Matthew 23

Matthew 23 “THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter Twenty-Three With the religious leaders silenced by their inability to entangle Jesus with their questions, Jesus proceeded to decry the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees in a series of scorching rebukes (Matthew 23:1-36). Despite His strong condemnation, His love for them was manifested by His lament for the people of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees

• Jesus’ grief over the apostasy and fall of Jerusalem

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• Jesus denounces the religious leaders - Matthew 23:1-36- Jesus laments over Jerusalem - Matthew 23:37-39

2. What does Jesus tell people to do in regards to the scribes and Pharisees? (Matthew 23:3)

• Do what they say, even though they do not practice what they preach

3. List some things for which Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:3-7)

• They say, and do not
• They bind burdens on others they themselves would not bear
• Their works they do to be seen of men
• They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the borders of their garments
• They love the best places at feasts, best seats in the synagogues
• They love greetings in the marketplaces, to be called “Rabbi”

4. What did Jesus tell His disciples not to do? Why? (Matthew 23:8-11)

• Not to use religious titles like “Rabbi”, “Father”, “Teacher”
• Rather then be esteemed by such titles, they were to be humble servants

5. List the reasons for the eight woes expressed by Jesus (Matthew 23:13-16, Matthew 23:23; Matthew 23:25; Matthew 23:27; Matthew 23:29)

• Preventing others from entering the kingdom of heaven
• Devouring widows’ houses and making long, pretentious prayers
• Making proselytes twice the sons of hell as themselves
• Making inconsistent distinctions between the swearing of oaths
• Paying tithes of minute things while neglecting justice, mercy, faith
• Cleaning the outside while neglecting the inside
• Outwardly appearing righteous while inwardly full of hypocrisy and lawlessness
• Building the tombs of the prophets while persecuting prophets

6. What did Jesus say was the condition of Jerusalem? (Matthew 23:38)

• “See! Your house is left to you desolate”

Matthew 23:1-39 Verse 1Mat 23:1-39 EXPOSED AND BY JESUS; THE SEVEN WOES; UPON AND THE TEMPLEThen spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: all things therefore whatsoever they, bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say and do not. (Matthew 23:1-3) Christ recognized that the scribes and Pharisees were successors to some of the dignity and authority of Moses, not in the sense of really possessing such authority, but in the sense of being responsible for teaching Moses’ word and faithfully interpreting it to the people. They were the custodial heirs and terminal beneficiaries of the system which God gave through his servant Moses. The Pharisees did not practice what they taught, but their failure was no excuse for disobedience by those who knew God’s will. The authority of God’s word does not derive from the righteous life of the teacher but from the prior authority of God himself; although, of course, the righteous life of the teacher is always a strong encouragement to obedience. The evil and inconsistent life of the scribes and Pharisees was a strong deterrent to the acceptance of God’s will in that day; and similar evil on the part of Christian teachers in all ages has the same hindering results.

Verse 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.The Pharisees always took the strictest and most legalistic view of every religious duty and always applied the law in such a way as to make it as onerous as possible - that is, FOR OTHERS! They themselves? Ah, that was something else again. They did not observe their own strict rules, and their personal laxity was an open scandal. Why? Christ immediately gave the answer in the most vituperative and scathing language ever to fall from his blessed lips.

Verse 5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments …John A. Broadus, quoting Rabbinical writers, described the phylactery as follows: In Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8 and Deuteronomy 11:18, it was said to Israel concerning the teachings of the law, that they should be bound, “for a token upon thy head, and for frontlets between thine eyes.” In the inter-biblical period, we find the Jews converting this figure into outward fact. They took four passages adjacent to the thrice repeated injunction, namely, Exodus 13:2-10; Exodus 13:11-17; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; and Deuteronomy 11:13-22, and writing them on strips of parchment, encased the folded strips in minute leather boxes. These four boxes were set on edge and fastened upon one leather base, which was placed in the middle of the forehead, and held there by a string tied round the head with peculiar knots which had a mystical meaning.[1] Naturally, the bigger the phylactery the more attention the device would get for its wearer. If this seems strange to anyone today, it ought to be remembered that the making of a figurative statement to become a literal statement is an error that certainly was not confined to ancient Jews. The doctrine of transubstantiation is a similar error, resulting from exactly the same kind of mistake, and just as illogical. Borders of the garments were considered sacred by the Jews, and the enlargement of the border was another device for ostentation and gratification of the pride of its wearer. ENDNOTE:[1] John A. Broadus, American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), p. 465.

Verse 6 And love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues.It is an eloquent warning against pride, even of the variety held harmless by many, to observe that the rejection of Christ by the Pharisees was directly the fruit of their social and religious pride. When Christ finally denounced them and pronounced judgment upon them, as in this chapter, he made their pride to be their principal sin. The vainglory of greetings extended to them in market places, the deference shown them in social gatherings, and the presumption of piety which they received and invited by the ostentatious use of wide borders, phylacteries, etc. - these may appear to be small things, but they were the root of the Pharisees’ trouble; and it is certain those same encouragements to pride have been in every age a stumblingblock to faith.

Verse 7 And the salutations in the market places, and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.They were little men, puffed up with their supposed learning, parading like peacocks before the admiring eyes of their followers, and inwardly gloating over titles of honor and deference. Such empty superficiality blinded the Pharisees and will also blind all others in all places in all times who become infected with the deadly virus of human pride. Christ assuredly condemned the employment of religious titles denoting any kind of authority. The acceptance of title, no less than its bestowal, was forbidden by Christ. “Be not ye called … Call no man …” In the teaching here, Christ struck at one of the great failings of mankind, the reliance upon human authorities for the settlement of religious truth. In apostolic times, the living teachers were called “rabbis” and the ones who formerly lived were called “fathers.” (The latter term even crept into the speech of Stephen, Acts 7:2). But Christ taught there is just one authority in religion, namely, God, and that which God has revealed in Christ through the apostles. Plummer expressed it: “They were to abandon the practice of appealing to `the fathers,’ which had done so much evil in perpetuating misleading traditions."[2] The sense of Christ’s teaching recorded in this place is always violated when men are willing to accept the authority of “Doctor So and So” instead of the teachings of the word of God. Call no man your father on earth … At least the Jews are consistent who, rejecting Christ, reject also what he said about “rabbi”; but it appears unbelievable that so large a part of Christendom should be so blind to Christ’s commandment as to flaunt the title “father” as the just inheritance of all their priests and to bestow upon their sovereign the near-blasphemous title, “Most Holy Father”! Such reminds one of the custom of Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, the Kaiser of World War I, who allowed it to be printed in the court circular, on the occasion of Wilhelm’s going to church, that “This morning, The All-Highest paid His respects to the Highest”![3] Wherever the title “father” is received and allowed, there is also a sinful implication of the authority of such persons and of the deference due their opinions regarding religious questions. It is precisely there that the damage is done. Positively no Father, Rabbi, Reverend, Doctor, or other religious title-holder has any authority at all to legislate, absolve, bind, loose, require, or demand, in any religious sense, anything whatsoever, upon anyone whomsoever! The principal heresy of the ages has been and continues to be the human failing in this very area. Humanity confers upon itself, in the person of those whom it denominates “fathers,” “rabbis,” etc., prerogatives which pertain and can only pertain to God. As for the titles themselves, they are forbidden to all who honor the word of Christ.

Let any person who uses such a title in a religious sense beware of the consequences. Titles, apart from their religious implications, are not necessarily condemned by Christ; the distinction is seen in the fact that one may refer to his earthly parent as his father without violating the prohibition taught by Christ; but if the very same title, or any other, should be applied in a religious sense and in order to confer dignity and authority upon the conferee, then Christ’s law is violated. The consent of long centuries of men to disobey Christ’s law on these matters does not change it. The word “reverend” may be used of a man if it should be used in the sense that one is revered, respected, or God-fearing, and if not at the same time intended as a title of religious authority or distinction. Psalms 111:9 reads, “Holy and reverend is his name.” The words HOLY and are applied to God in that passage, or rather to God’s name; but it is not true that all words so applied are therefore forbidden to be used as applicable to men. The word HOLY, for example, is applied to people, even by the apostles (Hebrews 3:1; 1 Peter 3:5, etc.); and it would be hard to find authority for any dogma to the effect that there are no reverend men, or that it would be wrong thus to describe them. But both those words (holy and reverend) violate Christ’s plain word the moment one is made a title or symbol of religious authority to which other men are expected to give obedience, allegiance, submission, or deference. All titles that seek to elevate one man above another in the solemn business of the faith in Christ are wrong. Some of the arguments brethren use to maintain this truth may sometimes be described as illogical, but the truth is overwhelmingly plain and undeniable. Christ condemned religious titles of preferment and authority because all of them are founded upon a false premise: that one man, more than another, has the right to interpret God’s word. Needless to say, such terms as Brother, Evangelist, Elder, Minister, Bishop, Deacon, Cardinal, Pope, Metropolitan, Monsignor, etc., etc., violate Christ’s law when such are used as food for vanity of the designate or for procuring the acceptance of his views by others. How far the race has drifted in this matter might be realized by the imposition of some modern terminology upon an ancient incident. Could we say, for example, that His Eminence, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ, His Hos Simon Peter, the Pope of all Christendom, was once withstood to his face by the Right Reverend Monsignor Paul, Metropolitan and Bishop of Ephesus! This writer has no delusion that these words on this subject will be much noted or long remembered; but to the devout, who believe in Jesus, we dare to suggest that they are true. It is prayerfully hoped that Christ’s warning against the virus of seats (the chief ones, of course) will be heeded by those who truly desire to follow him. [2] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 315. [3] Edmond Taylor, The Fall of the Dynasties (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1963), p. 149.

Verse 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.Christ paid his respects to three titles in the passage before us, namely, Rabbi, Father, and Master; but the principle certainly applies to all titles that might be used in such a manner, that is, to elicit religious respect and acceptance. Even the use of “Brother” as the exclusive property of the preacher serves to take it away from others equally entitled to it; and therefore it should be used for all and not parlayed into a title which, for all practical purposes, takes the place of “Reverend”! Moffatt’s translation makes this verse read, “Nor must you be called `leaders,’ for One is your leader, even the Christ.”

Verse 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.Thus, Christ climaxed his teaching on the basic moral failure of the Pharisees. It was their love of preference, desire for social or worldly acclaim, delight in popularity, affinity for pompous titles, and their constant jostling each other for positions of eminence - these were the outward symptoms of their deadly pride within, which blinded their eyes to the Lord of glory and shut the gates of light against themselves. Humility is the indispensable virtue. All the Pharisees’ excellence, all their strict attention to observe details of the law, all their visible identity with religion could not save them without humility. Humility is that low sweet root From which all the heavenly virtues shoot! -Thomas Moore Lack of humility is at the bottom of practically all the trouble that ever came into the church. Proud, arrogant men, striving against each other for some type of advantage, stand squarely in the center of every division that ever occurred among the followers of Christ. Through pride, Satan fell; through pride, he holds countless souls in captivity to do the will of the devil! Having thus laid bare before all the true source of guile and wickedness in the Pharisees and scribes, namely pride, Christ then proceeded to pronounce a number of “woes” upon them.

Verse 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter.THE FIRST WOEThe Pharisees should have accepted Christ and set an example for all to follow by receiving and honoring him; but instead they rejected him, hated him, and tried to turn the popular mind away from him, thus, in a figure, standing in the gate and virtually shutting it in the face of all who were trying to do God’s will. Those who enter God’s kingdom will cause others to do the same thing; and those who refuse to enter will also prevent others from being saved. Thus, every man is either for Christ or against him. Verse 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.THE SECOND WOEJust prior to this verse, some authorities insert Matthew 23:14, which reads thus: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, even while for a pretense ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater condemnation” (see the margin of the ASV). To say the least, such is in complete harmony with all else that Christ said of the Pharisees and scribes. Matthew 23:15 does not condemn the making of proselytes, far from it. It condemns the making of a proselyte to human opinion rather than to God’s word. This was the guilt of the scribes and Pharisees. Had they made converts to the true Jewish faith, that would have been all right; but, instead, they made converts to THEIR PARTY. Boles said, “They exalted the opinions of men above the word of God, which rendered them worthy of such condemnation."[4] Plummer understood this passage in the same way, saying, “The main point here seems to be that the Pharisees, while professing a great zeal for the spread of the true religion, were chiefly bent on winning another adherent to their party."[5] There were two classes of proselytes: (1) proselytes of the gate, who were not circumcised, and who accepted only portions of Judaism, and (2) proselytes of righteousness, who became true converts. Some of the noblest names of the New Testament were found among such proselytes. The centurion of Mat 8:5 is an example.[6] Proselytes, however, often become a problem, sometimes coming to represent all that is worst, both in their old religion and in their new one. This is nearly always the case where one is proselyted to a “system” rather than to Christ and him crucified. Proselytes to error frequently become even more zealous and diligent purveyors of the new doctrine than persons brought up in it. Clare Booth Luce and her diligence for Catholicism show a good example of this. The son of hell, as Christ used it, refers to the final overthrow of the wicked, and is equivalent to a “son of the devil.” [4] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1936), p. 447. [5] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 318. [6] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 447.

Verse 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. Ye fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, he is debtor. Ye blind: for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? He therefore that sweareth by, the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

And he that sweareth by the heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.THE THIRD WOEThe Pharisees’ punctilious preoccupation with trifles appears in all its ridiculous pettiness in this passage. What was so wrong with the practices Christ pointed out? Plummer hit the nail on the head when he said, It is grievous enough that men should be encouraged to think that there are two kinds of TRUTH, one of which is important, and the other not; namely, that which is sworn to, and that which is stated without an oath. That leads men to think that unless they take an oath, they may tell lies with little or no blame. But to tell men that, even when they have sworn, they are not bound to tell the truth or abide by the promise, UNLESS THEIR OATH IS TAKEN IN A CERTAIN WAY, is far worse, and far more destructive of men’s sense of honor and love of truthfulness.[7] Intervening centuries have not diminished the amazement one feels when considering the hair-splitting nonsense of those blind and foolish hypocrites, glorying in all those minuscule distinctions and disputations concerning the super-fine points of religion. The big point in the whole passage is that the whole is greater than any of its parts, and that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. In spite of truth so plain as to be considered axiomatic, the scribes and Pharisees had become champions of small distinctions such as those regarding oaths. Their thinking on such matters was foolish. Theology today is just as foolish, for example, in allowing that a man may tell a lie if he is doing it (or thinks he is) for the good of the person deceived. During the great religious wars of the sixteenth century, many a “safe conduct” was violated, even by the highest ranking prelates, by just such a devious intellectual device as that so severely condemned by Christ. See under Matthew 5:33-37. ENDNOTE:[7] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 318.

Verse 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Ye blind guides that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!THE FOURTH WOEIn the fourth woe also, the Pharisee was presented as a specialist in trifles. To be sure, there was nothing wrong with tithing mint, dill (see the margin of the RSV), and cummin. Christ admitted that such was a duty, “These ought ye to have done!” The trouble was that such petty little deeds of scrupulosity were the concern of the scribes and Pharisees. They could murder the Son of God but would not think of neglecting to tithe a sprig of dill on the back doorstep. It was precisely in such a tradition that they finally appeared before Pilate to extort a death sentence for the Master, while refusing at the same time to enter the governor’s court lest they be defiled!

Jesus contrasted justice, mercy, and faith with small things like tithing herbs, and then laid down the proposition that some things ARE more important than others in God’s kingdom. Furthermore, the BIG END of all obligation is in the ethical and moral realm, rather than in ceremonial and external observances. Without wishing to appear as a judge of others, we may nevertheless urge upon all brethren everywhere the fact that such questions as HOW orphans should be cared for, whether from the church treasury or by individuals, is just such a proposition as some of those so dear to the Pharisees and so repulsive to Jesus. The “weightier matter” as far as orphans are concerned, and as far as Christ is concerned, is that they shall be properly and affectionately cared for, and not “how” it is done. Blind guides … the gnat … the camel … In Christ’s day, any small impurity in a glass of milk or water would have been filtered out. Jesus contrasted this straining of such a thing as a gnat out of a glass of water with swallowing a camel! This is hyperbole at its best and a perfect picture of the unbalanced thinking of those unfortunate men. For example, they literally stoned Stephen to death with their own hands, but scrupulously avoided stepping on an old grave, neglecting to tithe a sprig of dill, or putting foot inside a Gentile’s house. The figure of the gnat and the camel emphasizes the difference in the culture of that day and ours.

Today, any good housekeeper would throw a glass of milk in the garbage if it had a gnat in it; but in those days, such things as germs were unknown. Therefore, the gnat was strained out! Presumably this may still go on wherever there is such poverty as to require it or such ignorance as to allow it. Of course, Christ did not endorse that type of sanitation, or lack of it, but was merely drawing an illustration from the customs of the day.

Verse 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.THE FIFTH WOEIn this woe also, another remarkable imbalance in the thinking of the Pharisees was pinpointed by Jesus. All of the dishes they used were subjected to the ceremonial washing to avoid legal defilement; but Christ made it clear that cleans of another kind had been neglected. It was far more important that food be “clean” in the sense of its not having been obtained through extortion, and that gluttony or excess could occur in spite of all ceremonial cleans. Of course, extortion and excess were two of the Pharisees’ commonest sins. They robbed widows and orphans, dealt deceitfully, defrauded in money-changing, and violated wholesale the great moral precepts of the Law; in a genuine moral sense, therefore, their food was contaminated with extortion and excess.

That was the real uncleanness which should have concerned them but did not. On the other hand, they never forgot the ceremonial washings! Christ did not condemn outward cleans, nor even the washing of cups and platters, but made such things secondary. And how did Christ teach that the INSIDE of the cup and platter should be cleansed? That was to be done through no outward ceremonial but was to be accomplished by honesty, industry, thrift, temperance, truthfulness, fairness, regard for the needs of others, and, in short, by living righteous lives.

Verse 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.THE SIXTH WOEHere is another figure drawn from the customs of the day and the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, who customarily whitewashed graves in order to make them more easily visible and to prevent one’s stepping on one of them accidentally or unknowingly. Such graves were a fair figure of the Pharisees, who were outwardly clean and beautiful, but inwardly were full of wickedness. The implications in such a comparison by the Lord are profound. The Pharisees, with all their pomp and glamour, earthly glory and prestige, outward beauty and ostentation, were, for all that, actually dead in the eyes of Jesus. They were dead spiritually and morally. Although their inward decay was concealed with an attractive veneer of political and social respectability, it was not hidden from the penetrating knowledge and vision of the Son of God, who knew their hearts.

Verse 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous.THE SEVENTH WOEIn this seventh woe, Christ began to pronounce sentence upon those religious leaders and the nation they had so basely led and betrayed. In this seventh woe, Christ suddenly revealed himself as the Judge of those evil people and dramatically assumed the prerogatives of judgment and gave sentence against those who had the vanity to suppose they were judging him! The time of pleading, persuading, and reasoning with them had passed. Without hesitation, in the clearest and most powerful language, in the presence of his disciples and all the people, Christ uttered the judgment of God upon the flower of Israel’s religious hierarchy, condemning, along with the nation which, alas, had blindly followed them, and consigning them to the judgment and punishment of hell. The seventh woe, as all the others, dealt with hypocrisy, the sin reiterated over and over. In the seventh case, they were making a fine “to do” over the tombs of the prophets, building beautiful sepulchres, and decorating their graves, and at the same time declaiming their superiority over their ancestors who had slain the prophets. In this woe, Christ exposed the Pharisees as true sons of their evil fathers.

Verse 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.Loud professions of moral rectitude on the part of the Pharisees did not conceal their moral leprosy from Jesus. At that very moment, they were plotting to kill him; and, before the week ended, they would commit a crime against the Lord of Life in a manner so revolting and hateful that all succeeding generations would hold it to be the crime of the ages. Whereas others had slain God’s messengers, they would slay his SON!

Verse 31 Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?Not merely were those men the physical descendants of those who persecuted and slew the prophets, they were also their moral and spiritual sons as well, full of fraud and deceit, fit architects for fashioning a cross for the Beloved. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. This is irony. They had passed the point of no return; and like Balaam of old, they could not have gone back if they had tried at this point, although there was no possibility of their even trying. As the angel said to Balaam, “Go with the men!” so Jesus here commanded them to do the thing they had already purposed to do, and from which there was now no longer any possibility of drawing back. Evil hearts had already committed the foul murder which their external actions would only confirm before the week ended. There is a stark contrast between the wickedness of the men who killed Christ and that of Balaam (Numbers 22:34). Balaam tried to abort his evil mission but could not. These men did not even try to abort theirs. Over against Balaam, an angel with a drawn sword gave the summary command, “Go with the men!” How that must have chilled his heart with fear and dread. In every evil course, there is a point where the sinful soul becomes apprehensive and would draw back but cannot. There is a threshold which, when crossed, admits of no complete spiritual returning.

What a terrible moment for the sinful that must be! It is an evil hour, fraught with the pangs of conscience and the fear of hell, but void of any place for repentance even though sought bitterly with tears, as in the case of Esau. Yet such an awareness of the horrors of evil seems never to have come to the Pharisees. They were already dead spiritually. The very Christ of God stood before them in an amazing drama of outraged innocence and thundered the sentence: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers!” There was no evidence that they heard him. Spiritual “rigor mortis” had already set in! Ye serpents … Much of Jesus’ language was metaphorical, but this was one of the strongest ever used. Herod was called a fox; the opponents of the gospel were called “wolves” in sheep’s clothing; but the Pharisees were compared to the most detestable of all creatures, serpents, and poisonous ones at that, VIPERS! The judgment of hell was a reference to the final overthrow of the wicked in the lake of fire (see the margin of the ASV). The question, “how shall ye escape” … is actually an affirmation that they shall not escape.

Verse 34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city.Behold, I send! These words surely imply Christ’s identity with the Father, God himself. It is Christ who would send forth the apostles, prophets, and wise men; it was God who sent the prophets of the Old Covenant, but the two are one. How naturally did those words fall from the lips of our Lord. Such an outflashing of His Godhead was lost on the Pharisees, but the disciples of all ages would note and remember it, nor ever cease to marvel at it. The treatment which God’s messengers sent by Christ were to receive was accurately foretold. The stoning of Stephen, the imprisonment of the apostles, the persecutions of Paul and others from city to city, even the crucifixion of Christ - all such things in time demonstrated the accuracy of our Lord’s predictions to the Pharisees. The mention of “crucify” among the things the Pharisees would do to those sent by Christ showed that Jesus himself was among those “sent.” Thus, in this strange and exciting paragraph, Christ appeared both as the Sender and as One sent, both as God and as man. This deduction follows upon the fact that Christ alone was crucified by the Pharisees.

Verse 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.Commentators profess to find difficulty with this verse. Alford would reject the words “son of Barachiah."[8] McGarvey supposed that it refers to the circumstances of the death of the prophet Zachariah, although admitting that no record of such an occurrence may be found in the Bible.[9] Broadus found here “a well known difficulty."[10] Why should there be a difficulty? It is obvious that Christ here referred to some secret murder perpetrated, not by the ancestors of those men, but “by them. Whom ye slew!” This could not be an indictment of their ancestors but plainly refers to a murder those wicked men had committed themselves. Christ tried with that one last lightning stroke of truth to get through to them, but even that failed. That no such murder was recorded in either the Old Testament or the New Testament, and that there was no general knowledge of it in the days of Christ, and that no traditions were developed with reference to it - these things present no difficulty at all, but point squarely at the Pharisees and show their effectiveness in covering up their evil deeds and hiding them from popular view. (It was precisely this ability they relied upon when they decided to make away with Jesus secretly. See Matthew 26:1-4). It is further evidence of their depravity that none of them ever confessed it, even after he who knew their thoughts revealed it publicly! Their guilty secret went to the grave with them, except for this ray of light from the lips of Christ who made it known on the occasion of their being sentenced to hell for their wickedness. This is a revealing glance at the judgment to come, when the secrets of men’s hearts shall be revealed. Commentators ought not to marvel that this judgment scene revealed a crime hitherto unknown; the great judgment will reveal innumerable others! One of the very significant things from that judgment of the Pharisees and Israel is that nations, no less than individuals, are accountable to God. The Pharisees were made the terminal heirs of the total Jewish history of rebellion against God. Plumptre’s words are appropriate: Men make the guilt of past ages their own, reproduce its atrocities, identify themselves with it; and so, what seems at first an arbitrary decree, visiting on the children the sins of their fathers, becomes in such cases a righteous judgment. If they repent, they cut off the terrible entail of sin and punishment; but, if they harden themselves in their evil, they inherit the delayed punishment of their fathers’ sins as well as their own.[11] [8] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Co., 1875), p. 202. [9] Ibid. [10] John A. Broadus, op. cit., p. 476. [11] Ibid.

Verse 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.The Jewish nation itself was laid under sentence by those words. Before that generation expired, the armies of Vespasian and Titus moved against the stricken city with ruthless destruction. God’s patience, exhausted at last, became God’s wrath!

Verse 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered the children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!Morgan’s comment on this chapter has this passage: Here, indeed, if ever, we have thoughts that breathe and burn. One can almost feel the withering force of his strong and mighty indignation - indignation directed, not against the people, but against their false guides. And yet behind it all is his heart; and the woes merge into a wail of agony, the cry of a mother over her lost child.[12] This lament over the doomed city occurred at a most appropriate time: upon the occasion of the Lord’s sentencing her to destruction. One who has ever attended a courtroom in which the judge announced a death sentence and has observed the heart-breaking scenes that inevitably follow can appreciate the sorrow that overwhelmed the Saviour in that tragic hour when the glory and power of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, as Jesus himself called it, were consigned to the torch and the sword, the heel of the invader, the pestilence and the siege, the brutality of plunder, and the dashing of the heads of her infants against the stones! “Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death” (James 1:15, KJV). Sin for Jerusalem was finished by the rejection of Christ, and it brought forth death. A cry of pity and of sorrow went up from her Saviour, but not even that could spare Jerusalem. Ye would not! Man’s freedom of the will makes it possible for him to reject even his God; but when he does so, he cannot avoid the consequences. The reference to a hen and chickens is one of the tenderest, commonest, and most appealing figures Jesus ever used. The common barnyard fowl was to be used again by our Lord in the incident of Peter’s denial. The commonest and most ordinary things on the planet grew luminous at the touch of Jesus and sprang into glorious significance. As for the particular time when the above lament was spoken, Matthew’s including it at this juncture might not be chronological. F. W. Farrar placed it on the day of the Triumphal Entry and treated it as occurring as Christ approached the city along the southern route from Bethany on Palm Sunday.[13] We believe Farrar was following Luke’s account which certainly places it on that day (Luke 19:41), but Luke also gives a second weeping over the city (Luke 13:34), and it is reasonable to suppose there may have been a third one, in which case Matthew’s account might very well be a chronological record of it. Certainly, the sheer logic of Jesus’ weeping upon the very occasion of sentencing the city to its doom lends support to such a consideration. [12] G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Whole Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1959), p. 420. [13] F. W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (New York: A. L. Burt Company), p. 378.

Verse 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.Scholars omit the word “desolate” (see the ASV margin). Whether or not the word is in the original, the meaning surely is. “Behold your house is left unto you!” This was a seven-word summary of the seven woes just pronounced by the Lord. No longer would the city be disturbed by the teaching of her Saviour. His last public discourse was ended. The Holy City was then left to those vain captains of their sinking ship, unaware of their doom, even when the last lifeboat had departed and no means of escape remained. Plummer expressed it thus: These sorrowful words of warning are the Messiah’s farewell to his people. He never again taught in public, and perhaps he never again entered the temple. It was perhaps only a few hours after uttering these woes upon the teachers, and this lamentation over the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the Sanhedrin met to consider how they might destroy him who had uttered them. That was their answer to his condemnation of their past and his warnings respecting their future.[14] Note that Christ refers to the temple as “your house,” meaning that the most sacred institutions have genuine value only so long as they are blessed with the presence of the Lord. It was, after Christ’s rejection, no longer God’s house, but theirs! ENDNOTE:[14] Alfred Plummer, op. cit., p. 326.

Verse 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.Some believe that this verse refers to the ultimate acceptance of Christ as the Messiah on the part of the Jews of some subsequent age, basing it upon Paul’s words in Romans 11:1-36; but, although such a possibility might be allowed, it is the view here that no such prophecy was intended in this place. On the other hand, the exact opposite seems indicated by this emphatic declaration. See notes on Matthew 18:34. But even if passing ages should reveal an ultimate acceptance of their King on the part of some Jews of some future generation, the emphatic declaration here would still be true enough as applicable to the millennia intervening. This verse is, in fact, a challenge to all men. None shall see the King until they are willing to forsake worldly pride, fall upon their knees in repentance, and say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter Twenty-ThreeDenunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:1-39 Their Moral Inconsistency, Matthew 23:1-41. to the multitude and to his disciples.—Jesus is still in the temple, and in the presence of the opponents with whom he had been disputing, but he now addresses himself to the disciples and the multitude. The change of his address is accompanied by a change in his subject-matter. Having exhausted on his hypocritical foes the power of proof and argument, he proceeds to deal with them as hopeless reprobates by depicting to the multitude their true character, and by heaping upon them the sentences of condemnation which were justly their due. 2, 3. sit in Moses’ seat.—He begins by recognizing his enemies as teachers of the law of Moses, and the only source of information on that subject accessible as yet to the uneducated people. But his advice, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you, that observe and do,” must be understood as limited to things written in the law; for the traditions which the scribes taught he had already repudiated. 3, 4. do not after their works —While their teaching, so far as it was drawn from the law, was to be strictly observed, their example was to be carefully avoided. “They say, and do not.” The “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne” which they bound and laid on men’s shoulders, were the traditions which they added to the law; for although the law itself was a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10), it could not be said of the law that it was a burden which the scribes bound and laid on men’s shoulders. They avoided the task of bearing these burdens themselves, not moving them with one of their fingers, by introducing a class of subtle distinctions like that of the corban (Matthew 15:4-6), and those in reference to oaths (verses 16-22).

Their Ostentation, Matthew 23:5-12. (Mark 12:38-39; Luke 20:45-46) 5. to be seen of men.—While avoiding all heavy burdens, they performed some works, yet only such as would attract the attention of men and secure to themselves reputation for piety. These they carried to an excess, as is seen in the specifications mentioned below. broad their phylacteries.—Phylacteries were pieces of parchment with certain portions of the law written on them, and worn usually on the sleeve of the left arm, though sometimes on the forehead, and sometimes on the breast. The authority for wearing them was entirely traditionary, the tradition having its origin in a literal interpretation of Exo 13:9 Exodus 13:16, and Deuteronomy 11:18-21. For a minute description of them, and for some of the frivolous notions of the Rabbis concerning them, we refer the inquisitive to Smith’s Dictionary, article Frontlets. The sin of the Pharisees was not in wearing phylacteries, for it was in itself a harmless practice, but in making theirs broad for ostentatious display. enlarge the borders.—The children of Israel were required by the law to make fringes in the borders of their garments, and to put upon the fringes “a ribband of blue.” (Numbers 15:37-39.) The Pharisees made these, as they did their phylacteries, larger than did other people, in order to appear more religious than others. 6. uppermost rooms.—Not rooms in the modern sense, but reclining places (πρωτοκλισίας). The Jews, in the Savior’s time, like the Greeks and Romans, ate their meals in a reclining posture. Long couches were provided in their dining-halls, on each of which three persons would usually recline. The first, reclining on his left side, rested his left elbow on a cushion at the end of the couch, his feet thrown back toward the rear so as to allow another to recline just below and in front of him. The third was an equal distance below the second, the head of each being far enough below his neighbor above to keep from interfering with the free use of his hands in eating. The middle position was the position of honor, here called the uppermost room, and the Pharisees are charged with loving to secure it. chief seats in the synagogues.—At the end of the synagogue building, opposite to the entrance, was the chest or ark containing the books of the law, and the seats near that end were the “chief seats in the synagogue.” 7. greetings in the markets.—Not markets in the modern sense, but open spaces in the city to which the populace resorted for conversation and for business transactions of various kinds, and where judicial tribunals often held their sittings. There was one such in every city, called by the Greeks the agora, and by the Romans, the forum. The Pharisees delighted in the formal greetings and salutations which were here lavished on men of distinction by the fawning multitude. 8-11. Rabbi… father… master.—The ostentation which showed itself in the dress of the Pharisees and in their greediness for popular applause, was also seen in their fondness for honorary titles. Rabbi means teacher, but it was used not merely to point out the fact that one was a teacher, but as a title of honor; and it is only the latter use of it that is here prohibited. The apostles frequently applied the title teacher to those who were such in the churches. (See Acts 13:1; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11.) The term father was also applied figuratively by Paul to himself, when he said to the Corinthians, “You have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15.) He also called Timothy his “own son in the faith,” thus by implication calling himself Timothy’s father. He had reference in each of these cases to his actual relationship in the gospel to these parties; hence it is the merely honorary use of the term which is prohibited. So of the title Master (καθηγηταί, leaders); its use in an honorary or complimentary style is alone prohibited.

Our modern titles, Reverend, Right Reverend, Doctor of Divinity, etc., are all of the prohibited class and should be scrupulously avoided by men who desire to please God. Alford, in this place, combating a note by Albert Barnes, says that “to understand and follow such commands in the slavery of the letter, is to fall into the very Phariseeism against which our Lord is uttering the caution.” This remark would be unaccountable but for the fact that the learned commentator was himself a dignitary in a church which has been peculiarly given to the practice here condemned. Surely it can not be Phariseeism to scrupulously avoid that for which the Pharisees were condemned; and in repudiating all honorary titles we are complying with the spirit of the command even more certainly than with the letter; for in the letter only three such titles are specified. 11, 12. shall be your servant.—In these two verses the meekness becoming a Christian is put in contrast with the ostentation of the Pharisees, and the consequences of both are stated. The pathway to true greatness is found in humble service for others, while self-exaltation insures abasement. The results are brought about providentially in this world, and judicially in the world to come. Their Conduct toward Believers and Proselytes, Matthew 23:13-1513. ye shut up the kingdom.—Here the term “shut up” (κλεετε) is used metaphorically; for the scribes and Pharisees could not literally shut up the kingdom of heaven. There is a tacit comparison of the kingdom to a walled city, and of the conduct of the Pharisees to men standing at the gate but refusing to go in, and shutting the gate against those who would go in. The application is easy. Their refusal to go in represents their refusal to accept the doctrine of the kingdom of Christ; and their shutting the gate, their efforts to keep those who would accept this doctrine from doing so. To argue from this passage, as some have done, that the kingdom of heaven must have been already set up, is illogical, because the figure is as well suited to a kingdom about to be established as to one already in existence. 14. — This verse is omitted by the recent critics and by some of the best manuscripts. It was interpolated from Mark 12:40, or Luke 20:47, in both of which places it is genuine. We will consider it at the proper place in Mark. 15. to make one proselyte.—Not a proselyte from heathenism to the worship of the true God, but a Jewish proselyte to the sect of the Pharisees— to the traditionary observances and corrupt practices which they exalted above the word of God. To compass sea and land for the former purpose would have been most commendable, for it would have made men better; but for the latter purpose it was deplorable, because it made men worse. (See a fine article on Proselytes, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.) twofold more.—Their proselytes were worse than themselves, because it is the tendency of corrupt systems to make their adherents worse and worse, generation after generation; and also because the proselyte, having, as a general rule, less knowledge of the law than his teacher, was under less restraint from that source, and was more completely devoted to the traditions of the sect. Their Folly in Reference to Oaths, Matthew 23:16-2216. blind guides.—In this paragraph the denunciatory term is not hypocrites, as above and below, but “blind guides,” “ye fools and blind;” for here it is not so much their hypocrisy as their folly which is exposed. 17-19. whether is greater.—The first point made against their teaching is that it reverses the relative importance of things. They esteemed more highly the gold of the temple (16) than the temple which gave that gold all its sacredness; and the gift at the altar, than the altar which made the gift holy by its touch. (Exodus 29:37.) 20-22. whoso shall swear.—Here the people were taught the binding nature of every oath, and both the folly and wickedness of the distinction made by the Pharisees. Their Corruption in Reference to Tithes and Morals, Matthew 23:23-2423. tithe of mint.—The articles here mentioned, mint, anise, and cummin, were garden herbs grown in small quantities and used chiefly for flavoring. To pay tithes of these was to be scrupulous to the last farthing, for the tithe was scarcely worth the trouble of removing it from the garden. the weightier matters.—Weightier matters than paying tithes, because the interests of society are more deeply involved in them. “Judgment” means here right judgment of our fellow-men; “mercy,” forbearance toward the guilty and compassion toward the suffering. “Faith” is both the belief of the truth and habitual manifestation of that belief in the life. The Pharisees omitted these habitually, and especially had they done so in reference to Jesus. They pronounced unjust judgments against him; they were unmerciful toward him in reference to the faults which they pretended to find in him; and they had no faith either in his word or the words of the prophets which were written of him. Greater extremes, of conscientiousness in some things and unrighteousness in others were never, perhaps, united in the same persons; nor has such wickedness ever been exposed in terms more felicitous than these words of Jesus. They have become household words wherever the gospel is known. these ought ye.—It is not uncommon to understand Jesus as teaching in this paragraph that it is not important to be particular about small matters, provided we observe the weightier matters. But while he says in reference to the latter, “These ye ought to have done,” he says of the former, “and not to leave the other undone.” They should not have left undone even the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin. 24. strain at a gnat.—Greek. “strain out a gnat.” Reference is had to the custom of straining wine as it was poured into the drinking-cup, lest a gnat, which was an unclean insect, should be swallowed. While thus particular about the gnats, if a camel were in the cup they would swallow him. The hyperbole is an extravagant one, but the more impressive on that account. The fault exposed does not consist in straining out the gnat, but in swallowing the camel. Jesus would have us to swallow neither the camels nor the gnats. Their Outward Purity and Inward Corruption, Matthew 23:25-2825. clean the outside.—The reference is to their traditionary ablutions, such as had caused them to find fault with him when his disciples ate bread with unwashed hands. (See Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3-4 Mark 7:8.) Their conduct is satirized by comparing it to that of a woman who would carefully cleanse the outside of a cup or plate, and leave the inside unclean; but when he comes to speak of the inside he passes from the figure to the reality, and says, “within they are full of extortion and excess.” 26. that the outside may be clean.—Cleansing the inside of a cup would not necessarily cleanse the outside, yet ordinarily it so results: and so, if a man purify himself inwardly he will be pure externally, and far more certainly than in the case of the cup. He who aims at external purity of life, should therefore exert himself chiefly to cleanse that which is within, that the outside may also be clean. 27, 28. like whited sepulchers.—Jesus still has his eye on the wickedness of their hearts, but he now contrasts it, not with their care about tithing, nor with their legal cleanliness, but with their pretense of righteousness. (28.) While they maintained such outward conduct as gave them great credit with the people, like the beautifully whited sepulchers which were “full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness,” they were full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Their Imitation of the Ancient Persecutors, Matthew 23:29-3629-31. Wherefore ye be witnesses.—The argument is obscure. In building the tombs of the prophets and garnishing the sepulchers of the righteous, and also in their speech— “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets”— they were acting and speaking commendably; but in this very speech they were acknowledging themselves to be the children of those who persecuted the prophets, and Jesus uses that circumstance against them. They were themselves witnesses that they were children of those persecutors, and he argues that notwithstanding their good professions, they, as children, inherited the very character which they were repudiating. Furthermore, by the term “hypocrites” with which he addresses them (29), he assumes that all their good professions were hypocritical. 32. Fill up the measure.—The accumulating iniquity of the nation is represented as a measure which their fathers had provided and partly filled, and which they were now to fill to the brim. (Compare what is said of the Amorites, Genesis 15:16.) 33. how can ye escape.—This is the most fearful passage in the entire speech. “Ye serpents! Ye offspring (γεννήματα) of vipers!” What words could depict a more despicable character? And what sentence pronounced in advance of the final judgment can be compared with this: “How can ye escape the damnation of hell? By the figure of erotesis it is asserted with awful emphasis that for them there was no escape. It is well remarked by Alford that in this, the last public discourse of the Lord, he repeats almost verbatim the denunciation pronounced against these parties by John in the beginning of his ministry, “thus denoting the unchanged state of these men on whom the whole preaching of repentance had now been expended.” He notes one point of difference, however, that John demanded of them, “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” while Jesus demanded, “How can you escape?” 34. I send unto you.—The “prophets, wise men, and scribes” here mentioned are the apostles and their co-laborers, whom Jesus intended to send, and who are designated by titles familiar to his hearers. 35, 36. That upon you may come.—The expression, “upon you may come all the righteous blood,” etc., can not mean that they would be held responsible for it all; for they could not be responsible for what occurred before they were born. But that course of iniquity which began with the murder of Abel, and which, so far as the Jews were as yet concerned, had terminated with the death of Zacharias, was to reach its final consummation in that generation by the crucifixion of Jesus; and the series of earthly judgments which had been visited on the world on account of such bloodshed, was also to reach its consummation by the unparalleled sufferings attendant upon the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. All these things came upon that generation in the sense that the consummation of earthly punishments for such deeds befell that generation. Zacharias son of Barachias.—The only person mentioned in the Old Testament by this name is Zechariah the prophet (Zechariah 1:1); but if he perished in this way there is no other record of the fact now extant. Zachariah the son of Jehoiada was stoned “in the court of the house of the Lord,” and it may be “between the temple and the altar;” but he would not be confounded with Zechariah the son of Barachiah. It is conjectured by Alford that the text was originally written, as in Luke 11:51, without the words “son of Barachiah,” and that copyists at an early period inserted these words through a mistaken desire to make the reference more definite. If this conjecture shall be found, on further investigation, to be correct, we shall conclude that some more recent Zachariah is meant, and this would agree better with the force of the argument; but otherwise we shall be constrained to think that the prophet Zachariah is the one alluded to, and that he was slain as is declared in the text. Lamentation over Jerusalem, Matthew 23:37-3937. and ye would not.—The inimitable tenderness and pathos which breathe through this lamentation, following immediately the burning denunciations of the preceding speech, show plainly that the latter were not instigated by malice. They were judicial utterances wrung from a heart full of longings in behalf of the people denounced. Notwithstanding the killing of the prophets and the stoning of heavensent messengers in times gone by, his feeling toward them now was like the maternal tenderness of the hen when she nestles her brood under her wings; and the only obstacle to their salvation was, that they “would not.” A stubborn will was, with them, as it is so likely to be with us, the only hindrance to the saving favor of God. 38. your house is left.—In the personification, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” etc., the people of the city are addressed, and consequently their “house” must be the city in which they dwelt, and not the temple which belonged to all Israel. It was to be left desolate by his departure to return no more until the time indicated in the next verse. 39. till ye shall say.—The reference can not be to the return of Jesus after his resurrection, nor to what might be figuratively styled his appearance on the next Pentecost; for on neither of these occasions did the people of the city in general welcome him; but it is to his final coming, when, as the prediction clearly implies, the city will contain a believing population, and will welcome him, as the multitude had done at the time of his publics entry, with the acclamation, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Argument of Section 4The argument for the claims of Jesus implied in the preceding section is identical in part with that of the third section (see Argument of § 3, p. 195), but it is here more elaborately presented. If his enemies had been the honest and candid men of his generation, it would have been difficult to reconcile this fact with the supposition that his character was unimpeachable and his miracles unquestionable. But when we find what is so clearly disclosed in this chapter, that his enemies were the hypocrites, the arrogant pretenders, the zealous partisans, the extenuators of perjury, the perverters of morals, the extortioners, the unclean at heart, and the bloody persecutors of innocent men, the argument is reversed, and the character of the opposition is found to be no mean proof of the righteousness of Jesus. A man of spotless purity and of uncompromising zeal against all iniquity is the very man to arouse the enmity of such people.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 231. Who compose the audience of Jesus now? 2. To whom does he first direct his speech? 3. What position does he allow scribes and Pharisees ? 4. Tell what respect he commanded be shown them. 5. But what must not be imitated? 6. State their unfairness as to burdens. 7. What was the motive of these people ? 8. How did they arrange their attire? 9. What did they seek at feasts ? 10. And in synagogues? 11. What recognition did they crave? 12. Why was Eabbi not to be used? 13. What use of “ father” is condemned? 14. Tell why “ master” is forbidden. 15. Who was to be their servant? 16. How does the rule of exaltation work? 17. To whom does Jesus next direct his speech? 18. What does he pronounce upon them? 19. Tell what he calls them. 20. Describe their pretended zeal for proselyting. 21. How did they leave their converts? 22. What kind of guides did Jesus call them? 23. State inconsistency about gold of the temple. 24. Also about the altar and its gift. 25. What is included in swearing by heaven? 26. State their inconsistency about tithing. 27. Which should have been left undone? 28. What inconsistency about gnat and camel ? 29. And the cup and platter? 30. Who was blind in this? 31. What does Jesus bid him do? 32. Describe the comparison to whited sepulchres. 33. What did these people build? 34. Tell what claim they made. 35. In so saying what did they admit? 36. What measure did they fill up? 37. Give the title Jesus next applied to them. 38. From what could they not escape? 39. Who were to be sent to that people ? 40. How would they be treated? 41. To what guilt would this associate them? 42. With which had that people had actual part? 43. What generation was to receive this blame? 44. What city now received the landent of Jesus? 45. Tell how the prophets had fared by her. 46. Whom did she stone? 47. Tell what Jesus often wished to do. 48. What prevented it? 49. Repeat his prediction of desertion. 50. When would they see Jesus again.

Matthew 23:1

23:1 The audience that heard this remarkable chapter was composed of the multitude and the disciples. The first 12 verses were addressed to that part of the multitude designated scribes and Pharisees, and what should be the attitude of the disciples toward that group.

Matthew 23:2

23:2 Moses wrote the law that was to regulate the Yews during that dispensation. After he died it was the duty of others to teach and enforce it upon the nation, and that was a work done by the scribes and Phari sees which is the meaning of their sitting in Moses’ seat.

Matthew 23:3

23:3 The scribes and Pharisees had no authority on their own account, but the law which they enforced was just as binding as was the personal teaching of Moses while he was living. The inconsistency of a teacher does not lessen the force of what he teaches if it is according to the law. These scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites and failed to “practice what they preached,” yet the disciples were told to obey the law regardless of the unfaithfulness of these teachers; that was because the law of Moses was still in force at the time Jesus was speaking. Note the two words observe and do that were to be recognized by the disciples. A truth or declaration should be observed or respected although it may not contain any direct command for action. But a practical commandment must be not only observed but also must be done.

Matthew 23:4

23:4 The scribes and Pharisees would apply the duties taught in the law in a severe measure when concerned with others. With one of their fingers is a figure of speech, for a burden that could be moved with one finger would not be very heavy. It means they were not willing to exert themselves in the least toward practicing the commandments of the law. One reason they took such an attitude was the fact that they exaggerated the duties actually required by the law in order to oppress the common people.

Matthew 23:5

23:5 Their works refers to the things these hypocrites did, which were done with a vain motive and that they might be seen of men. “Make broad their phylacteries” may be explained by a quotation from Smith’s Bible Dictionary as follows: “Phylacteries were strips of parchment, on which were written four passages of Scripture, Exodus 13:2-17; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 6:13-23, in an ink prepared for the purpose. They were then rolled up in a case of black calfskin, which was attached to a stiffer piece of leather, having a thong one finger broad and one and a half cubits long. They were placed at the bend of the left arm. Those worn on the forehead were written on four strips of parchment, and put into four little cells within a square case on which the letter . . . was written. The square had two thongs, on which Hebrew letters were inscribed. That phylacteries were used as amulets [charms] is certain and was very natural.

The expression ’they make broad their phylacteries,’ Matthew 23:5, refers not so much to the phylactery itself, which seems to have been a prescribed breadth, as to the case in which the parchment was kept, which the Pharisees, among their other pretentious customs, Mark 7:3-4; Luke 5:33, etc., made as conspicuous as they could. It is said that the Pharisees wore them always, whereas the common people only used them at prayers.” Borders is from which Thayer defines, “A little appendage hanging down from the edge of the mantle or cloak.” He explains his definition, “The Jews had such appendages attached to their mantles to remind them of the law, according to Numbers 15:37.” For more detailed comments on this curious subject, see those at Numbers 15:37-41 in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary.

Matthew 23:6

23:6 Rooms means places at the table while eating, some of them being regarded as more honorable than others. Chief seats means the first or front seats in the synagogues that gave the occupants a prominent view of the audience.

Matthew 23:7

23:7 Markets were places of general interest where men gathered either to buy or to sell their wares, or to converse on various topics. It was usual to see large crowds in such places and they were so public that no one was of any special importance; but these scribes and Pharisees wished to receive special notice by the crowd. The Mosaic system had no officials with the title of Rabbi; the term was created by the Jews to mean one of dignity and respect. It carried with it the idea of some great one deserving special attention. Thayer defines the original, “My great one, my honorable air.” The Pharisees wanted it repeated to give it more emphasis.

Matthew 23:8

23:8 The titles of distinction could be used with various intent, hence that of Rabbi could denote a. great leader which was not to be ascribed to private disciples.

Matthew 23:9

23:9 By the process of elimination we know this verse does not mean our fleshly father for that Is a respect all men are commanded to show. Nor can it mean in the sense of one who leads us to be born into the kingdom, for Paul claimed that relationship to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:1). The conclusion is clear, then, that this verse means not to call any man father as a religious title or one of authority.

Matthew 23:10

3:10 The original for master not only means a leader, but also denotes a great and authoritative teacher. Christ is the only one in the kingdom of heaven that is deserving of that distinction (chapter 28:18).

Matthew 23:11

3:11 This is explained in comments on Matthew 18:1-4.

Matthew 23:12

3:12. We have learned that true greatness consists of sincere humility and a desire to be of service to others. But if a man strives for worldly greatness he will be brought down by the Lord under a state of enforced humiliation.

Matthew 23:13

3:13 Up to now Jesus has been talking to his disciples in this chapter, and a part of that conversation has been about the scribes and Pharisees. From here to the close of the chapter he will be speaking directly to them. A hypocrite is one who pretends to be something he knows he is not. (See at chapter 6:2.) These Jews knew that their pretensions were false as their evasive conversations showed. Shut up the kingdom. They not only refused to receive the teaching of John and Jesus and thus get ready for the kingdom that was at hand, but did all they could to keep others from doing so. Eight times in this chapter Jesus pronounces woe upon the scribes and Pharisees. The word is an interjection and means a term of grief or dismay, and when spoken by an inspired man means that great calamity is in store for those referred to.

Matthew 23:14

3:14 Devour is from which Thayer defines at this place, “To devour i. e., forcibly appropriate.” Houses is from OIKIA and the same lexicon defines it in this passage, “Property, wealth, goods.” They took advantage of the unfortunate widows who were helpless because of the power of the scribes and Pharisees. After enlarging their own estates at the unjust expense of the widows, they came to the places of devotion and uttered prayers that were unusually long. Greater damnation.. The Bible speaks of only one Gehenna or lake of fire into which the unsaved will be cast after the judgment, therefore the actual punishment will be the same for all who are put into that place. The second word in italics also means condemnation and applies to the estimate that the Lord will place on the wrong deeds of these men. A judge may sentence two men to prison for life, yet he may utter a severer condemnation upon one while in his speech of pronouncing sentence than upon the other.

Matthew 23:15

3:15 The English word “proselyte” means one converted or brought over from one faith to another. The word has virtually the same meaning in the Bible, for the Gentiles were permitted to embrace Judaism, and when they did so they were called proselytes. The Jews recognized a distinction between the extent to which some Gentiles made the change which resulted in such classifications as “proselytes of the gate” and “proselytes of righteousness.” The latter went farther than the former and conformed to all of the requirements of the law of Moses. But this distinction need not concern us as far as the present verse is concerned. The point is that the scribes and Pharisees professed great zeal in making proselytes, but through their deceptive methods of pressing their own traditions upon the converts ahead of the written law, they confused them and made them worse characters than themselves. Twofold more the child of hell.

This is plainly a figurative statement, for no one can be any more than once a child of another. The word child is used in the sense of one who is worthy of or entitled to a thing. This should be understood in the light of comments on “greater damnation” in the preceding verse.

Matthew 23:16

3:16 The point in this verse is their inconsistency of making a technical distinction between things where there was no difference in principle. It was a usual practice of these pretenders to make a show of importance by performing oaths, yet they evaded their self-assumed obligation by naming the temple in their oaths and claiming it was not binding. But they Verse 26. The activities necessary insisted that if others made their vows for cleansing the inside would also in the name of the gold attached to affect the outside if the process should the temple they would not dare break be carried out completely and sincerely. it since the gold was holy.

Matthew 23:17

3:17 Jesus showed their inconsistency in that if the gold was sacred it was the temple that made it so, being attached to and forming a part of the structure.

Matthew 23:18-22

8-22 The same argument is made in these verses as that in verse 17 The attachment between the altar and the gift upon it, or between the temple and Him who dwells therein (who is God), or between heaven and the throne therein with its Occupant-that attachment makes the obligation equal all around. The word guilty in verse 18 means the same as debtor in the 16th verse; the person is under obligation to perform the oath.

Matthew 23:23

3:23 The Jews were required by the law to give a tenth of the products of their land to the Lord’s service. The plants named were small ones of the mint family and of small value commercially, yet these Pharisees were very scrupulous to turn over the tithe (tenth) as required. At the same time they were so attentive to those comparatively small matters, they were indifferent about such weighty matters as judgment, mercy, and faith. Notice Jesus did not say for them to replace the one by the other, but to observe both the small and great things.

Matthew 23:24

3:24 The point in this verse is the same as in the preceding one but expressed with different terms. Both the gnat and camel were among the creatures classed as unclean by the law of Moses. When the Jews made wine they strained i t through a fine cloth to get out all the objectionable objects. Strain at should be translated strain out, and means they were so particular about having the wine pure they would strain out a gnat, but would swallow a camel (figuratively speaking). The meaning is, they would make a big ado about minor matters but overlook the duties of great importance.

Matthew 23:25

3:25 This verse is intended to teach the same lesson as the preceding one by using the figure of a cup kept for drinking purposes. The inside is where the material is placed that is to be consumed, not the outside. By cleansing the outside instead of the inner part, they showed that their pretended care in the cleansing performance was for the appearance only.

Matthew 23:27-28

7-28 The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees is the principal subject of many of these verses, and Jesus uses various figures and comparisons for his purpose. Whited sepulchres is the object used in this paragraph for the comparison, and the occasion of their being whited is explained in Smith’s Bible Dictionary as follows: “A natural cave enlarged and adapted by excavation, or an artificial imitation of one, was the standard type of sepulchre. Sepulchres, when the owner’s means permitted it, were commonly-prepared beforehand, and stood often in gardens, by roadsides, or even adjoining houses. Kings and prophets alone were probably buried within towns. 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 16:6; 1 Kings 16:28. Cities soon became populous and demanded cemeteries, Ezekiel 39:15, which were placed without the walls. Sepulchres were marked sometimes by pillars or by pyramids.

Such as were not otherwise noticeable were scrupulously `whited,’ Matthew 23:27, once a year, after the rains before the passover, to warn passers-by of defilement.”–Article, burial. The beautiful appearance of these whitewashed places contrasted with the decayed and unclean bones within, and the fact was used by Jesus to illustrate the outward fair pretentions of the hypocrites that were opposite to the corruptions of their hearts.

Matthew 23:29

3:29 The prophets had been dead for centuries and were placed in tombs at the time of their death. The word for build is defined at this place by Thayer, “To restore by building, to rebuild, repair.” To garnish is defined, “To ornament, adorn.” There was nothing wrong in the work of these scribes and Pharisees respecting the treatment of the burial places of the prophets.

Matthew 23:30

3:30 Neither would there have been anything objectionable about what they said regarding the history connected with those prophets, had the remarks been in harmony with their own conduct in the same matters which were the subject of the history.

Matthew 23:31

3:31 The point Jesus made was upon the admission of these pretenders that it was their fathers who had slain the prophets. That fleshly relation would not have placed any blame on them had it not been a prominent practice of them to justify their lives by boasting of their great ancestry.

Matthew 23:32

3:32 This verse is partly in a sense of irony. It is as if Jesus had said: “Since you are the fleshly descendants of those murderers, you may be expected to show their traits in their moral and spiritual character. In so doing you will fully measure up to the wickedness of your ancestors.”

Matthew 23:33

3:33 Serpents and vipers are virtually the same creatures as to general classification, being slightly different in variety. The outstanding characteristics of both are deception, poison and filthiness. John the Baptist called those people by the term “vip ers” in chapter 3:7. How can ye escape, eto. The fire of hell (Gehenna) will have been prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), hence it will logically be the final destiny of the offspring of such wicked characters.

Matthew 23:34

3:34 Jesus concluded his direct denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, and the rest of this speech is made up of predictions against them soon to be fulfilled. He began it by foretelling how they would abuse the righteous men and prophets that would yet be sent to them in that generation.

Matthew 23:35

3:35 See the comments on verse 32. By filling up the measure of their wicked ancestors, the scribes and Pharisees brought to a climax the long career of murder beginning with the slaying of Abel and including Zacharias in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21.

Matthew 23:36

3:36 All these things means the predictions and charges of the two preceding verses, together with the judgments that were soon to come upon that generation.

Matthew 23:37

3:37 The storm that Jesus just predicted was to have its climax upon the capital city of Jerusalem. Seeing that calamity so near, he uttered the lamentable words of this verse. The many attempts to awaken the city to a sense of its evils and the results to follow are compared to the care that a hen manifests in offering her wings for the protection of her brood. And the refusal of the citizens to accept that warning is compared to a flock of chickens that would not come under the wings spread out for them.

Matthew 23:38

3:38 Desolate is from EREMOS which Thayer defines, “Solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited.” The word is used figuratively and represents Jerusalem as a house that has resisted all attempts to save it. The city had continued in its attitude of wickedness, unmindful of all the offers of mercy that Jesus extended towards her, and he then sadly left her to her fate that was to come in 70 A. D. by the hand of the Romans.

Matthew 23:39

3:39 Blessed is he that cometh, etc., was said before (Matthew 21:9), so that we may think of the present statement as if it said “till ye shall AGAIN say.” However, the other time it was said to him in person, while the next time it will be said to him spiritually. And that cannot be when he cometh in his kingdom on Pentecost, for it was to be after the “house” was left desolate which did not come till 70 A. D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence all conclusions are eliminated except that it means when the Jews accept Christ (Romans 11:26; 2 Corinthians 3:14-16). When that time comes the name Jerusalem will be extended to mean the spiritual starting point of the church and hence its citizens (including the Jews), will recognize Jesus as the Messiah of the Old Testament and will thus say “blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”