Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
11/27/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 19:27-20:34." In Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 978-1025). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Gibbs treats Matthew 19:27-30 along with 20:1-16 (Gibbs 2010, p.978). After his translation he provides extensive textual notes before his main commentary. His treatment of the passage as one unit is likely based on the wording of 20:1, which he takes to look backward, signifying that the parable explains Jesus' statement to the disciples of the first being last and the last first (Gibbs 2010, p.980). The disciples' original question was related to their status as those who had left everything to follow Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p.983). Jesus answers with some reassurance and then expands the clarification with his parable (Gibbs 2010, p.984).
The promise Jesus gives in Matthew 19:27-28 is immense. The apostles are to have thrones in the last day, when they participate in judgment (Gibbs 2010, p.984). Gibbs observes that Jesus speaks here of events "in the regeneration." While we often think of the last day in terms of judgment and destruction, it also is the time when Jesus puts all things into their perfect order (Gibbs 2010, p.985). Despite the promise given to the apostles, Gibbs notes that there is to be no arrogance. In effect, there is no significant distinction among believers in the last day (Gibbs 2010, p.987). Nobody earns a place of special exaltation or of shame. It is all by God's grace.
Gibbs considers the parable of the workers in Matthew 20:1-16 to be directly connected to the disciples' question immediately before it. He also calls it "a wonderful and suspenseful story, carefully crafted to reveal that in the most important way, all disciples are equal in the present and future reign of God in Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p.988). In verses 1-7 the householder recruits workers to labor in his vineyard for the day. He does this at five times during the day. Gibbs observes that only the first and last group are central to the parable (Gibbs 2010, p.989). The first have agreed on a wage "for the day." The last have no agreement for a wage, and are noted as having been idle "for the day." In verses 8-16, as the day closes, the workers are paid out. Surprisingly, the people who came near the end of the day are paid for a full day of work (Gibbs 2010, p.990). Gibbs notes that the owner's generosity with those who came late would suggest he would pay more than agreed on to the workers who came earlier. However, he pays them the same amount, according to their earlier agreement. This seemed unjust to those who had worked all day (Gibbs 2010, p.991). However, the real issue, in Gibbs' mind, is the injustice of the employees deciding they should be paid beyond the terms of their agreement due to the master's generosity to others. Gibbs takes the premise of this parable to be socially revolutionary, since it equates everyone in God's kingdom (Gibbs 2010, p.992).
For a third time Jesus predicts his death and resurrection in Matthew 20:17-19. Gibbs points out the disciples' failure to grasp the picture in the first two instances (16:21, 17:22-23). Again, here, as evidenced in the subsequent narrative, the disciples fail to understand (Gibbs 2010, p.996). This prediction is more extensive and detailed than the two earlier statements.
Matthew 20:20-28 describes an interaction involving James and John's mother asking that her sons should be set apart in a privileged role in God's kingdom. Jesus' questioning makes it plain that they desire something which cannot be promised to them (Gibbs 2010, p.999). Jesus' purpose, according to verse 28, is to give his life. Gibbs briefly discusses the nature of this work of Jesus.
First, Jesus gives his life as a λυτρόν. The meaning of this word in its context is a matter of debate. Gibbs takes it to mean a "ransom payment" rather than any other sort of payment (Gibbs 2010, p.1001). This is consistent with the bulk of the word's use. He does not see it as a "rescue" or "deliverance."
The ransom payment is ἀντὶ πολλῶν. While the preposition often shows position, for instance, being located opposite something, Gibbs considers it to express some sort of exchange much more frequently (Gibbs 2010, p.1002). The reference to "many" in the prepositional phrase strikes Gibbs as indicative of "all people," the apparent opposite of "one person" as used in Matthew's Gospel.
Gibbs reminds his readers of the three-part pattern in Matthew's passion predictions. The prediction was made in 20:17-19. Now, in verses 20-28, the disciples show they fail to understand, then Jesus provides them with teaching which should clarify things for them (Gibbs 2010, p.1003). Here, the failure to understand is shown through the request for special treatment to be given to James and John. The teaching of Jesus then has to do with the concept of greatness. At the heart of the misunderstanding, in Gibbs' view, is their failure to understand God's reign and priorities.
In verses 20-23, Jesus makes it clear that James and John don't know what they are requesting. While they think they are asking for prestige, in fact they are asking to "drink the cup" which Jesus will drink (Gibbs 2010, p.1005). Drawing on Old Testament metaphors, Gibbs identifies "the cup" as an image of suffering (Gibbs 2010, p.1006). He further draws out numerous ways that Matthew carries the metaphor out in the life of Jesus. The cup of suffering is finally fulfilled in Jesus particularly at the Last Supper in Jesus' new covenant in his blood (Gibbs 2010, p.1008). After the Last Supper, Gibbs sees the cup of suffering as completely consumed by Jesus. From this point, then, the cup of blessing is what is received (Gibbs 2010, p.1009). As the disciples are associated with Jesus' death, they participate in his suffering as well. They do drink Jesus' cup. But they do not have a place on Jesus' right and left. Gibbs portrays that as given to the criminals executed along with Jesus, on his right and left (Gibbs 2010, p.1010).
Gibbs discusses the presence of the mother of James and John in Matthew 20. He observes that there is a strong element of irony in Matthew's account, as she is specifically listed as being present at the death of Jesus in Matthew 27:55-56 (Gibbs 2010, p.1011). Among the women who followed Jesus, serving him, are the women who see Jesus dying so as to serve them. The model of Jesus' service is held in stark contrast to normal human service to others.
Matthew 20:24-28 further emphasizes that greatness in God's kingdom is set apart from our imagination's model of greatness. Jesus' greatness is in his service to all (Gibbs 2010, p.1012). His intention is to give his very life for the salvation of the world. Gibbs makes it clear that this can be done only by Jesus, the Christ, who is well pleasing to God the Father (Gibbs 2010, p.1014). The Christian, however, is not exempt from imitating Jesus. We are likewise to lay our lives down for others (Gibbs 2010, pp. 1016ff).
In Matthew 20:29-34 Jesus, leaving Jericho, heals two blind men. Gibbs observes the text here has a large number of variant readings but that the thrust of the passage is entirely consistent (Gibbs 2010, pp. 1019ff). He does discuss the grammatical implications in detail. It is significant that the blind men address Jesus both as "Lord" and as "Son of David" (Gibbs 2010, p.1022). They thus foreshadow Jesus' move to Jerusalem to take on the throne of David. As in many other passages, we find Jesus acting with compassion. He restores their sight.
Gibbs compares this passage with the first healing of two blind men, from Matthew 9:27-31. In chapter nine, there is little contrast between the blind men and the crowd. Here, however, the crowd tries to silence the men. In contrast to the immediate context, while the disciples were blind to Jesus' role as Lord and Son of David, these men see it clearly.
Further, in Matthew 9, the people healed are not to tell others. Here, in chapter 20, the news is not to be kept secret (Gibbs 2010, p.1024). Jesus is moving directly to his arrest and execution. There is no more need for discretion.
This concludes the second of three volumes of Gibbs' commentary on Matthew. We'll push right on with the next volume.
11/27/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 19:27-20:34." In Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 978-1025). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Gibbs treats Matthew 19:27-30 along with 20:1-16 (Gibbs 2010, p.978). After his translation he provides extensive textual notes before his main commentary. His treatment of the passage as one unit is likely based on the wording of 20:1, which he takes to look backward, signifying that the parable explains Jesus' statement to the disciples of the first being last and the last first (Gibbs 2010, p.980). The disciples' original question was related to their status as those who had left everything to follow Jesus (Gibbs 2010, p.983). Jesus answers with some reassurance and then expands the clarification with his parable (Gibbs 2010, p.984).
The promise Jesus gives in Matthew 19:27-28 is immense. The apostles are to have thrones in the last day, when they participate in judgment (Gibbs 2010, p.984). Gibbs observes that Jesus speaks here of events "in the regeneration." While we often think of the last day in terms of judgment and destruction, it also is the time when Jesus puts all things into their perfect order (Gibbs 2010, p.985). Despite the promise given to the apostles, Gibbs notes that there is to be no arrogance. In effect, there is no significant distinction among believers in the last day (Gibbs 2010, p.987). Nobody earns a place of special exaltation or of shame. It is all by God's grace.
Gibbs considers the parable of the workers in Matthew 20:1-16 to be directly connected to the disciples' question immediately before it. He also calls it "a wonderful and suspenseful story, carefully crafted to reveal that in the most important way, all disciples are equal in the present and future reign of God in Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p.988). In verses 1-7 the householder recruits workers to labor in his vineyard for the day. He does this at five times during the day. Gibbs observes that only the first and last group are central to the parable (Gibbs 2010, p.989). The first have agreed on a wage "for the day." The last have no agreement for a wage, and are noted as having been idle "for the day." In verses 8-16, as the day closes, the workers are paid out. Surprisingly, the people who came near the end of the day are paid for a full day of work (Gibbs 2010, p.990). Gibbs notes that the owner's generosity with those who came late would suggest he would pay more than agreed on to the workers who came earlier. However, he pays them the same amount, according to their earlier agreement. This seemed unjust to those who had worked all day (Gibbs 2010, p.991). However, the real issue, in Gibbs' mind, is the injustice of the employees deciding they should be paid beyond the terms of their agreement due to the master's generosity to others. Gibbs takes the premise of this parable to be socially revolutionary, since it equates everyone in God's kingdom (Gibbs 2010, p.992).
For a third time Jesus predicts his death and resurrection in Matthew 20:17-19. Gibbs points out the disciples' failure to grasp the picture in the first two instances (16:21, 17:22-23). Again, here, as evidenced in the subsequent narrative, the disciples fail to understand (Gibbs 2010, p.996). This prediction is more extensive and detailed than the two earlier statements.
Matthew 20:20-28 describes an interaction involving James and John's mother asking that her sons should be set apart in a privileged role in God's kingdom. Jesus' questioning makes it plain that they desire something which cannot be promised to them (Gibbs 2010, p.999). Jesus' purpose, according to verse 28, is to give his life. Gibbs briefly discusses the nature of this work of Jesus.
First, Jesus gives his life as a λυτρόν. The meaning of this word in its context is a matter of debate. Gibbs takes it to mean a "ransom payment" rather than any other sort of payment (Gibbs 2010, p.1001). This is consistent with the bulk of the word's use. He does not see it as a "rescue" or "deliverance."
The ransom payment is ἀντὶ πολλῶν. While the preposition often shows position, for instance, being located opposite something, Gibbs considers it to express some sort of exchange much more frequently (Gibbs 2010, p.1002). The reference to "many" in the prepositional phrase strikes Gibbs as indicative of "all people," the apparent opposite of "one person" as used in Matthew's Gospel.
Gibbs reminds his readers of the three-part pattern in Matthew's passion predictions. The prediction was made in 20:17-19. Now, in verses 20-28, the disciples show they fail to understand, then Jesus provides them with teaching which should clarify things for them (Gibbs 2010, p.1003). Here, the failure to understand is shown through the request for special treatment to be given to James and John. The teaching of Jesus then has to do with the concept of greatness. At the heart of the misunderstanding, in Gibbs' view, is their failure to understand God's reign and priorities.
In verses 20-23, Jesus makes it clear that James and John don't know what they are requesting. While they think they are asking for prestige, in fact they are asking to "drink the cup" which Jesus will drink (Gibbs 2010, p.1005). Drawing on Old Testament metaphors, Gibbs identifies "the cup" as an image of suffering (Gibbs 2010, p.1006). He further draws out numerous ways that Matthew carries the metaphor out in the life of Jesus. The cup of suffering is finally fulfilled in Jesus particularly at the Last Supper in Jesus' new covenant in his blood (Gibbs 2010, p.1008). After the Last Supper, Gibbs sees the cup of suffering as completely consumed by Jesus. From this point, then, the cup of blessing is what is received (Gibbs 2010, p.1009). As the disciples are associated with Jesus' death, they participate in his suffering as well. They do drink Jesus' cup. But they do not have a place on Jesus' right and left. Gibbs portrays that as given to the criminals executed along with Jesus, on his right and left (Gibbs 2010, p.1010).
Gibbs discusses the presence of the mother of James and John in Matthew 20. He observes that there is a strong element of irony in Matthew's account, as she is specifically listed as being present at the death of Jesus in Matthew 27:55-56 (Gibbs 2010, p.1011). Among the women who followed Jesus, serving him, are the women who see Jesus dying so as to serve them. The model of Jesus' service is held in stark contrast to normal human service to others.
Matthew 20:24-28 further emphasizes that greatness in God's kingdom is set apart from our imagination's model of greatness. Jesus' greatness is in his service to all (Gibbs 2010, p.1012). His intention is to give his very life for the salvation of the world. Gibbs makes it clear that this can be done only by Jesus, the Christ, who is well pleasing to God the Father (Gibbs 2010, p.1014). The Christian, however, is not exempt from imitating Jesus. We are likewise to lay our lives down for others (Gibbs 2010, pp. 1016ff).
In Matthew 20:29-34 Jesus, leaving Jericho, heals two blind men. Gibbs observes the text here has a large number of variant readings but that the thrust of the passage is entirely consistent (Gibbs 2010, pp. 1019ff). He does discuss the grammatical implications in detail. It is significant that the blind men address Jesus both as "Lord" and as "Son of David" (Gibbs 2010, p.1022). They thus foreshadow Jesus' move to Jerusalem to take on the throne of David. As in many other passages, we find Jesus acting with compassion. He restores their sight.
Gibbs compares this passage with the first healing of two blind men, from Matthew 9:27-31. In chapter nine, there is little contrast between the blind men and the crowd. Here, however, the crowd tries to silence the men. In contrast to the immediate context, while the disciples were blind to Jesus' role as Lord and Son of David, these men see it clearly.
Further, in Matthew 9, the people healed are not to tell others. Here, in chapter 20, the news is not to be kept secret (Gibbs 2010, p.1024). Jesus is moving directly to his arrest and execution. There is no more need for discretion.
This concludes the second of three volumes of Gibbs' commentary on Matthew. We'll push right on with the next volume.
RSS Feed