Wednesdays Are for the New Testament.
10/2/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 12." Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 595-658). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Gibbs provides fairly extensive textual notes for Matthew 12:1-14. The grammar is relatively challenging in this passage, as there are several oddities in the word order. These oddities serve to place emphasis on unexpected parts of the sentences, which will become clearer as Gibbs moves into the commentary proper.
The accusation of the Pharisees in Matthew 12 begins with an objection to the disciples doing what could constitute harvesting grain on the Sabbath. For this reason, it is natural to assume the issue is fairly clear-cut. However, Gibbs observes that Jesus immediately draws the Pharisees into a different topic (Gibbs 2010, p. 600). Jesus' counter-argument "asserts that he and his ministry are so central to what God is finally doing in Israel that Jesus (and by implication, his disciples) cannot be in violation of the Sabbath" (Gibbs 2010, p. 600, emphasis Gibbs'). The importance is to understand Jesus, not the Sabbath, correctly. Gibbs argues that the Christological concern is the unifying theme for Matthew 11:2-16:20.
The controversy raised by the Pharisees is related to their understanding of Sabbath law. This prompts Gibbs to review what we know of this area of law established and developed throughout the period to the time of Jesus' ministry as described in Matthew 12 (Gibbs 2010, p. 602). The actual Old Testament passages pertaining to the day of rest are relatively brief, calling for rest, and illustrating ways in which normal behaviors of daily life may exemplify a failure to take the required rest. Texts such as Jubilees 50:1-13 and the Damascus Document 10:14-11:18 and 12:3-6 present lists of specific ways the Sabbath may be violated (Gibbs 2010, pp. 602-603). The later tractates found in the Mishnah and Genera, written between about A.D. 200 and 600 provide additional insight. However, Gibbs observes that we are not certain when the rules listed originated (Gibbs 2010, p. 603). Matthew 12 does suggest a preoccupation with the right interpretation of keeping the Sabbath (Gibbs 2010, p. 604). While Gibbs urges his readers not to consider Jesus' opponents as necessarily attempting to endorse salvation by works of the law, he considers it fairly certain that their attempt to guard God's law through extensive additional stipulations was inappropriate, making it "more a burden than a blessing" (Gibbs 2010, p. 605).
Matthew 12:3-8 shows Jesus' move to turn the Pharisees' complaint from the context of legal stipulations to their understanding of Jesus' identity (Gibbs 2010, p. 605). Jesus simply refuses to speak to the initial question of the permitted activities on the Sabbath. He proceeds to identify himself as greater than David, whose actions would have been seen as a violation of the Law (Gibbs 2010, p. 606). In this first example, it is important to observe that David was recognized as the one anointed by God. Jesus goes on in verses 5-6 to state that priests work on the Sabbath, and it does not profane the temple (Gibbs 2010, p. 607). In this instance, Jesus clearly says his work is greater than God's temple (Gibbs 2010, p. 608). Gibbs explains the logic implicit in Jesus' statement at some length. In verses 7-8, Jesus makes a third argument, that he is the manifestation of God's mercy (Gibbs 2010, p. 610). Using Hosea 6:6, as he had in Matthew 9:13, Jesus points out the Pharisees' failure to understand God's mercy. It is implicit in Jesus' role as the Messiah that he gives rest to God's people (11:28-29). This, in Gibbs' view, is why he is the Lord of the Sabbath, a manifestation of God's mercy for Israel (Gibbs 2010, p. 611).
Matthew 12:9-14 moves directly from talk of Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath to actions demonstrating his use of the Sabbath as a time of rest and healing (Gibbs 2010, p. 612). The Pharisees present Jesus, in the synagogue, with a man who has a withered hand. Gibbs observes that we have no record from the period of rabbinic discussion of healing on the Sabbath (Gibbs 2010, pp. 612-613). Jesus' response to the question is that the man is more valuable than an animal which would be rescued on the Sabbath.His work of healing gives rest and relief, appropriate for a Sabbath.
Gibbs concludes that in Matthew 12:1-14, the controversy originally presented regarding work on the Sabbath, has been resolved by the very identity of Jesus, who shows himself as the authoritative Lord of the Sabbath, giving people rest which surpasses their expectations (Gibbs 2010, pp. 614-617 passim). Gibbs describes a proper view of the Sabbath as finding rest in Jesus. He notes, "no one day of the week need be observed as the exclusive Sabbath because Jesus' promise of rest is continual for all who come to him (11:28)" (Gibbs 2010, p. 615). The rest Christians have, however, is not idle. As Jesus does good in giving rest, Gibbs maintains that the proper work of Christians is also to do good and give mercy and rest to others (Gibbs 2010, p. 617).
Gibbs sees Matthew 12:15-21 as a coherent unit. He observes that in verse 15, Jesus deliberately removed himself from the area, probably because he knew the Pharisees were plotting against him (Gibbs 2010, p. 618).
There are significant differences among Matthew 12:18-21, the Masoretic text, and the Septuagint of Isaiah 42:14. Gibbs catalogs them in some detail (Gibbs 2010, p0. 619-623). He considers it likely that Matthew here may have translated the Hebrew himself, though in other places Matthew used the Septuagint text (Gibbs 2010, p. 619).
Gibbs observes that the transition in Matthew 12:15-16 is very brief, but sets up the longest Old Testament quotation used in Matthew (Gibbs 2010, p. 624). Jesus' withdrawal in these verses allows him to continue showing mercy to the crowds and to remain in control of the timing of his future arrest and execution. Gibbs takes Jesus' prohibition of making him known to be another means of control over the timing of his arrest (Gibbs 2010, p. 625).
Matthew 12:17-21 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4, which, in turn, is a challenging passage to interpret. Gibbs notes the important question of who the servant is (Gibbs 2010, p. 625). In its context, the servant may be understood as either an individual or the nation of Israel (Gibbs 2010, p. 626). Gibbs considers evidence for both views. He then notes that Matthew's narrative identifies the servant, and that it is Jesus, an individual (Gibbs 2010, p. 627). Gibbs does entertain the possibility that Matthew is using Jesus as the servant being "Israel reduced to one," which would still leave us with only partial clarity in his understanding and use of Isaiah. Regardless, from Matthew 12:18, the work of Jesus is to bring justice, which is inextricably bound up with preaching, healing, and exorcism (Gibbs 2010, p. 628). Gibbs is clear that Jesus' work to bring justice has an influence on the greater society, in which Christ works through human works of mercy and justice (Gibbs 2010, p. 630).
A new segment of Matthew 12 begins at verse 22 (Gibbs 2010, p. 631). As Jesus heals a man who was blind and mute, the crowds were amazed. However, in verse 23 their question suggests they are not ready to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of David (Gibbs 2010, p. 632). Gibbs takes the language used in the discussion through verse 37 to be combative. The power of God has entered into the world. Jesus is not acting with a demonic impetus, but God is calling people to believe he is overcoming Satan (Gibbs 2010, p. 634). The people speaking against Jesus' work are engaged in combat against God.
The power of Jesus over demons is clear in verses 22-30 (Gibbs 2010, p. 635). While the crowd is not ready to accept Jesus as the son of David, the Pharisees reject him definitively, saying he uses demonic power. Jesus' response to the accusation is an appeal to logic and to human experience (Gibbs 2010, p. 636). If Satan casts out Satan, he defeats himself. It would make no sense. Additionally, true exorcisms were acknowledged among the Pharisees, apparently using the same power Jesus used. The accusation against Jesus is therefore not sustainable. The conclusion Jesus advocates in Matthew 12:28 is that in him the power of God is present (Gibbs 2010, p. 637).
Matthew 12:31-37 is connected directly to verses 22-30, as the passage opens with "because of this" (Gibbs 2010, p. 639). The words of rejection by the Pharisees lead directly to a stern warning from Jesus. Gibbs observes the significance of the question of what it means or does not mean to speak against the Holy Spirit. The statement of Jesus is admittedly very challenging and important.
In Gibbs' opinion, there are two errors commonly made regarding Jesus' teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Gibbs 2010, p. 640). One is to attempt to identify the particular motivation which would lead to the sin. There is no biblical evidence that such a diagnosis can be made. The other common error is to say that such blasphemy can only be committed, possibly by accident, by Christians (Gibbs 2010, p. 641). Gibbs finds even less support for this in Matthew 12. In this passage, Jesus is warning his opponents that they are on their way to condemnation. The warning of Jesus is couched in hyperbole. Gibbs observes that while Matthew 12:31-32 says that every sin will be forgiven, there are exceptions to that statement. Not only does Jesus rule out forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but Gibbs notes that rejecting God's forgiveness in Christ also leaves one unforgiven (Gibbs 2010, p. 641). The passage at hand makes it clear that speaking of Jesus as being governed by Satan is an unequivocal rejection of the Holy Spirit. The words of the Pharisees serve as their condemnation (Gibbs 2010, p. 642). Yet Gibbs sees this as a condition which could be reversed. "A person who renounces Christ will not be forgiven – unless he repents and confesses Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p. 642). The language, then, is hyperbolic.
Gibbs also considers that Matthew 12:33-37 is helpful in interpreting verses 31-32. In these verses, Jesus observes that the mouth speaks from the heart. Words therefore can be used to judge attitudes (Gibbs 2010, p. 643). True faith in Jesus results in positive confessions about him. An ongoing rejection of Jesus indicates a heart which denies him (Gibbs 2010, p. 644). While Gibbs is clear that rejection of the Holy Spirit brings condemnation, he also confesses that the overall thrust of the Gospel is that one who formerly rejected Jesus may repent and be restored (Gibbs 2010, p. 645).
In Matthew 12:38-45 some of the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus for a prophetic sign, which he refuses to give them. In verses 43-45 he describes the departure of a demon and its return with more evil spirits. Gibbs points out that the opponents of Jesus, who have already seen his signs, are asking for another sign (Gibbs 2010, p. 649). Their request might not be for a greater sign. As an example of such a request, Gibbs notes Hezekiah's request for a sign in 2 Kings chapter 20. God had made a long-range promise. Hezekiah wanted a short-term, verifiable sign that the longer range promise would be done.
The sign which Jesus concedes will be given in Matthew 12:39 is "the sign of Jonah the prophet" (Gibbs 2010, p. 650). Gibbs finds a concentration on Jonah's rescue from the sea creature to be a common emphasis in teaching from the Second Temple period. The significance is that Jonah is released from the creature after three days and that Jesus is released from death after three days. It is a sign of resurrection (Gibbs 2010, p. 651). His resurrection, not his death, is the sign of the validity of his promises.
The fact that Jesus has presented himself as greater than Jonah or Solomon leads him directly to speaking specifically of the danger of rejecting him. Gibbs does not take Matthew 12:43-45 as a direct teaching of demonology. Rather, he sees it as illustrative of the danger of refusing the protection of the Gospel (Gibbs 2010, p. 652-653). Those who refuse Jesus place themselves in danger of progressively increasing troubles.
In Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus essentially redefines family. Gibbs does point out that the term used in 12:46 for "brothers" is specifically not used for cousins or other relatives with any regularity (Gibbs 2010, p. 654). In Gobbs' opinion it is most natural to take these people as children of Joseph and Mary. The emphasis of the passage is the central importance of "the family relationship to Jesus that comes through being his disciple" (Gibbs 2010, p. 656). The identification of those who believe in Jesus as his family would have been shocking in the culture of the time, as it is now in many cultures. Gibbs points out that Jesus calls people to care and respect for their biological family. Yet a relationship with Jesus is even more important (Gibbs 2010, p. 657).
10/2/24
Gibbs, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Matthew 12." Matthew 11:2-20:34. (pages 595-658). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. (Personal Library)
Gibbs provides fairly extensive textual notes for Matthew 12:1-14. The grammar is relatively challenging in this passage, as there are several oddities in the word order. These oddities serve to place emphasis on unexpected parts of the sentences, which will become clearer as Gibbs moves into the commentary proper.
The accusation of the Pharisees in Matthew 12 begins with an objection to the disciples doing what could constitute harvesting grain on the Sabbath. For this reason, it is natural to assume the issue is fairly clear-cut. However, Gibbs observes that Jesus immediately draws the Pharisees into a different topic (Gibbs 2010, p. 600). Jesus' counter-argument "asserts that he and his ministry are so central to what God is finally doing in Israel that Jesus (and by implication, his disciples) cannot be in violation of the Sabbath" (Gibbs 2010, p. 600, emphasis Gibbs'). The importance is to understand Jesus, not the Sabbath, correctly. Gibbs argues that the Christological concern is the unifying theme for Matthew 11:2-16:20.
The controversy raised by the Pharisees is related to their understanding of Sabbath law. This prompts Gibbs to review what we know of this area of law established and developed throughout the period to the time of Jesus' ministry as described in Matthew 12 (Gibbs 2010, p. 602). The actual Old Testament passages pertaining to the day of rest are relatively brief, calling for rest, and illustrating ways in which normal behaviors of daily life may exemplify a failure to take the required rest. Texts such as Jubilees 50:1-13 and the Damascus Document 10:14-11:18 and 12:3-6 present lists of specific ways the Sabbath may be violated (Gibbs 2010, pp. 602-603). The later tractates found in the Mishnah and Genera, written between about A.D. 200 and 600 provide additional insight. However, Gibbs observes that we are not certain when the rules listed originated (Gibbs 2010, p. 603). Matthew 12 does suggest a preoccupation with the right interpretation of keeping the Sabbath (Gibbs 2010, p. 604). While Gibbs urges his readers not to consider Jesus' opponents as necessarily attempting to endorse salvation by works of the law, he considers it fairly certain that their attempt to guard God's law through extensive additional stipulations was inappropriate, making it "more a burden than a blessing" (Gibbs 2010, p. 605).
Matthew 12:3-8 shows Jesus' move to turn the Pharisees' complaint from the context of legal stipulations to their understanding of Jesus' identity (Gibbs 2010, p. 605). Jesus simply refuses to speak to the initial question of the permitted activities on the Sabbath. He proceeds to identify himself as greater than David, whose actions would have been seen as a violation of the Law (Gibbs 2010, p. 606). In this first example, it is important to observe that David was recognized as the one anointed by God. Jesus goes on in verses 5-6 to state that priests work on the Sabbath, and it does not profane the temple (Gibbs 2010, p. 607). In this instance, Jesus clearly says his work is greater than God's temple (Gibbs 2010, p. 608). Gibbs explains the logic implicit in Jesus' statement at some length. In verses 7-8, Jesus makes a third argument, that he is the manifestation of God's mercy (Gibbs 2010, p. 610). Using Hosea 6:6, as he had in Matthew 9:13, Jesus points out the Pharisees' failure to understand God's mercy. It is implicit in Jesus' role as the Messiah that he gives rest to God's people (11:28-29). This, in Gibbs' view, is why he is the Lord of the Sabbath, a manifestation of God's mercy for Israel (Gibbs 2010, p. 611).
Matthew 12:9-14 moves directly from talk of Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath to actions demonstrating his use of the Sabbath as a time of rest and healing (Gibbs 2010, p. 612). The Pharisees present Jesus, in the synagogue, with a man who has a withered hand. Gibbs observes that we have no record from the period of rabbinic discussion of healing on the Sabbath (Gibbs 2010, pp. 612-613). Jesus' response to the question is that the man is more valuable than an animal which would be rescued on the Sabbath.His work of healing gives rest and relief, appropriate for a Sabbath.
Gibbs concludes that in Matthew 12:1-14, the controversy originally presented regarding work on the Sabbath, has been resolved by the very identity of Jesus, who shows himself as the authoritative Lord of the Sabbath, giving people rest which surpasses their expectations (Gibbs 2010, pp. 614-617 passim). Gibbs describes a proper view of the Sabbath as finding rest in Jesus. He notes, "no one day of the week need be observed as the exclusive Sabbath because Jesus' promise of rest is continual for all who come to him (11:28)" (Gibbs 2010, p. 615). The rest Christians have, however, is not idle. As Jesus does good in giving rest, Gibbs maintains that the proper work of Christians is also to do good and give mercy and rest to others (Gibbs 2010, p. 617).
Gibbs sees Matthew 12:15-21 as a coherent unit. He observes that in verse 15, Jesus deliberately removed himself from the area, probably because he knew the Pharisees were plotting against him (Gibbs 2010, p. 618).
There are significant differences among Matthew 12:18-21, the Masoretic text, and the Septuagint of Isaiah 42:14. Gibbs catalogs them in some detail (Gibbs 2010, p0. 619-623). He considers it likely that Matthew here may have translated the Hebrew himself, though in other places Matthew used the Septuagint text (Gibbs 2010, p. 619).
Gibbs observes that the transition in Matthew 12:15-16 is very brief, but sets up the longest Old Testament quotation used in Matthew (Gibbs 2010, p. 624). Jesus' withdrawal in these verses allows him to continue showing mercy to the crowds and to remain in control of the timing of his future arrest and execution. Gibbs takes Jesus' prohibition of making him known to be another means of control over the timing of his arrest (Gibbs 2010, p. 625).
Matthew 12:17-21 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4, which, in turn, is a challenging passage to interpret. Gibbs notes the important question of who the servant is (Gibbs 2010, p. 625). In its context, the servant may be understood as either an individual or the nation of Israel (Gibbs 2010, p. 626). Gibbs considers evidence for both views. He then notes that Matthew's narrative identifies the servant, and that it is Jesus, an individual (Gibbs 2010, p. 627). Gibbs does entertain the possibility that Matthew is using Jesus as the servant being "Israel reduced to one," which would still leave us with only partial clarity in his understanding and use of Isaiah. Regardless, from Matthew 12:18, the work of Jesus is to bring justice, which is inextricably bound up with preaching, healing, and exorcism (Gibbs 2010, p. 628). Gibbs is clear that Jesus' work to bring justice has an influence on the greater society, in which Christ works through human works of mercy and justice (Gibbs 2010, p. 630).
A new segment of Matthew 12 begins at verse 22 (Gibbs 2010, p. 631). As Jesus heals a man who was blind and mute, the crowds were amazed. However, in verse 23 their question suggests they are not ready to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of David (Gibbs 2010, p. 632). Gibbs takes the language used in the discussion through verse 37 to be combative. The power of God has entered into the world. Jesus is not acting with a demonic impetus, but God is calling people to believe he is overcoming Satan (Gibbs 2010, p. 634). The people speaking against Jesus' work are engaged in combat against God.
The power of Jesus over demons is clear in verses 22-30 (Gibbs 2010, p. 635). While the crowd is not ready to accept Jesus as the son of David, the Pharisees reject him definitively, saying he uses demonic power. Jesus' response to the accusation is an appeal to logic and to human experience (Gibbs 2010, p. 636). If Satan casts out Satan, he defeats himself. It would make no sense. Additionally, true exorcisms were acknowledged among the Pharisees, apparently using the same power Jesus used. The accusation against Jesus is therefore not sustainable. The conclusion Jesus advocates in Matthew 12:28 is that in him the power of God is present (Gibbs 2010, p. 637).
Matthew 12:31-37 is connected directly to verses 22-30, as the passage opens with "because of this" (Gibbs 2010, p. 639). The words of rejection by the Pharisees lead directly to a stern warning from Jesus. Gibbs observes the significance of the question of what it means or does not mean to speak against the Holy Spirit. The statement of Jesus is admittedly very challenging and important.
In Gibbs' opinion, there are two errors commonly made regarding Jesus' teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Gibbs 2010, p. 640). One is to attempt to identify the particular motivation which would lead to the sin. There is no biblical evidence that such a diagnosis can be made. The other common error is to say that such blasphemy can only be committed, possibly by accident, by Christians (Gibbs 2010, p. 641). Gibbs finds even less support for this in Matthew 12. In this passage, Jesus is warning his opponents that they are on their way to condemnation. The warning of Jesus is couched in hyperbole. Gibbs observes that while Matthew 12:31-32 says that every sin will be forgiven, there are exceptions to that statement. Not only does Jesus rule out forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but Gibbs notes that rejecting God's forgiveness in Christ also leaves one unforgiven (Gibbs 2010, p. 641). The passage at hand makes it clear that speaking of Jesus as being governed by Satan is an unequivocal rejection of the Holy Spirit. The words of the Pharisees serve as their condemnation (Gibbs 2010, p. 642). Yet Gibbs sees this as a condition which could be reversed. "A person who renounces Christ will not be forgiven – unless he repents and confesses Jesus" (Gibbs 2010, p. 642). The language, then, is hyperbolic.
Gibbs also considers that Matthew 12:33-37 is helpful in interpreting verses 31-32. In these verses, Jesus observes that the mouth speaks from the heart. Words therefore can be used to judge attitudes (Gibbs 2010, p. 643). True faith in Jesus results in positive confessions about him. An ongoing rejection of Jesus indicates a heart which denies him (Gibbs 2010, p. 644). While Gibbs is clear that rejection of the Holy Spirit brings condemnation, he also confesses that the overall thrust of the Gospel is that one who formerly rejected Jesus may repent and be restored (Gibbs 2010, p. 645).
In Matthew 12:38-45 some of the scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus for a prophetic sign, which he refuses to give them. In verses 43-45 he describes the departure of a demon and its return with more evil spirits. Gibbs points out that the opponents of Jesus, who have already seen his signs, are asking for another sign (Gibbs 2010, p. 649). Their request might not be for a greater sign. As an example of such a request, Gibbs notes Hezekiah's request for a sign in 2 Kings chapter 20. God had made a long-range promise. Hezekiah wanted a short-term, verifiable sign that the longer range promise would be done.
The sign which Jesus concedes will be given in Matthew 12:39 is "the sign of Jonah the prophet" (Gibbs 2010, p. 650). Gibbs finds a concentration on Jonah's rescue from the sea creature to be a common emphasis in teaching from the Second Temple period. The significance is that Jonah is released from the creature after three days and that Jesus is released from death after three days. It is a sign of resurrection (Gibbs 2010, p. 651). His resurrection, not his death, is the sign of the validity of his promises.
The fact that Jesus has presented himself as greater than Jonah or Solomon leads him directly to speaking specifically of the danger of rejecting him. Gibbs does not take Matthew 12:43-45 as a direct teaching of demonology. Rather, he sees it as illustrative of the danger of refusing the protection of the Gospel (Gibbs 2010, p. 652-653). Those who refuse Jesus place themselves in danger of progressively increasing troubles.
In Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus essentially redefines family. Gibbs does point out that the term used in 12:46 for "brothers" is specifically not used for cousins or other relatives with any regularity (Gibbs 2010, p. 654). In Gobbs' opinion it is most natural to take these people as children of Joseph and Mary. The emphasis of the passage is the central importance of "the family relationship to Jesus that comes through being his disciple" (Gibbs 2010, p. 656). The identification of those who believe in Jesus as his family would have been shocking in the culture of the time, as it is now in many cultures. Gibbs points out that Jesus calls people to care and respect for their biological family. Yet a relationship with Jesus is even more important (Gibbs 2010, p. 657).
RSS Feed