Gibbs notes that we are not entirely certain about the nature of the ritual at the time of this meal. At this time, the sacrificial system was still in operation. Yet many of the pieces of information we have about the meal practices come from after the end of the sacrificial system in A.D. 70 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1404). In general, Gibbs takes the practice to likely include the meal and three cups of wine accompanied by ritual words and actions. Matthew's account, however, makes no clear references to the particular stages of the meal (Gibbs 2018, p. 1405). Without a doubt, though, Jesus' statements about his body and blood would have created considerable discomfort (Gibbs 2018, p. 1406). In particular, a pouring out of blood was familiar, but drinking blood was unthinkable. Gibbs notes that there is no record of the disciples' response here, though there is to the events before and after this (Gibbs 2018, p. 1406). The emphasis is on Jesus, not on his disciples.
A challenge in interpretation of Matthew 26:26 is the fact that, while the Passover was a meal focused on the death of an animal and eating meat, the language of breaking is not applied to meat. Rather, it is applied to bread, which is routinely borken for consumption (Gibbs 2018, p. 1408). Jesus explains the action with the cup in more detail.
The concept of pouring the blood of a covenant out is an allusion to Exodus 24:5-8, where Moses puts blood on the altar of God and on the people of Israel (Gibbs 2018, p. 1408). Yet Gibbs observes that the Old Testament texts about the Passover do not treat the blood of the animal as something that forgives sins (Gibbs 2018, p. 1409). Jesus' association of the blood and forgiveness seems more like that found in the Day of Atonement. This draws the reader away from Passover toward sacrifices for sin (Gibbs 2018, p. 1410).
Gibbs notes that the suffering of Jesus has also directed interpreters to Isaiah 52:13-53:12, detailing God's suffering Servant (Gibbs 2018, p. 1411). Though the connections are primarily conceptual, there are some verbal resemblances as well.
By Matthew 26:29, it is clear that Jesus' intent is to give the Last Supper meal to the church, which will engage in the eating and drinking, but without his presence among the disciples as they have previously known it (Gibbs 2018, p. 1413). Gibbs is clear that this does not in any way deny the Lutheran view of Jesus' bodily presence in the bread and wine of the eucharist. However, unlike previous meals with Jesus present, he is feeding his disciples rather than dining with them (Gibbs 2018, p. 1414). Gibbs briefly considers that in the eucharist we receive both the forgiveness of sins, as in the Day of Atonement offerings, and the protective presence of God, as in the Passover offerings. If this is the case, the elements of the Supper are brought together in a comprehensive manner.
"Matthew 26:30-35 It Is God's Time to Strike and Scatter: Never, Lord! We Will Never Deny You!" (pp. 1416-1425).
The concepts of "stumbling" and "denying" Jesus are central to understanding Matthew 26:30-35. Gibbs reviews the concepts briefly (Gibbs 2018, p. 1420). In general, Matthew uses language of stumbling to indicate a fall into unbelief. It is thus a very serious matter when anyone is made to stumble. Denial of Jesus is a similarly serious matter. The result of denying Jesus is to be denied by Jesus before God the Father (Gibbs 2018, p. 1421). Matthew presents stumbling into unbelief and denial of Jesus as absolutely possible, and horrific, moves. However, Jesus also promises restoration for his disciples.
In Matthew 26:31, Jesus predicts the stumbling and denial of his disciples (Gibbs 2018, p. 1422). Jesus will be abandoned by his disciples and even by God the Father (Zech 13:7; Ps. 22). Gibbs observes that in verse 32, Jesus (again) specifically predicts his resurrection (Gibbs 2018, p. 1423). The disciples utterly reject Jesus' prediction. In Matthew 26:33, Peter specifically says he will not reject Jesus. In response, Jesus says clearly and forcefully that Peter will deny him. Peter again rejects this concept in 26:35 (Gibbs 2018, p. 1424). Verse 35 then adds the other disciples, as a chorus, pledging their faithfulness. As always, Gibbs notes, Jesus is right and his disciples are not. They will fall away (Gibbs 2018, p. 1425).
RSS Feed