Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 23:1 - 24:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
( Mat_23:34-39, Scripture Lesion for St. Stephen’s Day.)
A. The Reproof generally. Mat_23:2-7. (The law, Mat_23:3; the inconsistency and falsehood, Mat_23:3 : “but do not;” the traditional statutes, Mat_23:4; the hypocritical sanctimoniousness and unholy ambition, Mat_23:5-7.)
2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit [sat down] in Moses’ seat [ êáèÝäñá ]: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do [do and observe]; 4but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For [But] they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers [with their finger, ôῷ äáêôýëῳ áὐôῶí ]. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of [by] men: they make broad their phylacteries [protectives], and enlarge the borders [fringes, ôὰ êñÜóðåäá ] of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms [first place, ðñùôïêëéóßáí ] at feasts, and the chief seats 7[ ðñùôïêáèåäñßáò ] in the synagogues, And [the, ôïýò ] greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
B. The Particular Reproof: the Seven Woes. Mat_23:13 to Mat_24:1. (Avarice and hypocrisy, Mat_23:13; unbelief and fanaticism, Mat_23:14; fanatical proselyting, Mat_23:15; casuistry, Mat_23:16-22; hypocritical legalism, yen. 23–26; spiritual deadness, Mat_23:29-32; the judgment, Mat_23:33-36; Jerusalem’s guilt and doom, Mat_23:37-39; Christ’s exodus from the temple, Mat_24:1.) .
13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for [because, ὅôé , as in Mat_23:29] ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither 14[nor] suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites I for [because] ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for [because] ye compass [go about] sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made [becomes so, ãÝíçôáé ], ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 16Woe unto you, ye blind guide?, which [who] say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold 17of the temple, he is a debtor [ ὀöåßëåé ]! Ye fools and blind! for whether [which] is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth [shall swear] by the gift that Isaiah 19 upon it, he is guilty [a debtor, ὀöåßëåé ]. Ye fools and blind: for whether [which] is greater, the gift, or the altar, that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear [He therefore that sweareth, ὁ ïὐí ὀìüóáò ] by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear (lie that sweareth, ὁ ὀìüóáò by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth [did dwell] therein. 22And he that shall swear [sweareth, ὁ ὀìüóáò ] by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of [the] mint and anise [the dill] and [the] cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters [things, ôὰ âáñýôåñá ] of the law, judgment, [and, êáß ] mercy, and faith: 24[but] these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which [who] strain at [out] a [the] gnat, and swallow a [the] camel. 25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for [because] ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion [rapacity, ἁñðáãìῆò ] and 26excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within [the inside of, ôὸ ἐíôὸò ôïῦ ] the cup and [the] platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for [because] ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within [which outwardly indeed appear beautiful, but within are] full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are fall of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be [are] witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which [that] killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure 33of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation [brood] of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation [judgment, êñßóåùò ] of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall [will] kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye [ye will] scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias [Zachariah] son of Barachias 36[Barachiah], whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which [that] are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For 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.
Mat_24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
[Dr. Nast: “Although the Sadducees were also included among the scribes, yet our Lord in His terrible condemnation singles out the Pharisees, who for the last one hundred and fifty years had enjoyed the highest respect of the people for their zeal and rig d observance of the law. During His whole ministry He had been making pharisaic formalism the constant object of reproof, while almost ignoring the unbelief of the Sadducees.”—It is certainly remarkable that the severest language which Christ ever used, was directed, not against the people, of whom He rather spoke with pity and compassion, nor against the Sadducees, with whom He came less in contact, but against the orthodox, priestly, sanctimonious, hypocritical Pharisees, the leaders of the hierarchy, and rulers of the people. Let ministers and dignitaries in the Church never forget this! Nevertheless the Pharisees with all their wickedness had more moral and religious earnestness and substance, than the Sadducees, and when once thoroughly converted, they made most serious and devoted Christians, as the example of St. Paul abundantly shows. No such convert ever proceeded from the indifferent, worldly, and rationalistic Sadducees.—M. Baumgarten in his History of Jesus (as quoted by Dr. Nast in loc.) makes the following striking remark on this denunciatory discourse: “As Christ once commenced His Sermon on the Mount in Galilee with pronouncing eight beatitudes, so He closes His last public address with pronouncing eight woes on Mount Moriah, declaring thereby most distinctly that all manifestation of His divine love and meekness had been in vain, and must now give way to stern justice. Of that awful delusion which has done at all times so much harm in the Church—namely, that the office sanctifies the officer, at least before the people—there is here not the most distant trace [not even Mat_23:2-3], but the very opposite. The office held by the scribes and Pharisees Jesus fully recognizes; but the sacredness of the office, instead of furnishing any apology for their corrupt morals, increases only their guilt, and He, therefore, exposes with the utmost severity the wickedness of their lives. Never did any prophet deliver such a discourse as this. We see here turned into wrath the holy love of Jesus, which is unwilling to break the bruised reed or to quench the smoking flax ( Mat_12:19), which seeks and fosters what is lost, which casts out none, but attracts all that show themselves in the least degree susceptible.”—This fearful denunciation of the dignitaries and representatives of the Jewish theocracy, which must shake every sensitive reader to the very foundation of his moral nature, could only proceed from one who knew Himself free from sin and clothed with divine authority and power. Having exhausted, in the intensity of His love for sinners, high and low, rich and poor, every effort to bring them to repentance and a better mind, Jesus now speaks, at the close of His earthly ministry and in full view of the approaching crucifixion, with all the dignity and stern severity of a judge, yet without any passion or personal bitterness. This awful saverity is as much a proof of His divine mission and character as the sweet tenderness of His invitation to the sinner to come to Him for rest and peace.—P. S.]
Mat_23:2. Sit in Moses’ seat.—The question arises, whether Moses’ sea! means his whole vocation and office, or only a part of it. De Wette: His seat as judge and lawgiver. But Moses as lawgiver, or organ of revelation, did not speak from his seat, but from Mount Sinai; and in this capacity he could be succeeded only by prophets, or conclusively by Christ Himself. The seat of Moses is described Exo_18:13. Moses sat in the function of judge and administrator; and in this he might and did allow others to represent himself, who were to judge and rule according to the law of revelation. We have the more formal establishment of the office of elders in Num_11:16. The rule of the scribes and Pharisees was the rule of the Sanhedrin. But between the prophetic rule of Christ, and the political rule of the Romans, there only remained to them the Old Testament ecclesiastical function of explaining the law and administering discipline. ÅêÜèéóáí , they sat down and sit. “Among the Rabbins, the successor of a Rabbi was called the representative of his school, éåֹùֵׁá òַìÎëִּñְàåֹ ; Vitringa, Syn.” Meyer.
Mat_23:3. All therefore.—The therefore, ïῦ ̓ í emphatic, as Meyer correctly urges. It alludes to the established order and office. All whatsoever.—Chrysostom and others say that the ceremonial system, and everything false and immoral, were to be excepted; since all this could not have been taught ὰðὸ ôῆò ÌùûóÝùò êáèåäñáò . De Wette and Meyer: Jesus had in view only the contrast between their teaching and their life; and left the perversion of the office itself, as it existed in praxi, out of the question. But their doctrine was corrupt, not only in accidental practice, but in essential principle. We must limit the åἰðåῖí , which is used by Matthew throughout in its full significance, to the official utterance. Thus it means: Act according to their words in relation to the theocratic order of the Jewish church, but not in relation to the way of salvation. It was in harmony with the heavenly prudence of Jesus, and with the spirit of all His teaching, that He should express the fullest acknowledgment of the official authority of the Pharisees and scribes, even while He was preparing to unmask and spiritually to annihilate them. He did not on this account impose upon His hearers a permanent subjection to the rule of the scribes and Pharisees. They could, however, be free only in Him and through Him: they must through the law die to the law. He whom the law has slain and excommunicated, is alone free from its claims.
Mat_23:4. But they bind.—See Luk_11:46. The binding together of individual things into a mass, has reference here rather to burdens of wood than to burdens of grain. Thus they compact their traditionary statutes into intolerable burdens. A fourfold rebuke: 1. they make religion a burden; 2. an intolerable burden; 3. they lay it upon the shoulder of others; 4. they leave it untouched themselves, i.e., they have no idea of fulfilling these precepts in spirit and in truth. [Alford refers the heavy burdens?, ö ïñ ôßâáñÝá , not to human traditions, as most interpreters do, but to the severity of the law, which they do not observe (Rom_2:21-23); answering to the âáñýôåñá ôïῦ íüìïõ of Mat_23:23. The irksomeness and unbearableness of these rites did not belong to the Law in itself as rightly explained, but were created by the rigor and ritualism of these men who followed the letter and lost the spirit Similarly Stier and Nast who refer for analogy to our modern moralists who preach duty, duty! and nothing else.—P. S.]
Mat_23:5. But all their works.—Luk_11:43.—Their phylacteries, öõ ëá êôÞñéá , remembrancers and preservatives.—Literal application of the figurative expressions of Exo_13:9; Exo_13:16; Deu_6:8-9; Mat_11:18. Thence arose the “ úְּëִּìִּéï , containing passages of the law upon leaves of parchment—Exo_13:1-16; Deu_6:4-9; Deu_11:13-22—which the Jews at the time of prayer bound, one on the left arm, one on the forehead, to show that the law should be in the heart and in the head. Buxtorf, Syn. Matthew 9 p. 170; and Rosenmüller, Morgenland, 5:82. The term phylactery was doubtless formed from the öõëÜîáóèå ôὸí íüìïí , Exo_13:10. It is not right, therefore, with de Wette and Meyer, at once to explain them as preservatives or amulets, having magical power. At first, they were simply remembrancers of the law; the heathen notion, that they were personal means of defence against evil spirits, did not arise till afterward. It is probable that the perversion was not perfect at the time of our Lord; otherwise He would have done more than condemn their enlargement of these phylacteries, i.e., hypocrisy and boastfulness in matters of religion. It is probably a result of this rebuke, that at the present day the size of these phylacteries is limited.—The borders or fringes, êñÜóðåäá .— Mat_9:20; comp. Num_15:38. These zizith were fastened with blue ribands to the garments (see BÆhr: Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, vol. 1 p. 329.) Blue was the symbolical color of heaven, the color of God, of His covenant, and of faithfulness to that covenant The tassels themselves signified flowers, or birds; probably pomegranates, and therefore crimson, and not blue, as the ribands were. Thus they were remembrancers that fidelity to the covenant should flourish; or they were tokens that the flower of life was love, and that love must spring from faithfulness to the covenant.
Mat_23:6. The chief seat, ôὴí ððùôïêëéóßáí .—“The first place at table; that is, according to Luk_14:8 (comp. also Joseph. Antiq. xv. 2, 4), the highest place on the divan, as among the Greeks. The Persians and Romans held the middle place to be the seat of honor. The word is not preserved, except among the Synoptists and the Fathers. Suid.: ðñùôïêëéóßá ἡ ðñþôç êáèåäñá .” Meyer.
Mat_23:7. Rabbi, Rabbi—The teacher was called by his title, not by his name. “My master, my master,”—the customary repetition of greeting on the part of the scholar among the Jews. øַáִּé was more honorable than øַá , i.e., much, great, amplissimus. Buxt. Lexic. Talm. “Matter ( êáèçãçôÞò ) is more than Rabbi. The Rabbi was the teacher in a synagogue. Master was the head of a whole section, a leader who might be followed by many Rabbis ( ðִâִéø , ðָùִׂéà , rector, princeps). The proud spirit of the Rabbis has crept into the Christian Church. The Reformers protested against it.” Heubner.
Mat_23:8. But ye.
Mat_23:8-12 contain a warning application to the disciples of what had been said. The emphasis is on ὐìåῖò and ὑìῶí , placed first. Properly: over you one it Matter.
Mat_23:9. Father.—Father, ýý àָë , the supreme title of a teacher.—On earth.—With allusion to the antithesis of the Father in heaven. The earth has, however, in the New Testament a symbolical meaning also in opposition to the sea, the fluctuating world of the nations (see Rev_13:11, comp. Mat_23:1; Joh_3:12; Joh_3:31; Mat_16:19), as being the cultured world, the civil and ecclesiastical order.
Mat_23:10. Master, better: Leader, in the spiritual sense,— êáèçãçôÞò , not to be confounded with êáôç÷çôÞò :. The third denomination has a special importance among the three: the first points mainly to the Jewish, the second to the Romish, hierarchy. No one should seek the distinction of being the founder of a church or sect.
[Albert Barnes, in his Notes, understands the prohibition of titles by our Saviour literally, and hence opposes (and personally always rejected) the title “Doctor of Divinity” the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Rabbi, as contrary to the command of Christ, to the simplicity of the gospel, and the equality of ministers, and as tending to engender pride and a sense of superiority. But to be consistent, the title Reverend, Mr. and Mrs., etc., should likewise be abolished, and the universal thou of the Quakers and Tunkers be introduced. And yet Paul called himself the (spiritual) father of the Corinthians, 1Co_4:15, and Timothy his son in the faith, 1Ti_1:2, and Titus likewise, Tit_1:4; Peter uses the same term of Mark (probably the evangelist), 1Pe_5:13. It is plain, therefore, that the Saviour prohibits not so much the titles themselves, as the spirit of pride and ambition which covets and abuses them, the haughty spirit which would domineer over inferiors, and also the servile spirit which would basely cringe to superiors. In the same way Christ does not forbid in Mat_23:6 to occupy the first seats, for some one must be uppermost (as Matthew Henry remarks)—but to seek and love them. Alford: “To understand and follow such commands in the slavery of the letter, is to fall into the Pharisaism against which our Lord is uttering the caution.”—P. S.]
Mat_23:9-12.—Comp. Mat_18:1; Mat_20:20; Luk_14:11; Luk_18:14. Meyer: “These prohibitions of Jesus refer to the hierarchical spirit which practically attached to the titles named at that period. Titles of teachers cannot be dispensed with, any more than the class of teachers; but the hierarchy, as it was re-introduced in the Romish Church, is quite contrary to the spirit and will of Christ. Well observes Calvin on Mat_23:11 : “Hac clausula ostendit, se non sophistice litigasse de vocibus, sed rem potius spectasse.” We must mark the distinction: Ye shall call no man father, and shall not be called by any, master, nor leader ( ðáôὴñ , ῥïââ , äéäÜóêáëïò and . The worst corruption is the calling any man father; that is, to honor in any man an absolute spiritual authority. This religious homage is a contradiction to the absolute authority of the Father in heaven. Grotius; “Deus dogmatum auctor. Jer_31:34; Isa_54:13; Joh_6:45, ἔóïíôáé ðÜíôåò äéäáêôïéÈ å÷ ïῦ ; 1Th_4:9, èåïäßäáê ôé é . Sed alio sensu patres recte vocantur, qui nos in Christo per Evangelium genuer int, 1Co_4:15.”—The title of Rabbi referred to a constrained honor, which took away the brotherly equality of the faithful; or, in other words, the stamping of humanscholastic teaching with the dignity of law. That both these errors touched too closely the authority of Christ, is asserted in the third exhortation: They should not be called spiritual guides, founders, etc., because One only had that dignity, Christ. See 1Co_1:12. It can scarcely be denied that the designation of an ecclesiastical community by the name of a man, is inconsistent with this express prohibition, although much depends upon the origin of the name and the spirit with which it is used. Names of reproach have frequently become names of honor in the history of the church. The expression, ὁäçãüò , Mat_23:16 and Mat_15:14, Rom_2:19-20, is not quite so strong as êáèçãçôÞò .
[Alford, following a hint of Olshausen (Christus der einige Master), refers the three titles to the three persons of the Holy Trinity, viz., ðáôÞñ , Mat_23:9 to God the Father, äéäÜóêáëïò , Mat_23:8 (according to the true reading, instead of the êáèçãçôÞò of the text, rec., see my Crit. Note 8, p. 408) to the Holy Spirit (comp. Joh_14:26; Jer_31:33-34; Eze_36:26-27), not named here, because his promise was only given in private to the disciples, and êáèçãçôÞò to Christ. “If this be so, we have God, in His Trinity, here declared to us as the only One, in all these relations, on whom they can rest or depend. They are all brethren, all substantially equal—none by office or precedence nearer to God than another; none standing between his brother and God.” Nast adopts this interpretation, which he thinks throws a flood of light upon the passage. But it is rather far-fetched, and the position of the Teacher (the Holy Spirit) between the Father and the Leader, instead of being mentioned last, is decidedly against it.—P. S.]
Mat_23:13. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees.—There are seven woes according to general reckoning: the first, therefore, might seem superfluous; and this recommends, again, the omission of Mat_23:13, which is also critically contested. But, if we compare this discourse with the seven beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, we observe that the eighth woe is a summary of the seven in a concrete form, just as is the case with the eighth and ninth beatitudes. There, the concrete unity of all the benedictions is the being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for Christ’s sake, as the prophets were persecuted in old time. But here, the eighth woe has the same force with respect to the Pharisees, who adorned the graves of the prophets, and yet showed that they themselves were no better than murderers of the prophets. This, therefore, leads to the supposition of a sustained antithesis between the benedictions and the woes:—
1. Poverty In spirit.
Mat_23:13. Ye shut up.—The kingdom of heaven, appearing with Christ, is represented as a palace, or, more precisely, a wedding-hall, with open doors. The hypocrites shut the kingdom of heaven before the people, ἔìðñïóèåí .—For ye neither go in yourselves.—The shutting up is therefore twofold: 1. by their own guilt and wicked example; 2. by the actual keeping back of those who are entering, who not only would go in, but have their feet already on the threshold. So was it with Israel. The people were on the point of believing, when their hierarchical authorities drew them back into unbelief.
Ver.I5. Ye compass sea and land.—Fanatical proselytism. Danz: De cura Hebræoram in conquirendis proselytis in Meuschenii N. T. ex .Talm. illust. p. 649. That the Pharisees undertook actual missionary journeys, cannot be inferred with certainty from Joseph. Antiq. xx. 2, 4 (not 3 and not 1); for this passage speaks of a Jewish merchant who made proselytes, and the remnant of the Ten Tribes were very abundant in Adiabene. But we may suppose that there were such missions, and, indeed, that a proselyting impulse generally drove the Jews through the world. The real Pharisee did not make proselytes from heathenism to Judaism merely, but also from Judaism to Pharisaism.—The child of hell.—One who is doomed to perish or at least in great danger.—Twofold more than yourselves.— Äéðëüôåñïí , according to Valla, must be taken as an adjective, and not, as is customary, adverbially. But how was the proselyte worse than the Pharisee? Olshausen: Because the proselytes were without the spiritual substratum of the Mosaic economy, which was an advantage the Pharisees still possessed. That is, the latter were Jews and Pharisees, while the proselytes were only a caricature of Pharisaism. De Wette: Error and superstition are doubled by communication. Meyer: Experience proves that proselytes become worse and more extreme than their teachers. Thus the proselyte is a Pharisee of a higher degree. We might point to the Idumeans as examples, who converted John Hyrcanus (not till afterward a Sadducee) by force in their î çñÜ —“ ôὴí èὰëáóóáí êáὶ îçñÜí —Or Petra. The house of Herod afforded a striking illustration of the character of such proselytes, in whom the dark elements of heathenism were blended with the dark elements of Judaism. The proselyte Poppœa probably urged Nero to the persecution of the Christians. But that the misleader is generally worse than the misled, is a fact which does not here come into view; it is a wicked conversion or perversion that is spoken of, and the intensification of Pharisaism with the course of time. De Wette rightly observes, that Jesus does not here mean the endeavor to convert the Gentiles to Judaism generally. Meanwhile Judaism as Judaism was not called to the work of heathen missions except in the way of mere preparation. The law can only make proselytes; the gospel alone can convert. See Heubner on Proselytes and Proselytizing, p. 346. Cardinal Dubois, under the regency in France, convertisseur en chef. Several Jewish proselytes of modern times.
Mat_23:16. Woe unto you, ye blind guides!—Casuistry as the lax perversion of the fundamental laws of religion and morality. The mark common to both the examples given is this, that the divine institution, imposing holy obligation, is counted for nothing; and that, on the other hand, the human work which requires sanctification through the divine is placed in its stead. “The Pharisees distinguished oaths, in respect to their validity, according to external, superficial [or rather fundamentally wrong] notes, only in the interest of unscrupulousness.” De Wette.—By the temple.—The oath is very frequent, by this dwelling, äîòåï äæä . (Wetstein and Lightfoot).—By the gold of the temple.—By its golden adornments and vessels of gold; or by the temple-treasure. Jerome and Maldonatus are in favor of the latter. When we distinguish between the essential house of God, and the house of God as ceremonially adorned with gold, then Pharisaism swears only and always by the gold of the temple: it cannot swear by the temple itself. The outer manifestation is to it the reality itself: that is, for example, a church “with naked walls” is no church. “Meanwhile it is probable that the pharisaic and hierarchical covetousness preferred the oath by the treasure of the temple, as that by the sacrifice.” De Wette.—It is nothing.—It has no significance, and imposes no obligation (the Italian peccadiglio): the reservatio mentalis of Jesuitical morality.—He is a debtor.—Bound to observe the oath.
Mat_23:17. For which is greater?—Superiority of the originally holy, the divine, to that which is derivatively holy, the human, which is made holy only by the divine. The same relation which the gold bears to the divine house, the human offering bears to the divine fire which makes the altar an altar.
Mat_23:18. Whoso shall swear by the altar.—To any living view of the altar, the offering is one with the altar. Casuistry cuts asunder the living relations of religion, kills its life, denies its spirit and idolizes its body.
Mat_23:21. And whoso shall swear by the temple.—We expect to hear, “he sweareth also by the gold of the temple.” But this is self-understood; and therefore Christ returns back to the Lord of the temple, who makes the temple what it is, and makes heaven, the great temple, what it is. The oath has its significance generally in this, and in this only, that it is a confirmation by God, a declaration uttered as before God.
Mat_23:22. And he that shall swear by heaven.—Meyer: “The contrary of Mat_23:22 is found in Schevuoth, f. 35, Matthew 2 : Quia prœter Deum, cœli et terra creatorem, datur etiam ipsum cœlum et terra, indubium esse debet, quod is, qui per cœlum et terram jurat, non per eum juret, qui ilia creavit, sed per illas ipsas creaturas.”
Mat_23:23. For ye pay tithe.—The ordinances concerning tithes (Lev_27:30; Num_18:21; Deu_12:6; Deu_14:22-28) placed the fruits of the field and of the trees under the obligation; but tradition applied the law to the smallest produce of the garden, to the mint, the dill, and the cummin (Babyl. Joma, f. 83, 2. Lightfoot, Hottinger: De decimis Judœor.)—The weightier things: âáñýôåñá .—De Wette: Those things which were harder, difficiliora. Meyer: The more important, graviora. “It is very probable that Jesus referred to the analogy of the praœpta gravia ( çîåøéí ) et levia ( ÷ìéí ) among the Jewish teachers. (See Schöttgen, p. 183.)” But there is no need to distinguish things so closely connected: the important supposes the difficult. Pharisaism is led into legalism and ceremonialism by its aversion to the difficult requirements of internal spiritual religion.—Judgment, êñßóéò , îִùְׁôָּè .—See Isa_1:17. Thus, not righteousness itself, but fidelity in the discharge of duties according to the principles of righteousness. The mark of this care for right is, that it is one with mercy; and this mercy cannot be replaced by a hypocritical appearance, the almsgiving of the Pharisees (Mat_6:1).—Faith, ôὴíðéó ôé í .—Luther, “faith;” de Wette and Meyer, “fidelity,” as in Rom_3:3; Gal_5:22. The opposite is ἀðéóôéá . Scriptural language does not distinguish between the two ideas, as ours does. Faith and fidelity are one in the principle of trust. But here ethical, subjective faith, or fidelity, is meant. Christ marks the moral development of the law in three stages: 1. The faithfulness of the Mosaic position: rigid care of law and right (Elijah). 2. The prophetic position: mercy to sinners, and even to the heathen, as the internal principle of legality. 3. Messianic fidelity as the fulfilment of the whole law. True fidelity is identical with this fidelity. Heubner: “ êñßóéò , conscientiousness: ðßóôéò , sincerity. “It presupposes a blunted moral feeling to show much concern about little faults, but to care nothing for great ones. (Luther, Works, 10: 1986, applies the same passage to the papal laws.)”
These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.—Reverse order. True and internal adherence to law places the great matter first, without being lax in the less.
Mat_23:24. Blind guides, comp. Mat_23:16.—The term implies that they not only acted as hypocrites, but also taught as hypocrites. Mat_23:16 pronounces a separate woe against all casuistry. But here the words, and what follows them, explain the woe of Mat_23:23 rather in its dogmatic side. The appellations, “Ye fools and blind,” Mat_23:17; Mat_23:19, represent them as self-blinded and in voluntary delusion.
Strain outa gnat.—Ye strain (the wine) in order to separate off the gnats. The liquare vinum had among the Greeks and Romans only a social significance; but to the Pharisees it was a religious act. It was supposed that the swallowing of the gnat would defile them; and therefore the Jews strained the wine, in order to avoid drinking an unclean animal. (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. Wetstein, from Chollin, fol. 67, culices pusillos, quos percolant.) The actual custom is here a symbol of the highest Levitical scrupulosity; and the opposite, the swallowing of camels, which of course could only signify the most enormous impurities in the enjoyment of life and its earthly pleasures, was the symbol of unbounded and unreflectingly stupid eagerness in sin. The expression is of a proverbial type. The camel was in the law unclean, because it had no divided hoof, Lev_11:4; and, moreover, this hypothetical swallowing of the camel would involve a thorough violation of the Noachic prohibition of eating blood and things strangled.
Mat_23:25. The outside of the platter.—Figurative description of the legal appearance of gratification. Cup and platter: meat and drink, or the enjoyment of life in all its forms.—But within.—Here we have the internal and moral side of gratification.—They are full of extortion and excess.—“That of which they are full, wine and food, was the produce of robbery and incontinence ( ἀêñáóßá , a later form of ἀêñÜôåéá ).” Meyer. See Isa_28:7 sqq.
Mat_23:26. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first.—The rebuking adjective blind points here also to the absurdity of their practice.—Cleanse the inside. Sanctify thy enjoyment by righteousness and temperance.—That the outside may be clean.—Fritzsche: May be able to be cleansed. Meyer, better: That the purity of the externals may follow. “External purity is not here declared useless (de Wette); but it is declared not to be true holiness, which implies the preceding purification of the inner man.” It is here presupposed that all their adorning of the outside must fail to make even that clean, so long as the inside is full of defilement: that is, Levitical purity without moral purity is itself defilement. (Bengel, in a gentler expression, non est mundities.)
Mat_23:27. Whited sepulchres.—“The graves were every year, on the 15th Adar, whitened with a kind of chalk ( êïíßá )—a practice derived by the Rabbins from Eze_39:15; not merely for the sake of appearance, but also that these places, the touch of which was defilement (Num_19:16), might be more easily seen and avoided. (See the rabbinical passages in Lightfoot, Schöttgen, and Wetstein.) Thus they always had a pleasant outward appearance.” Meyer. But thus also they were adorned. Luk_11:44 is a similar thought, not, however, the same.
Full of dead men’s bones.—Dead bodies were unclean according to the law, and the touch of them defiled (Num_5:2; Num_6:6): this was specially the case with the bones of the dead and the odor of decay from the grave. Impurity has a deadly effect. Spiritual death exerts a deadly influence (1Jn_3:14-15); and thus what follows, the murder of the prophets, is introduced.
Mat_23:28. Hypocrisy is here the wicked disguise; and iniquity, áíìßá , is not simply immorality, but consummate theocratical lawlessness.
Mat_23:29. Ye build the tombs of the prophets.—Construction of sepulchral graves, stones, and monuments, with various designs and inscriptions on consecrated burial ground. The antithesis is delicate: And garnish the sepulchres of the righteous (canonized saints). The latter are acknowledged at once, and receive their monuments; the prophets, on the other hand, often lay long in unknown and even dishonored graves. Later generations then began to become enthusiastic about them, and make their common graves elaborate monuments. “The custom of building monuments to ancient and celebrated persons, has existed among all peoples and in all ages. Comp. Wetstein, Lightfoot, Jahn, Arch. Mat_1:2.” De Wette. Consult Robinson’s Researches on the remarkable sepulchres around Jerusalem, and the so-called sepulchres of the prophets.
Mat_23:30. And say.—First of all, by the fact of adorning their sepulchres.—If we had been in the days of our fathers. Not: if we were (Meyer), which here gives no sense.—Of our fathers.—Primarily, by natural lineage, but also in the sense of fellowship: Sons of the murderers, in a spiritual sense; which de Wette, without any reason, opposes.
Mat_23:31. Ye be witnesses unto yourselves.—How this? De Wette: By virtue of the guilt transmitted to you. Meyer: “When ye thus speak of your fathers, ye give testimony against yourselves, that ye belong to the kin of the murderers of the prophets.” But the meaning is rather, the opposite of this: Since ye repute the fathers, in spite of their murderous spirit against the prophets, as being in the fullest sense of the word, in your traditions, your fathers; and explain the ancient blood-guiltiness, which has been transmitted to you, only as accidental evils into which they fell, or as the product of a barbarous age. Just as in these days the horrors of the inquisition are excused on account of the barbarism of the Middle Ages, although they had their essential root in the fanaticism of the principle of tradition. The continued acknowledgment of those old false principles, from which those murders sprang, establishes the community of guilt, and the propagation of the old guilt to consummate judgment. Heubner quotes: “Sit licet divus, dummodo non vivus.”
Mat_23:32. Fill ye up then the measure.—Chrysostom says that this ðëñþóáôå was spoken prophetically; Grotius, permissively. De Wette and Meyer make it an ironical imperative. De Wette: “The ðëçñþóáôå presupposes the ability and willingness in the mind of the Pharisees which merely needs encouragement.” (!) The difficult analogon of this difficult passage is the word of Jesus to Judas, Joh_13:27 : “What thou intendest to do, do quickly.” The last means to scare the wicked from their gradually ripening iniquity is the challenge: Do what ye purpose at once! If this is irony, it is divine Irony, as in Psa_21:4.—Fill ye up.—The ancient crime of the prophet-murdering spirit ran on continuously through the ages, (See Isaiah 6; Mat_13:14; Act_28:26.) Its consummation was the murder of Christ.—Fill up then, even ye,— êáὶ ὑìåῖò . The emphasis, however, falls upon the ðëçñþóáôå . Ye, who condemn the murderers of the prophets, will even fulfil the measure of their guilt.—The measure of guilt. The expression was, according to Wetstein, current among the Rabbins. With the full measure of guilt, judgment begins. The passage, Exo_20:5, which de Wette quotes, describes the generic nature of guilt in the reduced sphere of a single house; and the guilt of a community, of a church, of an order, is to be distinguished as an enlarged measure of the more limited family guilt.
Mat_23:33. Serpents.—Comp. Luk_3:7. Ðῶò öýãçôå . The Conj. delib. supposes the matter to be inwardly decided. The judgment of hell, ἀðὸ ôῆò êñßóåùò ôῆò ãåÝííçò . The sentence which condemns to hell. The expression, judicium Gehennœ was used by the Rabbins (Wetstein).
Mat_23:34. Wherefore I send, etc.—Fearful teleology of judgment. The messengers of salvation must hasten the process of doom for the hardened. Sin, which will not be remedied, must be drawn out into its full manifestation, that it may find its doom and destruction in the judgment.—Behold, I send unto you—This is difficult, inasmuch as Jesus seems to bring down into the present, as His own sending, the sending of the prophets who had appeared in earlier times. (I) Van Hengel: The quotation of an old prediction. (2) Olshausen refers to Luk_11:49, Jesus speaking here as the essential Wisdom. (3) De Wette: Jesus utters this with the feeling of His Messianic dignity; these prophets and wise men are His own messengers, the Apostles, etc. But here it is not merely the New Testament martyrdoms that are meant; the whole history of the persecutions of the prophets appears Ideologically, i.e., as judgment. Hence Jesus speaks out of the central consciousness of the theocratical wisdom, and in unison with the consciousness of the Father: comp. Mat_11:19. As the last who was sent of God, He was the moving, actuating principle of all the divine missions: comp. Joh_1:26. But as the Old Testament times were not excluded, so the New Testament times are included. The futures are prophetic, as is the whole passage. Hence in the óôáõñþóåôå Jesus thought assuredly of Himself. Meyer refers to the crucifixion of Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem and Pella: Euseb. Hist. Ecc_3:22.—The expression êáὶ ἐî áὐôῶí is very strong. They will be no better than brands for the fire of your fanaticism.
Mat_23:35. That upon you may come.—The common expression for judgment, Eph_5:6, as intimating its inevitableness, suddenness, power, and grandeur.—The righteous (innocent) blood, ãָּí ðָ÷ִé ; that is, the punishment for it, comp. Mat_27:25, but such as the righteous blood has awakened. Innocent blood appears as the leader of avenging powers: comp. Gen_4:10; Heb_12:24; Rev_6:10. Certainly the blood of Christ speaketh better things than the blood of Abel; but that blood has also its condemning character, and indeed in the shedding of that blood the judgment of the world was completed. The righteous blood is here emphatic: the consecrated, sanctified blood of the prophets. Bengel: “ áῖ ̓ ìá , ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu magna vi.” ’ Å ê÷õíüìåíïí , in the present tense. The blood is a continuous stream, which still flows and will flow, being present especially in its spiritual influence. Rev_6:10,
Zachariah, son of Barachiah.—See 2Ch_24:20. Zachariah, the son of the high-priest Jehoiada, stoned in the court of the temple by command of the king. There are difficulties here:1. He was not the last of the martyrs of the Old Testament: the murder of Urijah, Jer_26:23, was of a later date. But besides the order of the Hebrew canon, there was something pre-eminently wicked in the destruction of the former. Zachariah was the son of a high-priest of the greatest merit; he was murdered between the temple and the altar, and died crying, The Lord seeth, and will avenge it. And, moreover, his destruction was always vividly in the remembrance of the Jews. See Lightfoot on this passage, and Targum Thren. Mat_2:20. 2. The father of Zachariah was Jehoiada, here called Barachiah. Different explanations: (a) Beza, Grotius, al.: his father had two names; (b) van Hengel, Ebrard: Barachias was the father, Jehoiada the grandfather; (c) Kuinoel supposes that the words, “son of Barachiah,” are a gloss, (d) de Wette, Bleeck, Meyer [and Al-ford] decide that an error in the name has crept in. “Probably Jesus Himself did not mention the name of the father (Luk_11:51), and it was added from an original tradition: the error being the result of confounding the person of Zachariah with the better known Zechariah the prophet, whose father was named Barachiah (Zec_1:1). This tradition was followed by Matthew; but in the Gospel of the Hebrews the error was not found (according to Jerome, the name there was Jehoiada).” Meyer, (e) According to Hammond and Hug, the Zachariah meant was the son of Baruch, who was killed in the temple after the death of Christ (Joseph. Bell. Judges 4, 6, 4). Hug thinks that Jesus spoke in the future, but that the Evangelist, after the event had taken place, put it in the preterite. But this is an untenable notion, even apart from the difference between Baruch and Barachiah. Ammon, who also refers the words to the Zachariah of Josephus, explained them as interpolation. (f) Chrysostom quoted an ancient opinion, according to which it was the last but one of the lesser prophets, Zechariah. (g) Origen, Basil, and others, thought it was Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist—following a mere legend; to which the objection holds good, that if Jesus had come down to such recent times, he would doubtless have mentioned John the Baptist Himself. The Lord moreover speaks not of the blood-guiltiness of the present generation, but of the guilt of former times, which came upon the present generation because they filled up the iniquities of their fathers. (Comp. art. in “Studien und Kritiken” for 1841, p. 20, and Pharmaci des, ðåñὶ Æá÷áñéïõ õἱïῦ Âáñá÷ßïõ . Athens, 1838.) We prefer the solution sub (b). But if there was an error of name (see (d)), we might ascribe it, with Amnion and Eichhorn, to the translator of St. Matthew rather than the primitive evangelical tradition, as de Wette and Meyer do. It is very difficult to determine whether Matthew, in his familiarity with the genealogies, had a more correct account than that of the Book of Chronicles, or whether his translator made the change. It is in favor of the second supposition of Jehoiada being the grandfather, that he died at the age of 130, and that Zechariah, who is called his son, was laid hold on by the Spirit at a later time, and appeared as a prophet.
Mat_23:37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Luk_13:34, where it is placed earlier for pragmatic reasons).—Language of the more mighty emotion of compassion after the stern language of judgment. But with the change of feeling there is also a change of subject, and of the exhibition of the guilt. In the place of the Pharisees and scribes, it is Jerusalem; that is, the centre o