Following the Way of Jesus (11)
This long section, while it can conveniently be divided into two sections with regard to the style and the audience addressed, is all on one theme, and as in the case of other such ‘discourses’ (chs. 5–7; 10; 13; 18) consists partly of material found in different places in the other Synoptic Gospels. It seems that Matthew has taken the brief denunciation of Mark 12:38–40 as starting-point and has expanded it with other sayings of Jesus independently preserved (esp. some found also in Luke 11:37–52, there recorded as spoken at a Pharisee’s dinner-party!). Chapters 24–25 will speak of judgment to come on the nation, and this chapter prepares for that theme by showing the rottenness at the heart of official Judaism; vv. 37–39 will link the two discourses together.
From the debate and parable of chapters 21–22 we now move to direct attack, exposing ruthlessly the failings of the religious leaders which have been emerging in the preceding chapters. The tone is harsh, and the attack has been described as grossly unfair, even ‘libellous’.41 Were all scribes and Pharisees as bad as this? Mark 12:28–34 at least suggests otherwise. But Jesus’ attack here is not only (or even primarily) against conscious hypocrisy, but against the faults inherent in the Pharisaic approach to religion even at its best. Even the most scrupulous of Pharisees followed a system which tended to understand righteousness in terms of more and more minute legal prescriptions, and which could therefore dangerously distort the whole question of what it means to please God. In thus obscuring the way to a ‘better righteousness’ (see on 5:20), the scribes and Pharisees were thus guilty, however unconsciously, of a more fundamental and damaging failure than simply falling short of their professed standards.
Verses 2–12 are addressed to ‘the crowds and his disciples’, describing and warning against the scribes and Pharisees in the third person; in vv. 13–36 the style changes to a direct address to them in the form of a series of seven denunciations (‘woes’). But the intention throughout is to ‘expose’ the religious leaders, and so to challenge their claim to leadership; the true target of the whole discourse is the crowds and disciples who need to break free from Pharisaic legalism. (For the combination ‘scribes and Pharisees’, see on 5:20; 15:1.)
(a) Address to the crowds (23:1–12). 1. For the crowds, see on 22:33. While they are differentiated from the more committed disciples, they are at least potential followers of Jesus, and this public dialogue is intended to appeal over the heads of the leaders to those who have been attracted to Jesus’ teaching as a new and better way.42
2–3. Moses’ seat is a figurative expression for the teaching authority (cf. our professorial ‘chair’) or those officially responsible for interpreting and applying the laws of Moses.43 Jesus thus accepts the legitimacy of the scribes’ function, but questions the way they exercise it. The command to practise and observe whatever they tell you is surprising in the light of Jesus’ attack on scribal tradition in 15:1–20, and specifically on the Pharisees’ teaching in 16:6–12 (cf. his disputes with them over the sabbath, 12:1–14, on divorce, 19:3–9, etc.). Moreover v. 4 goes on to attack their legal regulations. It is probable, then, that v. 3 should be read as a whole, in which the emphasis is on the second half and the first functions only as a foil to it, perhaps spoken with an ironical, tongue-in-cheek tone. One might paraphrase, ‘Of course you may do what they say, if you like, but don’t do what they do’.44
The focus throughout ch. 23, is on a life which, whether consciously or not (and no doubt some scribes and Pharisees would fall into one category, some into the other), does not match up to their profession of loyalty to God.
4. If v. 3a might by itself be taken as a blanket endorsement of scribal teaching, this verse forbids such an interpretation. For the technical sense of bind, see on 16:19; 18:18; that sense may lie behind this verse too, the emphasis therefore falling on the prohibitive nature of Rabbinic legislation. ‘They have multiplied “the number of ways in which a man may offend God”, but they have failed in helping him to please God’ (Garland, p. 51). Thus ‘Jesus here castigates the legalism which can impose regulations but cannot or will not give relief to the lawbreaker’ (AB, p. 278). The heavy burdens laid on men’s shoulders contrast with Jesus’ easy yoke and light burden in 11:28–30, which offers rest to those who are ‘heavy laden’.
5–7. For Pharisaic ostentation see, more fully, 6:1–18. Phylacteries are small leather boxes containing scrolls of texts from Exodus and Deuteronomy. Perhaps make broad refers to the size of the straps by which these were (and are) bound on to the forehead and left arm of the Jewish man when at prayer, but it has also been suggested that it refers to wearing the phylacteries (tefillim) during the rest of the day, and not only as prescribed at the hours of prayer. The size of fringes (see on 9:20) was a matter of debate, the school of Shammai prescribing longer ones than the school of Hillel. These and other practices were designed to cut a more pious figure in Jewish society, in order to achieve the respect expressed in the title rabbi (lit. ‘my great one’), which was not yet purely a technical term for ordained scribes (like our ‘Reverend’!), but was used of a respected teacher (and in Palestinian society of Jesus’ day no-one was more important than a leading teacher).
8–10. These verses, while still commenting on the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, are addressed directly to Jesus’ disciples, warning them against adopting this status-seeking attitude. Rabbi (v. 8) and master (v. 10) probably act here as synonyms. They are titles appropriate only to the one teacher (v. 8), the Christ (v. 10), in relation to whom all his followers stand on an equal footing as brothers. Jesus thus incidentally asserts his own unique authority: he has the only true claim to ‘Moses’ seat’. Over against that unique authority his disciples must avoid the use of honorific titles for one another (‘Christian rabbinism’, Bonnard)—an exhortation which today’s church could profitably take more seriously, not only in relation to formal ecclesiastical titles (‘Most Rev.’, ‘my Lord Bishop’, etc.), but more significantly in its excessive deference to academic qualifications or to authoritative status in the churches.
In this context it is surprising to find the term Father discussed (v. 9). There is no evidence for its use as a title in a similar way to ‘rabbi’ and ‘master’, either in Jewish or Christian circles at this period. Acts 7:2; 22:1 illustrate its respectful use collectively for ‘elders’ in Israel, and it is possible that it thus came to be used individually for major Rabbinic teachers.45 But in Jesus’ teaching ‘Father’ is always a title for God alone (not even for Jesus, unlike ‘rabbi’ and ‘master’), and its use for any man (except of course in a purely literal sense!) is therefore to be deplored. In a different sense Paul could describe himself as the ‘one father’ of those whom he had led to Christ (1 Cor. 4:15; cf. Phil. 2:22), but this is not used as a title.
11–12. The two exhortations to service and humility have occurred separately before (for v. 11, cf. 20:26–27; for v. 12, cf. 18:4); now brought together they powerfully enforce the totally unconventional attitude which Jesus requires of his disciples, in contrast with the status-consciousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
(b) Denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (23:13–36). This direct denunciation (in the second person) takes the form of seven accusations, all (except v. 16) introduced by the phrase Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because …, after which follows a brief cameo illustrating their failure to live up to their position as guardians and interpreters of God’s law (23:2). On hypocrites, see on 6:2; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; the word clearly has a wider range in Matthew than in our usage, and the six uses of it in this chapter illustrate that range. The overall emphasis falls less on conscious insincerity than on their failure to perceive that their religious practice and teaching are in fact inconsistent with the desire to please God, which is their (no doubt sincerely) professed aim. Their whole religious system is so fundamentally misconceived that it amounts to ‘a radical subversion of God’s will’ (Garland, pp. 115–116). The whole passage then is ‘not simply an attack on the ethical contradiction in the personal lives of the scribes and Pharisees but a characterization of their failure as the divinely appointed leaders of Israel, particularly as it related to their responsibility in interpretation of the law’ (ibid., p. 124).
Woe sometimes in Matthew expresses a regretful lament, ‘Alas’ (see 24:19); sometimes a ‘powerful and denunciatory judgement akin to a curse’ (Garland, p. 87; see his long discussion of ‘woes’, pp. 64–90), as in 11:21. In 18:7 it seems to be used once in each sense. Such series of ‘woes’ are familiar from the Old Testament prophets (e.g. Isa. 5:8–23; Hab. 2:6–19), where the tone is of condemnation, and that is the emphasis here too. The ‘woes’ function almost as a converse of the ‘blesseds’ of 5:3–12; as the beatitudes set out the true way to please God, so the woes describe the wrong way, and pronounce judgment on those who follow and teach it.
13. The first woe describes the effect of Pharisaic legalism on entering the kingdom of heaven, a phrase which has been used in such key verses as 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23–24 to describe a saving relationship with God. Not only does their own attitude prevent such a relationship, but their teaching makes it impossible for all who, in their sincere desire to please God, adopt the Pharisaic way. Jesus, it is implied, has brought the true way of salvation, and only those who follow him can either enter or give entry.
14. The verse printed in the margin comes from Mark 12:40, but is not in the best MSS of Matthew.
15. To seek for proselytes (religious converts) is not in itself a fault; Jesus will tell his disciples to do just that (28:19). But if the proselytizer is himself a child of hell (i.e. one destined for hell—see on 5:22; 10:28; it is not so much a term of abuse as a statement of fact), to win converts is only to increase its population. The phrase could more literally be translated ‘make him a child of hell more double (i.e. devious, hypocritical) than you are’, perhaps with reference to the frequent tendency of converts to outdo their converters in (perverted) zeal.46
16–22. In 5:33–37 the subject of oaths has already been broached, and Jesus has cut through all casuistry to declare all oaths inappropriate for a disciple. But the exhaustive discussion of the relative validity of oaths was a characteristic concern of the kind of legalism he is here attacking, and so it serves now to illustrate their distorted sense of values. The background to this attack lies in the popular tendency (which is still common today) to substitute trivial ‘oaths’ for serious (and therefore more ‘dangerous’) ones. Here was fruitful ground for scribal ‘nit-picking’, and there was much dispute (see Garland, pp. 133–136). But, as in 5:34–35, Jesus again shows how one oath implies another, and (vv. 21–22) all ultimately involve God as the one who is invoked. In ch. 5, the conclusion was drawn that therefore oaths should be avoided altogether. Here the object is not a positive recommendation for disciples, but to expose the absurdity of the scribal debates, and indeed their ‘ungodliness’. ‘Their virtuoso theology, acutely perceptive, lacks reverence for God’ (Jeremias, NTT, p. 146). For blind, cf. 15:14, and for fools (v. 17), cf. on 5:22; here the word is used neither in thoughtless insult nor with personal bitterness, but as a considered indictment of their lack of discernment.
23. The fourth woe does not relate to their meticulous observance of the Old Testament tithing law (Lev. 27:30; Deut. 14:22) in itself, for Jesus accepts this as proper (without neglecting the others), but rather to their sense of proportion. They have been so concerned to apply the tithing law in respect of every garden herb that justice, mercy and faith have been ignored. This phrase recalls the summary of true religion (in contrast to extravagant sacrifice) in Micah 6:8, especially as faith is here probably to be understood as ‘faithfulness’. In describing this trio of Old Testament virtues as the weightier matters of the law, Jesus thus echoes the prophetic view that an inward righteousness is more important than, and alone gives meaning to, ritual observance. Cf. 7:12; 22:40 for similar ‘summaries of the law’. It is this focus which makes possible the ‘righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees’ (5:20), for ‘they concentrated on the minor and practicable pieties, to the neglect of the broad and inexhaustible principles’.47 As in 23:3, the acceptance of the scribal rules implied in without neglecting the others serves only as a foil to the more important positive prescription of the sentence. Again we could paraphrase, ‘Observe your meticulous rules if you like, but don’t therefore neglect the things that really matter.’48
24. This lack of a sense of proportion is delightfully burlesqued in the ridiculous picture of a gnat strained out of a drink to avoid impurity (Lev. 11:20–23), while a camel (also impure, Lev. 11:4) is swallowed whole. The joke may have been aided by an Aramaic pun on galma (gnat) and gamla (camel).49
25–26. The fifth and sixth woes both focus (as indeed the fourth did in a different way) on the failure to distinguish between external correctness and internal purity. Rabbinic debates on the relative importance of the inside and outside of utensils in matters of ceremonial purification are well documented,50 but Jesus is not entering into that debate, but rather using it as an illustration for the more important distinction between externals (such as that whole debate was concerned with) and ‘internal’ moral issues (such as extortion and rapacity).51 The principle enunciated in v. 26 is the same as that in 15:11, 18–20, and renders the whole Rabbinic argument superfluous. Their failure to see this was the root of their ‘hypocrisy’.
27–28. Tombs were whitewashed regularly at festival time to ensure that passers-by did not inadvertently touch them and so become defiled (Mishnah Shekalim 1:1; cf. Ma‘aser Sheni 5:1). This custom is generally assumed to be the background to Jesus’ words, but that whitewashing was not a mark of beauty but rather a warning of uncleanness, repulsive rather than attractive. The word whitewashed here means literally ‘plastered’ (with lime), and S. T. Lachs52 has suggested that the reference is to funerary urns or ossuaries (bone-containers) which were beautified with a marble-and-lime plaster. This view provides a much more appropriate contrast between outward attractiveness and inward defilement.53 The point is thus the same as in vv. 25–26.
29–31. The seventh woe describes the hostility of the scribes and Pharisees to God’s true messengers, and goes on to predict its outcome. There was in the first century a great emphasis on building splendid tombs, including some for long-dead worthies (e.g. Herod’s new marble monument over David’s tomb, Josephus, Ant. xvi. 179–182). Jesus takes this as symbolic of a desire to honour the prophets and the righteous, despite the fact that many of them according to the Old Testament (and many more in later tradition) had been persecuted and killed by those in authority. Cf. Acts 7:52. But for all their fine words, the current leaders are still sons of their fathers, as their attitude to God’s messengers in their own day shows (v. 34).
32. This ironic imperative introduces the idea which will dominate vv. 34–39, that Jesus’ own generation is the one in which Jewish rebellion against God reaches its climax and will therefore incur its ultimate punishment. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 for this idea of a full measure of Jewish rebellion seen in their attitude to Jesus (and, in that context, their opposition to the Christian mission to Gentiles).
33. In 3:7 John the Baptist had pictured the Jewish leaders as a brood of vipers fleeing from the wrath to come; Jesus takes up the picture and declares the flight is futile.
34. Prophets, wise men and scribes were God’s spokesmen in the Old Testament and in developing Judaism. Now Jesus himself54 is sending his disciples to them in the same role (cf. 5:11–12; 10:40–41 for the continuity between Old Testament prophets and the disciples of Jesus). As he has already indicated in 5:11–12, they can expect no better treatment from the ‘sons’ (v. 31) than the prophets received from the ‘fathers’ (v. 30). The inclusion of crucify in the list of persecutions is surprising, in that Jews could not and did not crucify, and there is no record of their instigating the Romans to crucify any of Jesus’ disciples (Hare, pp. 90–91). It seems that Jesus’ own mission is so closely bound up with his disciples’ that his fate forms part of theirs. Persecute from town to town recalls Jesus’ warning in 10:23. Thus Jewish rebellion reaches its climax not only in the rejection of Jesus, but in the persecution of his disciples, and this too will contribute to the coming punishment.
35. The cumulative effect of the rejection and murder of all God’s spokesmen is graphically traced from Abel to Zechariah, who were the first and last martyrs of the Old Testament, since 2 Chronicles was the last book of the Hebrew canon, and Zechariah’s murder is recounted in 2 Chronicles 24:20–22.55 In both accounts the call for vengeance is explicit (Gen. 4:10; 2 Chr. 24:22), so that the choice of these two examples is doubly appropriate to Jesus’ theme of the culmination of blood-guilt. The Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 (who is clearly indicated here by the specific mention of the place where he was killed) was son of Jehoiada; Barachiah was the father of the postexilic prophet (Zech. 1:1), but the two Zechariahs were frequently confused in Jewish tradition (see Gundry, UOT, pp. 86–88, note).
36. The decisive situation of this generation has already been noticed (11:16–19; 12:38–45; 17:17; cf. Jeremias, NTT, p. 135) and the theme will come to its climax in the next chapter, leading up to 24:34. The coming of Jesus, and his rejection by his own people, has brought Israel’s rebellion to the point where judgment can no longer be delayed. Verses 37–39 will spell this out more fully.
viii. The fate of Jerusalem (23:37–39)
The passage forms a bridge between the denunciation of official Judaism in chapter 23, and the more explicit prediction of a consequent judgment on the nation in the destruction of its temple, which is the basis of chapter 24. It thus forms an appropriate, if solemn, climax to Jesus’ public teaching. These are, in Matthew, his last words to his people.
37. Jerusalem symbolizes the nation whose capital it is. Israel’s treatment of God’s messengers (already set out in vv. 29–36) shows that a final choice has been made. It was Jesus’ mission to avert the punishment predicted in vv. 35–36 by bringing Israel to repentance; he was willing (would I is literally ‘I wanted’) but they were not (would not, the same verb). The image of a hen (Greek is simply ‘bird’) protecting its young is used in the Old Testament for God’s protection of his people (Pss. 17:8; 91:4; Isa. 31:5; etc.); now Jesus has come personally to exercise that divine function. (Cf. Isa. 30:15 for refusal to accept God’s offer of protection.) The note of sorrowful disappointment in this lament is an important counterbalance to the violence of some of the denunciations in vv. 1–36; it gave Jesus no pleasure to pronounce judgment on those to whom he came to offer salvation.
38. While the house might refer to Israel as a whole (cf. 10:6; 15:24), the context here directly before ch. 24 indicates that the immediate reference is to the temple (where the words are spoken), whose fate will symbolize God’s judgment on his people. The verse translates literally ‘Behold your house is left (or ‘abandoned’) to you deserted.’56 The verb is the one used e.g. in v. 23 (‘neglect’) or in 19:27, 29. It therefore speaks not so much of the physical condition of the temple, as of the fact that God has departed from it (cf. Ezek. 10:18–19; 11:22–23). Its physical destruction (24:2) is only the outward completion of God’s repudiation of it, which will be symbolized in 24:1 when Jesus leaves it, never to return. The repeated second person pronoun (‘to you’ is unfortunately omitted in RSV) emphasizes that it is now just that, ‘your house’, not God’s house. Cf. Jeremiah 12:7 for a similar warning, which preceded the previous destruction of the temple by the Babylonians in 587 BC. The theological background to this theme is set out in 1 Kings 9:6–9. The temple is the symbol of God’s relationship with his people; when that relationship is broken, the temple is abandoned.
39. Again is a weak translation concealing the important Matthaean phrase ap‘ arti, ‘from now on’, used also in 26:29; 26:64. In each case, together with the introduction I tell you, it points to a new situation now beginning, an eschatological change. Jesus is now leaving the scene of Jewish public life, in which he has made his unheeded appeal; the next meeting will be very different. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord echoes the greeting (drawn from Ps. 118:26) on his previous entry to Jerusalem (21:9). Does this mean, then, that a time will come when Jerusalem will welcome him again, when Israel will accept him as its Messiah? Is this a hint of Paul’s teaching on the future salvation of Israel (Rom. 11:25–26)? Two factors tell against this interpretation. First, the words until you say are expressed in Greek as an indefinite possibility rather than as a firm prediction; this is the condition on which they will see him again; but there is no promise that the condition will be fulfilled.57 Secondly, a prediction of future repentance would be quite out of keeping not only with the flow of thought throughout ch. 23 (of which this is the climax) and ch. 24 which deals with judgment to come, but also with the perspective of the Gospel as a whole, which has repeatedly spoken of Israel’s last chance, and of a new international people of God (8:11–12; 12:38–45; 21:40–43; 22:7; 23:32–36; etc.). Even more clearly the For with which the verse begins unambiguously links it with God’s abandonment of his house in v. 38. All this suggests that this verse, while it expresses the condition on which Israel may again see its Messiah, makes no promise that this condition will be fulfilled.58