Matthew Chapter Twenty-Three Commentary

I. Introduction

A. Objective

To render a commentary on Matthew chapter twenty-three, verses one through thirty-nine which is based on the Greek text; toward that end, we will give consideration to the following:

* Sociopolitical considerations identifying the role of the Greek and Jewish environment in the composition of the passage.

* Theological considerations identifying key doctrinal and exegetical issues.

• B. Document Layout

This commentary will follow a format similar to that utilized by Raymond E. Brown  in his commentaries on the birth and death of the Messiah (Brown). Accordingly, each verse will be translated from the Greek text into English; the Greek text of Nestle-Aland 27 (Aland) will be utilized as the translational basis. You will notice a four-line format in this process.

1. The Greek text will be typed out first in uppercase letters with lowercase “h” and “i” signifying rough breathing and dative constructs, respectively, but otherwise without diacritics. See the table below for a mapping of the Greek alphabet here utilized. The verse number, in this format “<#>”, will precede this first line.

2. Below that line follows my translation of the verse in lowercase letters, preceded by “<MT>”, and

3. Below my translation Young’s Literal Translation for reference purposes, preceded by “<YLT>” (Young’s).  During the translation step, linguistics issues will be addressed; that is, significant grammatical and/or philological points bearing on the translation attained. The translation will thus include word studies at such places. Pertinent discussions of any theological and/or sociopolitical issues embedded in the verse will also be discussed in the process of the translation. All points, linguistic or otherwise, will be flagged at their appropriate place in the translation in line two, my translation, and discussed as endnotes.

4. Last, then, will follow the commentary for that verse, in the remaining lines beneath lines one, two, and three just described, preceded by “<C>”.

4. C. English–>Greek Character Mapping

• D. Passage Background

We will forgo the discussion of Matthew the Gospel Writer here and deal with sundry aspects of that in situ. The verses contained in this passage are, simply put, some of the most scathing verses in the entire New Testament, if not the entire Christian Bible. That God Almighty would rise to such a level merits our attention and study with respect to the causes that motivated this passion—in the final analysis, Matthew chapter twenty-three may, in no small way, serve as a passionate “appeal by contrast” with regard to the proper demeanor of a pastor/shepherd both toward Jehovah God and the flock entrusted to their care.  Jesus delivered this sermon to the Jewish religious leaders just a few days before His death— the setting is Passion Week, probably Tuesday, a day marked by confrontation:

“Tuesday was a very busy day of discussion, teaching, and confrontation for Jesus. Again he taught publicly in the temple most of the day. But he also privately instructed his disciples on the Mount of Olives in the evening. On Tuesday the chief priests, scribes, and elders questioned his authority and tried to ensnare him with well-planned questions. ‘By what authority are you doing these things?’ they queried. This was a pertinent question for one trained in the Jewish faith to ask. The scribes believed that teaching should be based on long-standing tradition rather than on novelty. The phrase ‘these things’ refers to the events of the previous days. Certainly, the overturning of the tables in the temple on Monday and the messianic triumphal procession the day before had aroused indignation. Possibly the enemies of Jesus had carefully prepared their challenge and thought they were ready for a confrontation that would leave Jesus discredited, abandoned, and ineffective. Jesus so deftly answered his questioners and so cleverly made use of parables that he left his opponents speechless (Niswonger 162-63).

        Chapter twenty-two ends in the temple courts with Jesus’ silencing of the Herodians, Pharisees, and Sadducees, who were intent on ensnaring Him. They had hoped to cast Him as one noncompliant to the requirements of Caesar and Rome and therefore a criminal, with the question of taxation (vv. 17-22), and as one ignorant and/or reckless in the ways of God and therefore foolish and/or impious before the crowd, with the rather mocking (Daube 158-60) question of remarriage in the resurrection (vv. 23-32). The setting for chapter twenty-three and our commentary is thus in the temple courts, after the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple, and Jesus’ deft response to the Herodians, Pharisees, and Sadducees’ scheming questions. 

• II. The Gospel According to Matthew Chapter Twenty-three Translation and Commentary

 A. The Verses

1.Verses 1-2  Mat 23:1-2

<1> TOTE hO IHSOUS ELALHSEN TOIS OCLOIS KAI TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU

<MT> Then Jesus spoke to the crowd and to his disciples

<YLT> Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples,

<C> We learned in chapter twenty-one that Jesus, after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, itself accompanied by great multitudes (vv. 8-11), entered the temple and drove out the buyers and sellers (v. 12). This would have taken place in the temple courts, specifically, the Court of the Gentiles. The crowd Jesus addresses in this verse was probably comprised of some of those who attended the triumphal entry and those—probably not a few—transacting business in the court. So Jesus is here speaking to this crowd and His disciples, for both must be made sober to the true character of the religious leaders of the day. Thus speaks Jesus to us too; it concerns us not to be misled by the pomp and circumstance of high offices, be they sacerdotal or secular. We must always ask the question, “Is what I see aligned with the will of Christ?”  

< 2> LEGWN: EPI THS MWUSEWS KAQEDRAS EKAQISAN hOI GRAMMATEIS KAI hOI FARISAIOI

<MT> Saying: upon Moses’ seat^[i] sit^[ii] the scribes^[iii] and the Pharisees^[iv]

<YLT> saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees;

<C> We may take this in the sense that these religious leaders and teachers possessed by way of transference that special authority, wisdom, and power, imparted to Moses by God at Sinai which should have qualified them to properly expound the Law, and teach the people how to apply it in particular situations (Neh. 8:4-8, Acts 15:21).

2.  Verses 3-4  Mat 23:3-4

<3> PANTA OUN hOSA EAN EIPWSIN hUMIN POIHSATE KAI THREITE, KATA DE TA ERGA AUTWN MH POIEITE: LEGOUSIN GAR KAI OU POIOUSIN

<MT> All things therefore whatsoever they may say to you do^[v] and keep,^[vi] but according to their works do^[vii]  not: for they say and do not 

<YLT> all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not; 

<C> Jesus here grants the religious leaders the authority of their office (Moses’ seat) and accordingly commands His hearers to adhere to their commands, decisions, and teachings: “whatsoever they may say to you do and keep.” We may believe that Jesus granted their teaching and exposition of the Law so long as that edified the people and reminded them of their duties toward God. The office per se, therefore, was not the issue, but, as the balance of the verse points out, the holders of that office were, since their preaching was one thing and their practice of the same was quite another: “they say, and do not.” We may take it: “they say all the right things as measured by the letter of the Mosaic Law, but they do all the wrong things as measured by the spirit of that Law.” They practiced their traditions^[viii] to the exclusion of the spirit of the Law and first principles. Particularly insidious in this was the fact that the scribes and Pharisees held the respect of the people and no doubt many, by way of that infatuation, emulated their works; probably here lies Jesus’ chief concern in this verse—misrepresentation of the ways of God to the spiritually vulnerable. So first our Savior here delineates these leaders’ error, and so shines His light into the darkness (John 8:12), and then directly censures their practices, which were their beloved traditions, in accordance with the authority of His office (Matt. 28:18); thus He begins to bring the ship about.

<4> DESMEUOUSIN DE FORTIA BAREA KAI DUSBASTAKTA KAI EPITIQEASIN EPI TOUS WMOUS TWN ANQRWPWN, AUTOI DE TWi DAKTULWi AUTWN OU QELOUSIN KINHSAI AUTA

<MT> But they bind together heavy loads^[ix] also hard to bear^[x] and lay upon the shoulders of men, but themselves with their finger desire not to move^[xi] them

<YLT> for they bind together burdens heavy and grievous to be borne, and lay upon the shoulders of men, but with their finger they will not move them.

<C> Jesus builds on verse three and unfolds their error: The Oral Tradition, or, Tradition of the Elders. Their “adaptation” of the Law to the times across the generations snowballed into a heavy load, into a matrix of unreasonable expectations. The scribes made it their business to expound the Law according to the Tradition of the Elders, while the rest of the Pharisees made it their business to observe the Law according to the demands of that scholarship. Thus, the one through heady scholarship devised an ever-increasing mountain of legalism through which the other, through compliant externalism, vaunted himself, but which neither truly practiced— “but themselves with their finger desire not to move them”— rather, detachedly therewith managed to crush and condemn the common Jew. What began as a pious effort out of reverence for God and His requirements, eventually turned into externalism, perfunctory ritual, and outright self-righteous impiety. A major tradition practiced by the Pharisees in this regard involved the notion of cleanness before God by way of ritual purity, an external vehicle a Pharisee believed would keep him spiritually clean from the contaminating agents of the world around him (Mark 7:1-9, Luke 11:37-41). Given the legal intricacies and reach of the Pharisaic burden, it by default condemned all but the most privileged, for it was not possible for most Jews to avoid breaking these traditions in the course of their daily lives (e.g., a butcher constantly exposed to blood). Furthermore, the intricacies of the tradition-augmented Law dictated full-time commitment to master; again, only a privileged minority could afford the luxury of spending so great a time in study. To make matters worse for the common Jew, the Pharisees then looked down on those who could not participate in Pharisaism, as though such were foolish and ignorant, and hopeless sinners in the eyes of God. Hence, Pharisaism was not only burdensome, exacting unrealistic demands from the people, but it was condemnatory and discriminatory as well; it was the antithesis of true religion (Jas. 1:27, 2:8).

3. Verses 5-7  Mat 23:5-7

<5> PANTA DE TA ERGA AUTWN POIOUSIN PROS TO QEAQHNAI TOIS ANQRWPOIS: PLATUNOUSIN GAR TA FULAKTHRIA  AUTWN KAI MEGALUNOUSIN TA KRASPEDA

<MT> And all their works they do to be seen by men: for they broaden their phylacteries^[xii] and make conspicuous their fringes^[xiii]

<YLT> And all their works they do to be seen by men, and they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the fringes of their garments,

<C> In the previous verse we were told that the scribes and Pharisees burdened the people with an unbearable Tradition that they themselves did not submit to. Here we are given the cause for both: They were seeking the praise of men, not the glory of God—“all  [PANTA] their works [largely their traditions] they do to be seen by men.” They formulated heady, impressive conclusions about the Law that inevitably folded back on the people as a burden, and on themselves as a means to show off. We see that they, in the midst of this perversion of the Law, exercised not some of that Tradition for the glory of God, and some for the praise of men, nay, not even half (bad as even that would be), but, they did all to be seen by men. One cannot direct all one’s energy toward a matter and not be consumed by it; of course, pride drove their passion. Their religion was superficial; it was a surface religion; it was an instrument of self-actualization for them, as was particularly Moses’ seat, the possessing of which made them the darlings of the people. And this they reveled in; they were one with themselves when they had the admiration of the people and the “Atta boys” from their peers. However, note that one of the laws inside those disproportionately large phylacteries required that they love the Lord—not the praise of men, not their traditions, not their position or scholarship—with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their might (Deut. 6:5). What a shrewd lot they were, for this they pretended to be doing by broadening their phylacteries and making conspicuous their fringes. To make it appear as though they were passionate for God, to make it appear that they were that much more conscientious of and attentive to God’s requirements than the next person, thoroughly pious, and so beyond reproach. Yet they did not proportionately attend to those requirements. Nay, worse, they not so much as lifted a finger to attend to them, for they were not so motivated.  

<6> FILOUSIN DE THN PRWTOKLISIAN EN TOIS DEIPNOIS KAI TAS PRWTOKAQEDRIAS EN TAIS SUNAGWGAIS

<MT> And they love^[xiv]  the head place in formal meals, and the chief seats in the synagogues^[xv]

<YLT> they love also the chief couches in the supper, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

<C> As Matthew Henry (Henry) comments here: “someone must occupy head places and chief seats; in and of themselves they are neutral, simply positions in space and time.” We would add: yet to love (FILEW) them, to make an idol out of them (that is, to leverage them into vehicles for self-glorification and/or the praise of men), and to work at that, especially in the House of God (synagogue here), where God is to be head and chief, smacks of cold-hearted robbery and contemptuous vanity. It is robbery because it is consciously stealing from God that which belongs to Him— either one’s own or another’s attention, honor, and praise—and redirecting these to oneself (their self-glorification and/or exacting the praise of men with these did this). It is contemptuous vanity because it disdains His exceeding majesty and holiness, qualities that should incline one to the role of worshipper of God, not self. It was just said that they broadened their phylacteries and made conspicuous their fringes, probably to make it appear as though they were the more conscientious of God, that they were a pious lot (v. 5); yet what we see is that their affections were not really directed toward God in their praying and carrying on. Jehovah God’s religion (His ordained institutions and ambiance) was a vessel they seized to serve their own end, and that end was they themselves.  

<7> KAI TOUS ASPASMOUS EN TAIS AGOPAIS KAI KALEISQAI hUPO TWN ANQRWPWN RABBI

<MT> And the salutations in the marketplaces and to be called^[xvi] of men Rabbi^[xvii]

<YLT> and the salutations in the market-places, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

<C> Here is the end goal of that attention and praise which they worked to exact from men: confirmation—here by way of verbalization, of their lofty opinions of themselves and their heady litigations—Hail great one!

4. Verses 8-10  Mat 23:8-10

<8> hUMEIS DE MH KLHQHTE RABBI; hEIS GAR ESTIN hUMWN hO DIDASKALOS, PANTES DE hUMEIS ADELFOI ESTE.

<MT> But ye may not be called Rabbi; for one (we may rightly assume that Jesus is speaking of Himself here) is your teacher,^[xviii] and all ye are brothers^[xix]

<YLT> And ye — ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director — the Christ, and all ye are brethren.

<C> Traditionally the title “Rabbi” conveyed lofty erudition, the exclusive privilege of a few. If one of the disciples were to consider himself Rabbi (which by definition would be unfounded due to his lack of training), not only would he usurp an office that Jesus here identified with Himself exclusively, but he would simultaneously be expressing some degree of willful lordship over his fellows, thus typifying that day’s Rabbinic Judaism. Instead, Jesus flatly states, “Ye are all brothers.” That is to say, ‘Ye are all equals, of the same stock.’ 

<9> KAI PATERA MH KALESHTE hUMWN EPI THS GHS, hEIS GAR ESTIN hUMWN hO PATHR hO OURANIOS

<MT> And father^[xx] ye may not call of yours upon the earth, for one is your father he who is in the heavens

<YLT> and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,

<C> There are a number of senses that may be associated with the word “father” here (generator, near/distant ancestor, teacher, senior, honorary). However, noting that Jesus has just addressed the issue of brotherhood and equality, it would seem that the gist of this verse is along the same lines, a continuation of the previous thought with somewhat different subject matter. In that regard, then, father probably signifies those addresses that betray undue trust in, respect of, or regard for one’s family and/or fellows—at the expense of the same for our heavenly Father (Matt. 6:9)—who is our Creator, Redeemer, and Teacher. In this way, Jesus warns against misappropriation of the title in much the same way He did with respect to the title Rabbi. Jesus alone is Rabbi; our heavenly Father alone is Father (God as Father is a theme that runs throughout the Old Testament, e.g. Exod. 4:22, Deut. 32: 6, Isa. 63:16, 64:8, Mal. 2:10). Though it is necessary that there be fathers, masters, and teachers on earth, these offices should not be misappropriated, nor their holders elevated above Jesus and our heavenly Father.

<10> MHDE KLHQHTE KAQHGHTAI, hOTI KAQHGHTHS hUMWN ESTIN hEIS hO CRISTOS

<MT> Neither be ye called leader, because one is your leader, the Christ^[xxi]

<YLT> nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director — the Christ.

<C> There is a congruent message in verses eight through ten expressed within the framework of a simple formula: Be ye not called thus and so, for God alone is thus (verse eight includes equality among brethren). As the offices Jesus refers to in these verses are integral to normal daily living, and therefore always held by someone, His mandate should be understood in relation to normal daily living. Perhaps as follows: (1) Do not claim the privileges of the office in such a way that fails to acknowledge the true owner and, in no little way, benefactor, of your office (i.e., Jehovah God). (2) Do not forget that you are subservient to God; in the exercise of your particular duties, remember that you are a steward entrusted with the responsibility of seeing that His will is accomplished in the matters attending your tenure. (3) Do not, out of undue infatuation with their position, think about those in such positions idolatrously; remember to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might. (4) God is quintessentially Rabbi, Father, and Leader; we should therefore call on Him first. (5) As concerns specifically verse ten, according to our rendering of KAQHGHTHS, Jesus seems to equate KAQGHTHS (leader) with CRISTOS (Messiah= king, popular leader of the people). We may take it that, as leader, He is at the head directing, guiding, and organizing; as king, He is our Sovereign. Either way, the glory is His. 

5. Verses 11-12  Mat 23:11-12

<11> hO DE MEIZWN hUMWN ESTAI hUMWN DIAKONOS

<MT>But the greatest of you shall be your servant

<YLT> And the greater of you shall be your ministrant,

<C> Having delineated His hearers’ (crowd, disciples) required disposition toward God in verses eight through ten, Jesus addresses their required disposition toward one another in these verses. As said, teachers, fathers, and leaders are a part of life; naturally, some of these will be manifestly greater than others. Greatness lies in the eyes of the beholder, and is on the human plane largely a function of disposition, performance, rank, status, and so forth. However, verse 11 communicates a counterintuitive metric in this regard in that servitude—not pomp and circumstance, not lordship—is great—in the eyes of Jesus. Jesus’ point is made striking here through contemporary ethical nonconformance in that this was not in keeping with the honor-shame culture of the Mediterranean world in that day. Servitude was considered base, and ‘honor was valued over life, and boasting, not humility, was deemed proper’ (Witherington 18). Notwithstanding, Jesus’ injunction by default enjoined what would become a mainstay of the Christian spiritual diet: Humility, a virtue undergirded by love of Jehovah God, and brethren. 

<12> hOSTIS DE hUYWSEI EAUTON TAPEINWQHSETAI KAI hOSTIS TAPEINWSEI EAUTON hUYWQHSETAI

<MT>And whosoever will exalt himself will be humbled and whoever will humble himself will be exalted

<YLT> and whoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled, and whoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

<C> Here we find that verse 11 is more than a suggestion, more than pious-speak, it is a conditional promise: hearer, understand, great or no, be ye puffed up, ye will become deflated, but if ye be lowly, ye will become lifted up. Such are the inescapable default mechanisms built into God’s covenant with man “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3). “Yet a little while and the wicked man will be no more; And you will look carefully for his place and he will not be there. But the humble will inherit the land And will delight themselves in abundant prosperity” (Ps. 37:10-11). Jehovah is the God of reversals and redistribution; this is not only made clear here, but, for example, by way of the mandate of His Jubilee Economy (Lev. 25). In a way analogous to the lowly in spirit of verse 12, Jubilee lifted up the lowly poor by way of debt cancellation, liberation, and/or restoration of their land. In a closed, agrarian economy such as ancient Israel’s, this recycling of wealth necessarily checked the growth of wealth in the pockets of the lords and owners (to what extent Jubilee was actually practiced is another matter—its supposed violation would be consistent with the general covenant breach that brought judgment). 

6. Verses 13-14  Mat 23:13-14

<13> OUAI DE hUMIN GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI hUPOKRITAI, OTI KLEIETE THN BASILEIAN TWN OURANWN EMPROSQEN TWN ANQRWPWN: hUMEIS GAR OUK EISERCESQE OUDE TOUS EISERCOMENOUS AFIETE EISELQEIN

<MT> But woe^[xxii] to ye scribes and Pharisees hypocrites,^[xxiii] because ye shut the kingdom of the heavens before men: for ye enter not neither suffer ye those entering to enter

<YLT> Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut up the reign of the heavens before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.

<C> This verse largely sets the tone for the balance of chapter twenty-three: A formula consisting of woes (pending grief and/or distress) followed by the reason/s for them. Verses thirteen through thirty-nine contain eight such woe-reason pairs—a most emphatic declaration. The first woe, verse thirteen, is levied for turning men away from the Kingdom of Heaven. How were the religious leaders doing this? It began with their not going in themselves, a consequence of their rejection of Jesus Christ—the focal point, the golden thread of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation (Luke 24:44-45, Rev. 1:11). Jesus is the embodiment of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 1:14-15). John the Baptist had preached first the Gospel doctrine of Repentance, and insisted on belief in the one to come after him, namely, Jesus Christ (Mark 1:4, Luke 15:17-24, Acts 19:4), and they rejected him (Mark 11:30-31). In turn, they rejected Jesus (John 8:59, et. al), which we understand is the same as saying they consciously rejected the Kingdom of Heaven. And by this rejection of Jesus, manifested both in speech and in manner, they turned others away from Jesus, and thus the Kingdom of Heaven. At another place Jesus gives us a feel for the nature of this particular looming grief: “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6). 

<14> N/A for Nestle-Aland 27. 

7. Verse 15  Mat 23:15

<15>OUAI hUMIN, GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI hUPOKRITAI, hOTI PERIAGETE THN QALASSAN KAI THN XHRAN POIHSAI hENA PROSHLUTON, KAI OTAN GENHTAI POIEITE AUTON hUION GEENHS DIPLOTERON hUMWN

<MT> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, because ye compass the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte,^[xxiv]  and when he is made ye make him a son of hell^[xxv] twofold more than yourselves

<YLT> `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye go round the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever it may happen — ye make him a son of gehenna twofold more than yourselves.

<C> It is clear that the missionary zeal of the scribes and Pharisees was not the source of this woe. They were engaged in a hustling, accommodative type proselytizing that, on the surface at least, had an eye to the individual, irrespective of his or her background. In this, they seem to reflect the accommodating style of the renowned Rabbi Hillel (c. 70 BC-AD 10) who apparently “accepted into Judaism a Gentile who refused to accept the Oral Tradition and another who refused even to comply with any Jewish law beyond the most basic Noachian morality.” It is said that at the instant of conversion Hillel “fell in with” the applicants, satisfied simply with their recognition of the written Law, or a single, basic, moral ethic. Two variant sources develop these stories about Hillel. The older source indicates that Hillel “invited the candidates into the faith on their terms,” and then “led them to a better understanding.” The other, indicates that he “invited the candidates to sit down,” and then “led them to a better understanding” (Daube 336-37). Hillel’s accommodative proselytizing methodology lost favor as Jewish piety inclined ever more toward exclusiveness and legalism as the Tannaitic Period unfolded (after the so-called council at Jamnia around AD 90), to the degree that accommodation was seen more as compromise, even heresy. Notwithstanding, for those that imitated the style of Hillel, it was during the course of “leading to a better understanding,” after setting the proselytizing “hook,” so to speak, that the scribes and Pharisees reprogrammed their new converts, indoctrinating them in line with their traditions and thus, in Jesus’ words, making them twice the sons of hell as they themselves were. We may ask how the disposition of these new converts could end up even worse than their mentors’ was. Jesus probably has in view the deleterious influence of the misguided Oral Tradition upon the Hellenistic Tradition. That is, the new convert understands Jehovah God in a way shaped by his native Hellenistic impressions in combination with, or under the influence of, the Oral Tradition. The difficulty lies in the latter; for we all come, or are led, to God with a measure of native impressions and influences, but to become sons of His, is clearly from thence a function of the right doctrine. 

8. Verses 16-22  Mat 23:16-22

<16> OUAI hUMIN, hODHGOI TUFLOI hOI LEGONTES: hOS AN OMOSH EN TWi NAWi, OUDEN ESTIN; hOS D’ AN OMOSH EN TWi CRUSWi TOU NAOU, OFEILEI

<MT> Woe to you, blind^[xxvi] guides^[xxvii] who are saying: whoever may swear^[xxviii] by the sanctuary,^[xxix]  it is nothing, but whoever may swear by the gold^[xxx] of the sanctuary is obligated^[xxxi]

<YLT> `Wo to you, blind guides, who are saying, Whoever may swear by the sanctuary, it is nothing, but whoever may swear by the gold of the sanctuary — is debtor!

<C> There is good continuity here with the previous verse: Their doctrine was such that through it they led the people astray; God’s watchmen were blind, they were blind guides (Isa. 56:10-11). Here the misguidance involved swearing and misplaced prioritization. We understand that they should have let their yeas stop at yea and their nays at nay (Matt. 5:37), but this they did not do; instead, their conversation invoked weighty things to better promote their agenda, maybe like this: ‘I swear, by the sanctuary itself, that I will do thus and so…’ They felt it necessary to invoke the things of God (sanctuary here, altar, and heaven in the next verses) as surety in their conversations. Then they multiplied their error by functioning as though this collateral was essentially nil; we may take it, was essentially a conversational and/or negotiating convenience, devoid of meaningful weight. This doctrine of convenience they practiced, not necessarily taught in so many words. Now the things of God must not be confused with God Himself. One cannot offend objects, be they stone, or wood, or gold, or heaven itself. However, if in the heart one has invoked the Creator of these by way of deliberate association, indeed, the force and weight of His Name, then one disdains, grieves, offends, and dishonors God—because one relegates Him to the role of callboy when His things are thus deviously and frivolously utilized for one’s personal advantage and/or convenience. We may wonder—if fear of God did not inform these religious leaders’ motives, then what did? It would seem that gold, a significant medium of exchange in their religio-commercial transactions, and a measure of their personal security and wealth did. Their financial obligations, both what they owed and were owed, they diligently attended to (it may be noted that in the first-century AD the leading priests and their families were a predatory and ruthless lot when it came to matters of money [Horsley 56, 60f, 107, 205f, 253]).  

<17> MWROI KAI TUFLOI, TIS GAR MEIZWN ESTIN, hO CUROS H hO NAOS hO hAGIASAS TON CUSON;

<MT> Fools^[xxxii] and blind, for which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that sanctifies^[xxxiii] the gold?

<YLT> Fools and blind! for which [is] greater, the gold, or the sanctuary that is sanctifying the gold?

<C> Jesus calls them fools. All senses of the word are applicable. They were impious and godless, as the previous verse makes clear, and thus they were foolish. Their god consisted of fleeting things: money, power, and prestige; and Jehovah, the Eternal, the Source, they subordinated to their transitory god; Jehovah was largely a means to an end for them. It follows that they were blind—specifically, blind guides, for it was not possible for them to guide the people in the ways of Jehovah God, whom they relegated to callboy, thereby minimizing those ways by extension. They lost sight of God and so were inept custodians, expositors, and guides of His ways. They were paper theologians. Nay, worse, they abused the flock, and led it into dangerous waters. Jesus gets at their blind and foolish sense of valuation by way of a question: ‘which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that sanctifies the gold?’ To them it was the gold, and this made them fools (as in the stupidity attending godlessness and idolatry), and blind (as in theological blindness John 8:42-43). We may wonder—what did Jesus mean—how did the sanctuary sanctify the gold therein? The edifice in fact did not. The sanctuary was simply a structure where, and this is the crux—according  to their own (Israelite-Jewish) tradition—God dwelled (Exod. 25:22, Lev. 16:2, 2 Sam. 6:2, Ps. 80:1, Eze. 9:3). Jesus is here making a point, and the sanctuary and the gold are tangential to the unfolding of His point. He is informing them that their convenient, irreverent oaths were blaspheming Jehovah God, as those oaths were in essence deviously calling on His Name. Because call on His Name is precisely what, in accord with the aforementioned tradition—and thus in their minds—they were doing. That is, in their conversation and manner (by which they informed others) they invoked the things of God (altar, heaven, sanctuary, tithes and offerings, probably whatever else normally evoked one’s sense of God) as a sort of placeholder for God Himself. In this way, they dealt deviously and frivolously with Jehovah God: On the one hand, they leaned on the force and weight of His Name in their dealings, with little or no compulsion to honor that Name in the exercise of their word. On the other hand, whenever they collateralized their conversations with the treasury, THAT they honored, and, we can surmise from the context, with serious diligence. In this, we see a sorry subordination of eternal things to fleeting things, God to Mammon. 

<18> KAI, hOS AN OMOSH EN TWi QUSIASTHRIWi OUDEN ESTIN; hOS D’ AN OMOSH EN TWi DWRWi Twi EPANW AUTOU OFEILEI

<MT> And, whoever may swear by the altar^[xxxiv] it is nothing; but whoever may swear by the gift^[xxxv] that is upon it is obligated

<YLT> And, whoever may swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever may swear by the gift that is upon it — is debtor!

<C> Jesus continues to explicate their blindness and foolishness, here by way of their confused prioritization of the altar relative to the gift upon the altar. The motif follows that of verse 16 above (see the commentary of verse 16 above where sanctuary/gold has been replaced here by altar/gift). 

<19> TUFLOI, TI GAR MEIZON, TO DWRON H TO QUSIASTHRON TO hAGIAZON TO DWRON;

<MT> Ye blind, for which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?

<YLT> Fools and blind! for which [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that is sanctifying the gift?

<C> This verse follows the motif of verse 17 above (see the commentary of verse 17 above where sanctuary/gold has been replaced here by altar/gift—by way of redundancy, Jesus is driving the point home to them). 

<20> hO OUN OMOSAS EN TWi QUSIASTHRIWi OMNUEI EN AUTWI KAI EN PASi TOIS EPANW AUTOU

<MT> Whoever therefore swears^[xxxvi] By the altar swears by it and^[xxxvii] by all things that are upon it

<YLT> He therefore who did swear by the altar, doth swear by it, and by all things on it;

<C> Here Jesus alters the formula and pattern of verses 16-17 by unfolding the question, rather than letting the question stand (undoubtedly it was left standing before for emphasis, so that here, and in the next verses, where He returns to it, the point may be better absorbed). At any rate, it would seem that what Jesus may have meant here might be understood through the author’s use of the Greek conjunction KAI (KAI EN PASi…): Oaths collateralized by the Name of God are all encompassing. As a given, at the least, they demand proper exercise of the stipulations of the oath proper. However, this is not all. Oaths that lean on the Name of God render the participants accountable to all of God’s requirements: He who swears by the altar (=God) swears by the altar and all things (=God’s requirements) upon the altar. Following this reasoning, a breach of God’s requirements is tantamount to a breach of the oath, and vice versa. This explanation may or may not be Jesus’ main point here; in the next verses, it is made clear that Jesus’ point is however concerned with illustrating God’s participation in the matter of swearing. It is true that the sanctuary, the altar, and heaven are symbolic of God, but they are more than imagery in these verses as they were in fact the constructs by which these religious leaders swore. They represent both imagery and reality. 

<21> KAI hO OMOSAS EN TWi NAWi OMNUEI EN AUTWi KAI EN TWi KATOIKOUNTi AUTON

<MT> And whoever swears by the sanctuary swears by it and by Him who is dwelling in it

<YLT> and he who did swear by the sanctuary, doth swear by it, and by Him who is dwelling in it;    

<C> Here God’s participation in the matter is explicitly put forth (cf. this commentary v. 17). This verse conveys the same sense as verse 20 just discussed. It flows naturally from it and is connected to it by way of the Greek KAI (and) that introduces the verse. 

<22> KAI hO OMOSAS EN TWi OURANWi  OMNUEI EN TWi QRONWi TOU QEOU KAI EN TWi KAQHMENWi EPANW AUTOU

<MT> And whoever swears by heaven^[xxxviii] swears by the throne^[xxxix] of God and by the Him who is sitting upon it 

<YLT> and he who did swear by the heaven, doth swear by the throne of God, and by Him who is sitting upon it.      

<C> By way of a sort of ascending (sanctuary/goldàaltar/giftàGod/heaven) pattern of Hebraic verse (parallelism)^[xl] wherein the verse sets 16-17, and 18-19 seem to be synonymously parallel, and verses 20-22 seem to reflect a constructive parallelism, Jesus makes clear to His hearers (and Matthew preserves the same) that when one swears by the things of God, one really swears by God Himself. The thrust is—when, in an oath, the Name of God is leaned upon in one’s heart, false and frivolous execution of the oath takes the Name of the Lord in vain (Exod. 20:7). Moreover, it would seem that all of God’s requirements attach to the requirements of an oath proper, such that upholding an oath is contingent on all of these plus the requirements of the oath (this may be consequential to the using of God’s Name in the matter). Note the heartbreaking let-down here though—God’s representatives are being schooled in this; and why? Because they largely could have cared less about His Name; and that is what is wrong all throughout so far.

9. Verses 23-24  Mat 23:23-24

<23>OUAI hUMIN, GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI hUPOKRITAI, hOTI APODEKATOUTE TO hHDOUSMON KAI TO ANHQON KAI TO KUMINON KAI AFHKATE TA BARUTERA TOU NOMOU, THN KRISIN KAI TO ELEOS KAI THN PISTIN; TAUTA DE EDEI POIHSAI KAKEINA MH AFIENAI

<MT> Woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, because you tithe^[xli] mint^[xlii] and anise^[xliii] and cumin^[xliv] and forsake the heavy things of the Law,^[xlv] justice^[xlvi] and mercy^[xlvii] and fidelity;^[xlviii] but these ye ought to do and those not to forsake 

<YLT> `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye give tithe of the mint, and the dill, and the cumin, and did neglect the weightier things of the Law — the judgment, and the kindness, and the faith; these it behoved [you] to do, and those not to neglect. 

<C> Jesus’ stance against their hypocrisy and falsehood continues here. It has been at the heart of His woeful pronouncement from the beginning (as was their pride, which undergirds this pretense). At first, He condemned them for the pretense inherent in their flamboyant worship (vv. 5-7, 14); then their fake, self-serving oaths and attendant disdain for the Name of God (vv. 16-22); now their diligence in the tithe which they held fast to the letter of the Law, but to the neglect of the spirit of the Law. He does not upbraid them for the tithing proper—that they should have done; it is that they translated their diligence in tithing (in attending to the letter of the Law) into an excuse to be predatory and ruthless, at worst, and careless, at least. They left undone the Law’s precepts (which Jesus outlined to them not long prior to this [Deut. 6:5+Lev. 19:18=Matt. 22:36-40]) by way of ingenious, self-righteous pretexts. 

<24> ODHGOI TUFLOI, hOI DIULIZONTES TON KWNWPA THN DE KAMHLON KATAPINONTES

<MT>  Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but swallow a camel 

<YLT> ‘Blind guides! who are straining out the gnat, and the camel are swallowing. 

<C> Jesus sets forth their error plainly here. First, some background. The Rabbis believed that only God was able to decree a precept, but they, in a subordinate role, felt it incumbent upon themselves to elaborate, interpret, and protect the same (Daube 97). By doing this, they generated a mass of rules that sought to prevent violation of the precepts proper in any given situation of life (they built a legal fence around the precepts, which, being difficult [detailed] to surmount, was supposed to protect one from violating the precepts proper). In Rabbinism, any binding, detailed rule, or halakha (=”the walking”) was supposed to rest on an explicit precept; that is, a command, guideline, judgment, and/or statute from Scripture. Rabbinic application of special forms of hermeneutics, themselves largely deductive reasoning based upon a closed body of precepts—the Pentateuch—was utilized to arrive at the rules proper. It would seem that their deduction, their working out of the precepts of God to arrive at the sundry detailed rules intended to protect one from violating those very precepts in any given situation of life, caused their blindness, and thus their error. In everyday terms, they “lost sight of the forest (first-principles/precepts) for the trees (detailed rules).”

10. Verses 25-28  Mat 23:25-28

<25>OUAI hUMIN, GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI hUPOKRITAI, OTI KAQARIZETE TO EXWQEN TOU POTHRIOU KAI THS PAROYSIDOS, ESWQEN DE GEMOUSIN EX hARPAGHS KAI AKRASIAS.

<MT> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, because ye cleanse^[xlix] the outside of the cup and the dish, but within they are full of rapine^[l] and intemperance^[li] 

<YLT> `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye make clean the outside of the cup and the plate, and within they are full of rapine and incontinence 

<C> The Jews misinterpreted the Scriptures, taking them literally to the extreme—instead of spiritually and/or practically (cf. Epistle of Barnabas). By way of this extreme literalism they failed to apprehend the gist of the Scriptures. This ignorance, then, mixed with a large dose of pride, inevitably led to double standards, errant theology, and godlessness. William Barclay, commenting on their inability to hear the word of God says this of them: “They were in the terrible position of men who were godlessly serving God” (Barclay 31). At any rate, Jesus again has their hypocrisy in the fore here. Nowhere is their literal understanding of the Scriptures more evident than in their laws of “clean and unclean;” much of Pharisaic Judaism was centered in these laws. Therefore, when Jesus condemns them here, He is literally condemning their theology. Moreover, it is no coincidence that Jesus teaches them here by way of metaphor, precisely the method (non-literalism) they were avoiding in their exegesis of the Scriptures. Metaphorically then, we may understand the verse so: ‘you [studiously] cleanse (=the ritual) the outside (=physical, this worldly) of your utensils (=habitus, your physical body), but within (=spiritual, otherworldly) they (disposition, your spiritual body) are full of rapine and intemperance.’ As said above, these religious leaders were a ruthless and predatory lot; notwithstanding, none could match their dedication to the letter of the Law. In this, we see the quintessence of religious hypocrisy—the godless serving God. 

<26> FARISAIE TUFLE, KAQARISON PRWTON TO ENTOS TOU POTHRIOU hINA GENHTAI KAI TO EKTOS AUTOU KAQARON

<MT> Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup so that also the outside of it may become clean 

<YLT> `Blind Pharisee! cleanse first the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside of them also may become clean. 

<C> Moral standard determines behavior, but behavior does not determine moral standard; behavior simply reflects moral standard. The Pharisees confused this maxim. What Jesus is saying to them here is that doing the things (behavior) which God requires of them and which please God, thus rendering them “clean” in His sight, will happen naturally when their spiritual heart, not their physical one, is of the proper character; will happen naturally when their moral standard conforms to the spirit of the Law. 

<27> OUAI hUMIN, GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI hUPOKRITAI, OTI PARMOIAZETE TAFOIS KEKONIAMENOIS, hOITINES EXOQEN MEN FAINONTAI hWRAIOI, ESOQEN DE GEMOUSIN OSTEWN NEKRWN KAI PASHS AKAQARSIAS

<MT> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, because ye are like whitewashed^[lii] sepulchers which outwardly indeed appear beautiful, but within are full of bones of dead men and of all uncleanness 

<YLT> Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye are like to whitewashed sepulchres, which outwardly indeed do appear beautiful, and within are full of bones of dead men, and of all uncleanness; 

<C> To a Pharisee, there simply could be no sorer verdict pronounced against him than this one. Contact with a human bone, a corpse, or with anything exposed to a corpse ( esp. a grave), was a source of uncleanness in Pharisaic Judaism (Num. 19:16). Jesus’ words informs them that they were unclean times three, so to speak. His pronouncement paints a portrait of their spiritual status quo: hypocritical, pretentious, and godless. Here is true defilement before God. The language that Jesus uses to describe their inner person they understood perfectly; it was spiritual condemnation befitting the worst of sinners. When the Spirit of God tried to talk to them through His holy men and prophets they did not “hear” those words, thus God speaks to them here in their own language, in a way that they could not help but “hear.” One can almost feel the rage attending their hurt pride come off the page. How dare this mean, unlearned Nazarene talk to us (theological heavyweights) like that! We occupy Moses’ seat after all, who does this plebeian think he is? No doubt Jesus condemned not only them here but, as the leaders and teachers of Pharisaic Judaism, their entire theological system by association. If they were irresolute in their plot to kill our Lord before this encounter, we can be sure that they were resolute afterward. 

<28> hOUTWS KAI UMEIS EXOQEN MEN FAINESQE TOIS ANQRWPOIS DIKAIOI, ESWQEN DE ESTE MESTOI hHOPKRISEWS KAI ANOMIAS

<MT> In this manner^[liii] also ye outwardly indeed appear righteous to men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness 

<YLT> so also ye outwardly indeed do appear to men righteous, and within ye are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 

<C> Like the whitewashed sepulchers that look beautiful on the outside but are full of decay and death on the inside, here they similarly look righteous outwardly by way of their pretentiousness, but are in fact inwardly full of spiritual decay and deadness. If we grant the cumulative force of the first KAI (OUTWS KAI…), the implication may be that the scribes and Pharisees cultivated a program of hypocrisy and pomp; undoubtedly for the purpose of disguising their true aim, which was the maintenance of a lifestyle ultimately counter to God’s Law. This would be consistent with the theme of our passage to this point. The New Living Translation catches the sense: “You try to look like upright people outwardly, but inside your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness” (New Living Translation). It is probably true that in this pretense they sought to deceive not only the common people, but themselves as well. The former for reason of the tithe (in Jesus’ day, the teachers and the priests were dependent on the tithes in the temple treasury for their pay, tithes which came from the common people “Fee: Teachers”), the latter for the sake of conscience and professional, that is, theological, self-justification.  

11. Verses 29-32  Mat 23:29-32

<29> OUAI hUMIN, GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI hUPOKRITAI, OTI OIKODOMEITE TOUS TAFOUS TWN PROFHTWN KAI KOSMEITE TA MNHMEIA TWN DIKAIWN

<MT> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, because ye build^[liv],[lv] the tombs of the prophets and decorate the sepulchers of the righteous ^[lvi] 

<YLT> `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the tombs of the righteous, 

<C> In connection with the next few verses, this probably signifies that they rebuilt those tombs and decorated them; that they honored these people in this way. At the same time, however, they abused and rejected the prophets and righteous folk in their midst at present. 

<30> KAI LEGETE: EI HMEQA EN TAIS hHMERIAS TWN PATERWN hHMWN, OUK AN HMEQA AUTWN KOINWNOI EN TWi hAIMATi TWN PROFHTWN

<MT> And say: if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their partners in the blood of the prophets^[lvii]  

<YLT> and 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. 

<C> Their claim that they would never have murdered the old prophets cannot be proven; notwithstanding, while they made this claim, they were at the same time preparing to murder our Lord Jesus, whom some of them, at least, believed was a man of God (John 3:1-2). It would seem that the spirit of their fathers persisted in them. See how later our Lord’s blood evokes a similar stance of self-righteous innocence in them: “saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us’” (Acts 5:28). 

<31> hWSTE MARTUREITE EAUTOIS OTI hUIOI ESTE TWN FONEUSANTWN TOUS PROFHTAS

<MT> So that ye testify to yourselves that ye are sons of the murderers of the prophets 

<YLT> So that ye testify to yourselves, that ye are sons of them who did murder the prophets; 

<C> Jesus knew that their heart was intent on killing Him, just as some of their fathers killed His prophets of old. Moreover, just as those old prophets had convicted of Jehovah’s truth and pronounced judgment, being therefore persecuted or outright killed, so also He had convicted of truth and pronounced judgment on this generation, and they were going to kill Him for it. By way of metaphor, Jesus turns the table of their self-proclaimed innocence around and sobers them in relation to their own words. This was not just enterprising logic—it was prophesy, as became evident not too long after this, not just through Jesus’ own death, but also through the persecution of the Christian Church at the hands of the Jews directly, or once removed by way of influence. In this regard, the Sanhedrin’s mob-killing of Stephen (Acts 7:51-60) is a window to the impending difficulties that Jewish Christianity would soon face as it propounded Jesus’ doctrine—the inclusive, wide-open nature of the Kingdom of God—and so came into direct conflict with the exclusive, parochial doctrine of mainstream Judaism. “Despite his training under the moderate Gamaliel, Saul must have viewed Stephen’s preaching on the law and temple as dangerous and blasphemous heresy. The earliest opposition to the faith had come from the Sadducees, who viewed the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah and Savior as a threat to stability and to their authority. The Pharisees, as illustrated by Gamaliel’s attitude, probably viewed the movement as less threatening. There had been no frontal assault on the Law, the Traditions, and the Temple. But many Pharisees must have mistakenly viewed Stephen’s message as such an attack. Because of their new perception of the believers, Saul and other Pharisees began to make common cause with the Sadducees against the Christian community” (Niswonger 196). 

<32> KAI hMEIS PLHRWSATE TO METRON TWN PATERWN hUMWN  

<MT> And ye fill^[lviii] up the measure^[lix] of your fathers 

<YLT> and ye — ye fill up the measure of your fathers. 

<C> As said in the note, PLHRWSATE conveys the Aorist tense (emphasis on the punctiliar [=a point in time]) and the imperative mood. Jesus seems to be saying: ‘Ye, in the spirit of your fathers, go ahead; in the course of time, you will finish what they started.’ That is, as they killed Jesus’ prophets before, so too they will kill Jesus Himself, and His saints in the course of time. The common thread in this is that their (the generations’) actions would indicate a compulsion to defend their theological perspective (and otherwise), at all costs. Moreover, more speculatively, it may suggest that there is a measure, a predefined limit, to spiritual rebellion, or at least some manner of a “running tally,” so to speak; these notions may be supported by Scripture (Gen. 15:16, Num. 32:14, Zech. 5:5-11). 

12. Verse33  Mat 23:33

  <33> OFEIS, GENNHMATA EXIDNWN. PWS FUGHTE APO THS KRISEWS THS GEENNHS;

<MT> Serpents,^[lx] offspring of vipers.^[lxi] How may ye flee from the judgment of hell?^[lxii] 

<YLT> `Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna? 

<C> It is significant that Jesus compares them to serpents, specifically vipers, because serpents are cold-blooded creatures that devour and digest heir prey while that prey is still alive, and the viper bears venom injecting fangs. Consider first serpents in general. They are cunning and fearless predators; they are ruthless and enterprising creatures. Such was the case with some of these religious leaders and Jewish nobility. Ever since the return from the Babylonian captivity, when the old Jerusalem priesthood was allowed to reestablish itself at the head of Judean society, they and their families, like the serpents here discussed, ruthlessly and viciously preyed on the people of the land. They, together with other Judean aristocrats, “ate them alive,” so to speak, through obligatory temple taxes, and usury. The people were oft in a double or triple tax situation, if one considers suzerain tribute, temple tax, and tithes to Jehovah (the latter being ten percent of one’s produce). The weight of this, which likely exceeded forty-percent of what one produced in the time of Jesus (Horsley 56), forced many to mortgage and/or re-mortgage home and property, or ultimately sell their land, or outright lose it to the holders of the loans, who were these wealthy priestly aristocrats and Judean nobles at large. The Persian period set a grievous precedent here no doubt in that some of the people sold their children into slavery to pay their debts (Neh. 5:1-5). Let us consider now the comparison of them to the species viper. It is particularly telling that vipers have a pair of venom injecting fangs in their mouth by which they paralyze and kill their prey. It is one thing—bad as it is—to squeeze the physical life out one’s fellow and “swallow him whole,” as just related, but it is quite another to strike at his soul and influence him to be twofold a son of hell —to strike him with hypocrisy and false doctrine and so paralyze his senses toward God such that one ultimately swallows him up by way of that false doctrine, killing his body (carnal sensibilities) and his soul. This is devilish in the extreme, and smacks of that old serpent, the devil. It would follow that these serpents, like that old serpent, will not escape the judgment of hell (Rev. 20:10-15). Note again the heartbreaking let-down—Jehovah God’s “shepherds” were doing this. 

13 Verses 34-36  Mat 23:34-36

<34> DIA TOUTO IDOU EGW APOSTELLW PROS hUMAS PROFHTAS KAI SOFOUS KAI GRAMMATEIS; EX AUTWN APOKTENEITE KAI STAURWSETE KAI EX AUTWN MASTIGWSETE EN TAIS SUNAGWGAIS hUMWN KAI DIWXETE APO POLEWS EIS POLIN 

<MT>Because of this, behold, I send to you prophets^[lxiii] and wise^[lxiv] men and scribes; of them you will kill and crucify and of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city^[lxv] 

<YLT> `Because of this, lo, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and of them ye will kill and crucify, and of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will pursue from city to city; 

<C> We should first note Jesus’ claim to divinity: “I send to you…”  It is Jesus who commissions, enlightens, reveals, and sends; Jesus is the Head (Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18) of the Church. All of the ministerial offices suggested here bespeak of the holder’s divine appointment. It is a sorry day indeed, when God must (=the “because of this…”)  send His messengers to religious folk, even more so, to religious leaders, in effort to pry them loose from false doctrine and misrepresentation. It is sorrier still when those representatives are received thence with rods, whips, and crosses; at the least, this validates the need for their mission; in this mission is manifested much grace to all concerned. Now these serpents are here told, before the fact, that they would strangle and strike at God’s representatives. Stephen, like a wise man, a brilliant expositor of the Scriptures (Acts 7:2-53), they murdered at the outset of the Christian Mission. Paul was a prophet, specifically appointed to the ministry by Jesus Himself (notwithstanding, Paul was a vicious persecutor of the Church initially-Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-6). They persecuted Paul from synagogue to synagogue throughout all of Asia Minor until finally, and ultimately, they influenced his death at the hands of Rome. Similarly, they influenced Simeon, the son of Cleophas’ death, which came by way of Roman crucifixion (Simeon was the second bishop of the Church at Jerusalem; Cruse 97). 

<35> hOPWS ELQH EF hUMAS PAN hAIMA DIKAION EKCUNNOMENON EPI THS GHS APO TOU hAIMATOS ABEL TOU DIKAIOU EWS TOU hAIMATOS ZACARIOU hUIOU BARACIOU, hON  EFONEUSATE METAXU TOU NAOU KAI TOU QUSIASTHRIOU

<MT> that upon ye^[lxvi] may come all righteous^[lxvii] blood being shed upon the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zacharias^[lxviii] son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar 

<YLT> that on you may come all the righteous blood being poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous, unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar: 

<C>There is a connection made here between the ministers of Jesus, and righteousness: Jesus’ contemporary ministers, that is, true followers and servants, like those before them, have coursing in their veins righteous blood, lifeblood (Lev. 17:11-14, Rom. 8:10). Moreover, they are in solidarity with those saints that loved and served God before them, by way of their common righteousness. These are all alike  righteous before God by way of the shed righteous blood of Jesus, which reaches back and covers His ministers and saints of old (Heb. 9:1ff). Jesus’ shed blood signifies not only life, however, but also death. In this case, the vicarious death of a believer/covenanter to their willful ways, thence activating a new, eternal covenant between God and that person, as in the activation of human wills upon the death of one therein engaged. Without doubt, such spiritual death consists in no small way of physical suffering at the hands of the unrighteous or otherwise, and even in physical death. Either way, from our verse it would seem that those who shed this righteous blood incur the guilt of shedding all the righteous blood shed since the creation. This would follow, since no human blood (= life) is in itself righteous save its sublimation unto Christ’s blood (=life). Thus to shed righteous blood is to shed Christ’s righteous blood; His blood is the common denominator of all righteous blood and therefore the link between righteous victims.

Some other points may be appropriate. Not one drop of righteous blood shed for the cause of the Kingdom of God is forgotten (Rev. 6:9-11). Moreover, the Divine Justice is an active agent; Divine Justice may not be imminently and/or physically evident, as was the case though for these Jews in AD 70 and again in AD 135, but it is sure (the Divine Justice is just that—divine—and does not therefore necessarily follow human sensibilities in the matter of “justice” Matt. 20:1-16). 

<36> AMHN LEGW hUMIN, hHXEI TAUTA PANTA EPI THN GENEAN TAUTHN

<MT> Verily I say to ye, all these things shall come^[lxix] upon this generation^[lxx] 

<YLT> verily I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. 

<C> One thing is sure: the Jews were devastated in AD 70. It is very likely that some of these religious leaders experienced that devastation. Skeptics argue that this is not definitely fulfilled prophecy in that the date of the writing of the Marcan (Ur?) Gospel is indeterminate owing to conflicting testimony as to that date by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, and some internal questions concerning Mark 13:14, thus blurring the timeline of the utterance. It is, nevertheless, the opinion of most scholars that Mark wrote his Gospel AD 65-70, with the rest convicted of a date on either side of this range (Guthrie 84-9). 

14. Verses 37-38  Mat 23:37-38

<37> IEROUSALHM IEROUSALHM, hH APOKTEINOUSA TOUS PROFHTAS KAI LIQOBOLOUSA TOUS APESTALUMENOUS PROS AUTHN, POSAKIS HQELHSA EPISUNAGAGEIN TA TEKNA SOU, ON TROPON ORNIS EPISUNAGEI TA NOSSIA AUTHS UPO TAS PTERUGAS, KAI OUK HQELHSATE

<MT> Jerusalem^[lxxi] Jerusalem, that is killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her, how often I desired to gather together your children, like a hen gathers her brood under the wings, and ye desired not 

<YLT> `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will. 

<C> This verse portrays a tragic irony. Jerusalem means “teaching of peace,” “set ye double peace,” but the sad lesson plan across the ages we understand to be one of bloodshed and violence. What is more, bloodshed and violence directed against God’s holy prophets, wise men, and servants, through whom Jesus (cf. v. 34) had labored to gather the Jews together under His wings. The words “Jerusalem,” “killing,” and “stoning” are in the vocative case, while “sent” is in the imperfective aspect which implies continuing or repeated action. The connection is clear: Jerusalem, here meant to signify religious leaders and the Judean aristocracy, is addressed by the title that best fits it, namely, killer; incessant killer of God’s agents, who heralded the truth (John 8:44-45) that underlies peace (spiritual and otherwise). They were “Jerusalem,” but they were killing those whose mission was all about peace. The irony is striking. Jesus labored like a mother hen. That is, He did not send forth proud peacocks, or opportunistic vultures, or screeching crows, but rather mother hens, ever concerned for their brood (Jer. 25:4). Neither was He like any of the former in His own ministry to the Jews (Matt. 11:28-30, 2 Cor. 8:9, Matt. 13:34). Beyond the tender image of a mother hen caring for her brood beneath her wings, we may understand this image theologically as Jesus’ concern to gather them together under the wings of the Divine Presence, the Shekinah; Jesus’ words may have been understood so by the Jews. Rabbinic Judaism conveyed the notion of God’s presence by way of the word “overshadow,” and its attendant symbolism: booth, cloud, cover, roof, shade, tabernacle, a wing spread, and so on. This notion may be seen to surface in the Lukan narrative of the annunciation (PNEUMA HAGION EPELEUSETAI EPI SE KAI DUNAMIS hUPSISTOU >>EPISKIASEI << SOI—part of Luke 1:35) and its likely parallel in the Old Testament (Ruth 3:9 where “near kinsman” infers “redeemer” Daube 27-8). These Jews would have none of Jesus, however. They rejected, persecuted, and effected His death, treating Him like they treated His ministers of old. 

<38> IDOU AFIETAI hUMIN O OIKOS hUMWN ERHMOS

<MT> Behold your house^[lxxii] is left^[lxxiii] to you desolate^[lxxiv] 

<YLT> Lo, left desolate to you is your house; 

<C> AFIETAI (is left) is present passive indicative, a statement of fact that is presently in force. There are various possibilities, but if we understand “house” to signify temple and nation, which would follow from the previous verse’s address to religious leaders and the Judean aristocracy, and “desolate” as bereft, perhaps what is here meant is that temple and nation is left wanting. That temple and nation is left wanting for God’s counsels and oracles, which they had disdained and rejected in lieu of their own traditions. Thus Judaism, left to its own devices, continued to preserve and refine its Tradition (e.g., the Mishnah c. AD 90-220). This line of reasoning presumes the end of that work to be a desolation—a desert, wilderness. Alternatively, the verse may look ahead to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The possibility exists no doubt that “desolate” utilized here and “Abomination of Desolation” utilized in other places (Mark 13:14, Matt. 24:15, Luke 21:20) may refer to that destruction. In the latter possibility we may see Matthew’s propensity to point out fulfilled Scripture (Dan. 11:31).^[lxxv]  

15. Verse 39  Mat 23:39

<39> LEGW GAR HUMIN OU MH ME IDHTE AP’ ARTI EWS AN EIPHTE EULOGHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU

<MT> For I say to you ye may not see me again until ye say blessed is he who is coming in the name of the Lord 

<YLT> for I say to you, ye may not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.’ 

<C> IDHTE—to see, see with the eyes, any of the senses—second aorist active subjunctive second person plural—is important here. The verb is cast in the subjunctive; the issue is up in the air, so to speak. “Ye may not see me again until…” the Jews of Jesus’ day (as also many today, though many have come to faith in Him) did/do not see Him for who He is, namely, they did not see Him as God incarnate. As concerns some present day Jews, it seems that their seeing Jesus (God) again (as in the days when the Shekinah Glory was in their midst) is entirely up to them—on that day when they see Jesus as God incarnate, they will easily (in the spirit of the crowds just prior Matt. 21:9) say of Him: blessed is he who is coming [to us] in the name of the Lord [the Father]. When they see Him so, and believe it in their hearts, His presence with them is sure—seeing Jesus is contingent on believing in His deity. By extension the same holds true for persons at large who hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus—for to reject Him in spite of the abundant testimony about Him inherent in that Gospel bespeaks of the same blindness that kept Him at arm’s length from the Jews of this passage, and therefore the unbeliever of this day. But the happy conclusion is that to embrace Him as God, as Lord and Savior, is to be overshadowed by His tender lovingkindness for the rest of eternity.

Praised be your Name great savior God. Amen.