Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
10/23/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 15:1-38." Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 737-766). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Gibbs considers the first 20 verses of Matthew 15 to deal with the real nature of uncleanness before God (Gibbs 2010, p. 767). It may not be as straightforward as we would immediately guess. The controversy is sparked by Jesus' disciples' apparent failure to perform a ritual washing before they eat (Gibbs 2010, p. 774). The accusers have journeyed the considerable distance from Jerusalem to Galilee in order to entrap Jesus. In response to their accusation, Jesus accuses them of ignoring a specific command of God. He then illustrates the accusation by describing their behavior. He later addresses the ultimate cause of uncleanness (Gibbs 2010, p. 775).
Chapter 15 verses 1-2 begin the controversy. Gibbs notes that the question is not about what foods are clean and unclean. Rather, it is about a failure to hold to an oral traditional ritual of self-purification (Gibbs 2010, p. 775). We may not have a clear picture of the actual tradition or of the level of consensus about the tradition. However, Gibbs considers we know that the Pharisees could assume this was a well known tradition and that it is not found in the Old Testament tradition (Gibbs 2010, p. 776). Gibbs considers the Pharisees to have made a valid point about purity extending to all of life, thus seeking purification for all people through the same kind of standards which a priest would pursue. Their desire was likely a positive one.
Matthew 15:3-9 shows Jesus refusing to accept the Pharisees' premise or engage them. Rather, he speaks to the crowds and his disciples (Gibbs 2010, p. 777). Jesus turns to the practice of making donations to the temple religious into vows instead of a simple voluntary act. The vow was considered binding and could render the donor unable to support elderly family members. Therefore, it would run afoul of the Fourth Commandment. Gibbs observes that in this instance, the practice is not merely done or not done, as was the ceremonial washing, but if the vow was kept it could cause one to violate a Scriptural command. What comes out of the Pharisees' mouths defiles them by contradicting what God has said (Gibbs 2010, p. 778).
Jesus teaches the crowds in verses 10-20, pointing out that what comes out of a person is the more important issue. Gibbs does not take this specific passage in Matthew as a declaration that all foods are clean (Gibbs 2010, p. 778). He is really still speaking about ritual hand washing before eating. After Jesus has addressed his remarks to the crowds, his disciples express concern that he has caused the Pharisees to stumble (Gibbs 2010, p. 779). Jesus' response is a harsh one. The Pharisees have demonstrated that they are blind guides who lead people to ruin (Gibbs 2010, p. 780). Peter's ongoing questioning, in Gibbs' opinion, suggests strongly that the disciples fail to understand matters of purity. They should understand by now that impurity spills out from within, rather than being absorbed from without.
Matthew 15:21-28 tells of an encounter between Jesus and a Canaanite woman whose daughter is under attack by a demon. Gibbs observes the ancient enmity between Israel and the Canaanites, as well as the low social standing of women and girls (Gibbs 2010, p. 782). It would be surprising to the original readers that Jesus showed care for these people or that they would acknowledge him. Gibbs takes the disciples in verse 23 not merely to be asking Jesus to dismiss the woman, but to give her what she wants and send her away (Gibbs 2010, p. 783).
This passage shows a clear contrast from the immediately preceding one. There, the Pharisees, who would be expected to be able to understand God's word, were made to stumble. Here, in Matthew 15:21-28, a person who would not likely have any inner purity seeks Jesus' help because he is the Messiah (Gibbs 2010, p. 785).
Gibbs observes that the Canaanite woman speaks to Jesus with faith, in the terms we would expect to hear from a faithful Israelite (Gibbs 2010, p. 785). The disciples, as they begin asking Jesus to send the woman away, may have been suggesting he meet her need. Gibbs thinks this is indicated by Jesus' answer in verse 24, where he defends being sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Gibbs 2010, p. 786). Of further importance to Gibbs is the fact that the woman agrees with Jesus and keeps calling on him as the Messiah to help her. Jesus' response that his job is to feed the children of Israel only seems very harsh (Gibbs 2010, p. 787). However, Gibbs observes that Jesus is able to provide bread for larger groups of people The woman's response, which Gibbs notes is normally mistranslated, is to agree with Jesus, but to recognize that when the children eat and spill, the dogs receive food. This response is one at which Jesus is amazed. He gives the woman's daughter healing at last.
Matthew 15:29-38 presents us with a second instance of a miraculous multiplication of food, this time for more than four thousand men (Gibbs 2010, p. 789). In his textual notes Gibbs provides a detailed list of parallelisms between Jesus' acts in this feeding and in the Last Supper from chapter 26. He further lists parallels between this feeding and that recording in chapter 14 (Gibbs 2010, p. 791).
Gibbs considers the narratives of healing and provision of food in Matthew 14 and 15 both to serve as messages of comfort and hope. The passages are largely parallel, governed by Jesus' compassion, and referential to both Exodus 14 and the Lord's Supper (Gibbs 2010, p. 792). It is telling, in Gibbs' mind, that the disciples seem to have no recollection of Jesus' ability to feed a crowd, which was shown to them only recently (Gibbs 2010, p. 793).
Gibbs finds an emphasis in the feeding of the four thousand on the Jewish nature of the crowd (Gibbs 2010, p. 794). The crowds glorify "the God of Israel" (Matthew 15:31) quite specifically. Jesus' ministry to Gentiles seems rather incidental at this time. Gibbs notes this because this miracle takes place in the region of the Decapolis, where there is a mix of Jewish and Gentile residents. Since the time of Augustine it has been suggested this passage emphasizes the ministry to Gentiles (Gibbs 2010, p. 794). Gibbs finds this less certain than some other commentators do. Matthew's emphasis in this passage is on the God of Israel working among His people, though there may well have been Gentiles present (Gibbs 2010, p. 795).
Gibbs considers Matthew 15:39 to be more reasonably a part of the material which follows. We will treat that verse along with chapter 16.
10/23/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 15:1-38." Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 737-766). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Gibbs considers the first 20 verses of Matthew 15 to deal with the real nature of uncleanness before God (Gibbs 2010, p. 767). It may not be as straightforward as we would immediately guess. The controversy is sparked by Jesus' disciples' apparent failure to perform a ritual washing before they eat (Gibbs 2010, p. 774). The accusers have journeyed the considerable distance from Jerusalem to Galilee in order to entrap Jesus. In response to their accusation, Jesus accuses them of ignoring a specific command of God. He then illustrates the accusation by describing their behavior. He later addresses the ultimate cause of uncleanness (Gibbs 2010, p. 775).
Chapter 15 verses 1-2 begin the controversy. Gibbs notes that the question is not about what foods are clean and unclean. Rather, it is about a failure to hold to an oral traditional ritual of self-purification (Gibbs 2010, p. 775). We may not have a clear picture of the actual tradition or of the level of consensus about the tradition. However, Gibbs considers we know that the Pharisees could assume this was a well known tradition and that it is not found in the Old Testament tradition (Gibbs 2010, p. 776). Gibbs considers the Pharisees to have made a valid point about purity extending to all of life, thus seeking purification for all people through the same kind of standards which a priest would pursue. Their desire was likely a positive one.
Matthew 15:3-9 shows Jesus refusing to accept the Pharisees' premise or engage them. Rather, he speaks to the crowds and his disciples (Gibbs 2010, p. 777). Jesus turns to the practice of making donations to the temple religious into vows instead of a simple voluntary act. The vow was considered binding and could render the donor unable to support elderly family members. Therefore, it would run afoul of the Fourth Commandment. Gibbs observes that in this instance, the practice is not merely done or not done, as was the ceremonial washing, but if the vow was kept it could cause one to violate a Scriptural command. What comes out of the Pharisees' mouths defiles them by contradicting what God has said (Gibbs 2010, p. 778).
Jesus teaches the crowds in verses 10-20, pointing out that what comes out of a person is the more important issue. Gibbs does not take this specific passage in Matthew as a declaration that all foods are clean (Gibbs 2010, p. 778). He is really still speaking about ritual hand washing before eating. After Jesus has addressed his remarks to the crowds, his disciples express concern that he has caused the Pharisees to stumble (Gibbs 2010, p. 779). Jesus' response is a harsh one. The Pharisees have demonstrated that they are blind guides who lead people to ruin (Gibbs 2010, p. 780). Peter's ongoing questioning, in Gibbs' opinion, suggests strongly that the disciples fail to understand matters of purity. They should understand by now that impurity spills out from within, rather than being absorbed from without.
Matthew 15:21-28 tells of an encounter between Jesus and a Canaanite woman whose daughter is under attack by a demon. Gibbs observes the ancient enmity between Israel and the Canaanites, as well as the low social standing of women and girls (Gibbs 2010, p. 782). It would be surprising to the original readers that Jesus showed care for these people or that they would acknowledge him. Gibbs takes the disciples in verse 23 not merely to be asking Jesus to dismiss the woman, but to give her what she wants and send her away (Gibbs 2010, p. 783).
This passage shows a clear contrast from the immediately preceding one. There, the Pharisees, who would be expected to be able to understand God's word, were made to stumble. Here, in Matthew 15:21-28, a person who would not likely have any inner purity seeks Jesus' help because he is the Messiah (Gibbs 2010, p. 785).
Gibbs observes that the Canaanite woman speaks to Jesus with faith, in the terms we would expect to hear from a faithful Israelite (Gibbs 2010, p. 785). The disciples, as they begin asking Jesus to send the woman away, may have been suggesting he meet her need. Gibbs thinks this is indicated by Jesus' answer in verse 24, where he defends being sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Gibbs 2010, p. 786). Of further importance to Gibbs is the fact that the woman agrees with Jesus and keeps calling on him as the Messiah to help her. Jesus' response that his job is to feed the children of Israel only seems very harsh (Gibbs 2010, p. 787). However, Gibbs observes that Jesus is able to provide bread for larger groups of people The woman's response, which Gibbs notes is normally mistranslated, is to agree with Jesus, but to recognize that when the children eat and spill, the dogs receive food. This response is one at which Jesus is amazed. He gives the woman's daughter healing at last.
Matthew 15:29-38 presents us with a second instance of a miraculous multiplication of food, this time for more than four thousand men (Gibbs 2010, p. 789). In his textual notes Gibbs provides a detailed list of parallelisms between Jesus' acts in this feeding and in the Last Supper from chapter 26. He further lists parallels between this feeding and that recording in chapter 14 (Gibbs 2010, p. 791).
Gibbs considers the narratives of healing and provision of food in Matthew 14 and 15 both to serve as messages of comfort and hope. The passages are largely parallel, governed by Jesus' compassion, and referential to both Exodus 14 and the Lord's Supper (Gibbs 2010, p. 792). It is telling, in Gibbs' mind, that the disciples seem to have no recollection of Jesus' ability to feed a crowd, which was shown to them only recently (Gibbs 2010, p. 793).
Gibbs finds an emphasis in the feeding of the four thousand on the Jewish nature of the crowd (Gibbs 2010, p. 794). The crowds glorify "the God of Israel" (Matthew 15:31) quite specifically. Jesus' ministry to Gentiles seems rather incidental at this time. Gibbs notes this because this miracle takes place in the region of the Decapolis, where there is a mix of Jewish and Gentile residents. Since the time of Augustine it has been suggested this passage emphasizes the ministry to Gentiles (Gibbs 2010, p. 794). Gibbs finds this less certain than some other commentators do. Matthew's emphasis in this passage is on the God of Israel working among His people, though there may well have been Gentiles present (Gibbs 2010, p. 795).
Gibbs considers Matthew 15:39 to be more reasonably a part of the material which follows. We will treat that verse along with chapter 16.
RSS Feed