Chapter Twenty-Three

1–36. A speech of reproach against the scribes and Pharisees. – 36–39. A prediction about the fate of Jerusalem.

Matthew 23:1. Then Jesus began to speak to the crowds and to His disciples (Compare Mark 12:38; Luke 20:45.) One may suppose and even say with confidence that the reproving speech of the Savior against the scribes and Pharisees was delivered immediately after the question about the Christ proposed by Him (Matt 22:42). All three evangelists connect it with this question. In Matthew the reproofs of Christ are set forth more fully than in other synoptists, while in the latter certain parts of the speech are set forth in a different connection, as spoken at other times. This causes some to consider the entire chapter 23 of Matthew an “artificial composition” of the evangelist himself, who united here speeches pronounced by Christ at different times, similar to the Sermon on the Mount. It is hard to say how it actually was. Nothing prevents one from thinking that Christ sometimes repeated His speeches. The view of Christ’s speech as an “artificial composition” does not at all prevent even the most judicious even negative critics from fully recognizing Christ’s words as authentic, actually coming from the lips of the Messiah Himself. This is evident already from the fact that, despite all its simplicity and artlessness, His speech in its content and thoughts is higher not only than the concepts of that time, but also than any time. If not theoretical, then at least practical understanding of it is not always characteristic even of Christians living in the present time. Even now one can hear that the hypocrisy condemned in it is sometimes not only not superfluous, but even necessary. For example, if a person by his inner content represents nothing other than a “whitewashed tomb,” then at least externally he should not appear as such from the mere fear of causing offense to others. Hence the numerous and varied forgeries that allow people to appear pious and religious when they are devoid of all piety and religiousness, beginning with Catholic and Jesuit “pious practices” and formalities and ending with the antics of a petty, base, vulgar, superstitious, and ignorant hypocrite who constantly places all sorts of external ceremonial and religious decorum above the inner spiritual qualities of man, above judgment, mercy, and faith (Matt 23:23). But let us return to the question of authenticity. “The entire speech,” says Meyer, “is distinguished by such liveliness and originality that the authenticity of its content in the essential, even if something was added to it from what was said at another time, is hardly open to doubt.” Some of the more recent commentators express themselves even more decisively than Meyer, asserting that “this speech should be considered a first-rate historical source. It presents vividly and concisely not only the essence of Phariseeism, but it also casts clear light on the Person of Jesus Christ Himself. Because, by expressing strong reproofs against His opponents, He here reveals His own Person, the chief characteristic of which was love of truth” (Weiss). Commentators usually do not pay attention to the circumstance that Jesus Christ made hypocrisy the subject of His reproving speech in the very last days of His earthly ministry, so clearly expressed in such writings as the Talmud, not at all asking themselves why it was precisely so and why the Messiah did not end His preaching with a reproving of some other vices peculiar to people, for example, “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, slanders” and so forth (Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21-22). If the Messiah who came into the world spoke so threateningly about hypocrisy in His last reproving speech, then this means that hypocrisy is one of the chief vices of mankind and the source of all other iniquity. It is not difficult to verify this in fact. On numerous examples we see that wherever false, outward piety is established, all possible evil is always to be expected. And this is understandable. In committing ordinary crimes, a man deceives people; in religious hypocrisy he strives to deceive not only people but God Himself with his outward and false piety, and this alone testifies to the cessation of all religious life, the loss of all good spiritual qualities and all good feeling. No vice leads to such colossal absurdities, perversities, and such immorality as hypocrisy. We do not find that in Christ’s speech we need to distinguish separate moments when He addressed either only the crowds, or only the disciples, or the scribes and Pharisees themselves. The similar testimonies of Matthew and Luke (Matt 23:1; Luke 20:45) indicate that Christ spoke only to the crowds and disciples (to the crowds and to the disciples—Matthew; having heard this, all the people said to the disciples—Luke), but not to the scribes and Pharisees. This in no way prevented Him from speaking almost exclusively about them. All preachers do this, condemning the vices of completely absent persons for the instruction of their immediate listeners. But with such a view, the division of the entire reproving speech into three parts, in the first of which it is spoken of the scribes and Pharisees in their opposition to Christ’s disciples (verses 1–12), in the second the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes is condemned (verses 13–36), and the last part constitutes the conclusion (verses 37–39), can be accepted. One cannot think that verses 13–33 were spoken in the absence of the Pharisees or that the entire speech was spoken after the enemies left (omitting the adversaries—Bengel). Chrysostom understands the matter more correctly, saying that the speech was pronounced not after the enemies left, but when the Savior “completed His conversation with the Pharisees, when He closed their mouths, when He brought them to the point that they no longer dared to test Him, when He showed that they suffer from an incurable malady.” The omissions in Luke’s account of the speech are explained by the fact that he omitted much that was of no interest to his readers—Christians from among the Gentiles (Weiss). Matt 23:4, Matt 23:25-31, Matt 23:34-36 correspond to Luke 11:37-52, a speech delivered at the supper in the house of Simon the Pharisee. “The historical connection of Luke 13:34-35; Matt 23:37-39 is less clear. Here Matthew may have given a historically accurate account, while Luke connects these statements with the word pronounced over Jerusalem during a journey.”

Matthew 23:2. “And He said: the scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses; The word “seat” or “chair” was sometimes used as a sign of authority and power. The speech of the Savior here is obviously figurative. Moses gave the written law. He was the Hebrew lawgiver. Both the written law itself and the lawgiver enjoyed then unquestionable authority. But alongside the Bible, the scribes and Pharisees developed an oral law, oral tradition, which they valued no less than the law given by God through Moses. In this sense the Savior says that they sat on the seat or chair of Moses. This means that they assumed the authority that Moses possessed. Per cathedram they understand the teaching of the law—Jerome. “People who said that their duty consisted in the interpretation of the law of Moses, who boasted of this or even superiority over the law,—they sit on the seat of Moses” (Origen). It was said that this is a Semitic turn of speech or that the “editor” writes here from his own point of view, looking back to the period when the scribes and Pharisees came to power.

Matthew 23:3. “Therefore observe and do everything they tell you to observe; but do not follow their works, for they say and do not: Ancient commentators explained this verse by the fact that Christ did not wish even here to reject the law given by God through Moses (compare Matt 5:17) and, insofar as the scribes and Pharisees were its interpreters, so far they should be heeded, but their works should not be imitated. In such a spirit reason Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus and others. Origen, among other things, applies the Savior’s saying also to persons serving in the Christian Church, where many possess the ability to teach and its reasonable exposition, but do not wish to act according to what they teach: their teaching should be heeded, but their deeds should not be imitated. The Pharisees and scribes, according to John Chrysostom, offered “not their own commandments, but God’s, which God revealed in the law through Moses. And notice how much respect He shows to Moses, again proving the agreement of His teaching with the Old Testament, when He even considers the scribes themselves worthy of respect out of respect for Moses.” But the purpose of the Savior’s saying was, according to Chrysostom, not only this. “Because He wished to reproach the Pharisees, so that the unwise would not think that He Himself seeks the power belonging to them, or that He does this from hatred, first of all He removes such suspicion and, having done this, then proceeds to rebuke.” According to Theophylact, the Savior says: “accept the words of teachers as the words of Moses, or rather—of God Himself.” The sense of the verse is obscure, the text is probably corrupted.

Matthew 23:4. “For 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; (Compare Luke 11:46—in a different connection.) “They bind burdens”—an expression borrowed from ordinary life, when various objects (for example, firewood, brushwood) are bound together and carried on the shoulders. The load imposed on people by the Pharisees is heavy. People carry it reluctantly, because it is something forcibly imposed. The word dysbastakta (“difficult to bear”), placed in the Russian and Slavonic translations, is not found in the best codices, and it is rightly omitted by the best editors of the Greek New Testament. It is borrowed from Luke (Luke 11:46), but there it is used instead of the word “heavy” almost as its synonym. Jerome remarks that shoulders, fingers, burdens, bundles should be understood in a spiritual sense. Of course, so, because the entire speech of Christ is obviously figurative. The expression “move them with one finger” is considered Aramaic. These words of Christ should be understood in the sense that the general vice of all hypocrites and pharisees is a hidden spiritual unwillingness toward their own teachings. They do everything only for appearance, but when no one sees them, they deviate from the fulfillment of those teachings which they preach. Hypocrites preach, for example, fasting, self-restraint, and threaten people with the torments of hell for the violation of commandments, but they themselves lead not only an intemperate, but even a loose and dissolute life.

Matthew 23:5. “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments; A repetition of the thoughts expressed in Matt 6:1 with the change of only the example. Nothing is done with spiritual disposition; on the contrary, “all” is for show, for the sake of acquiring favor, distinction, gaining reputation and glory, especially in the eyes of the ignorant and simple people, and ultimately—for gain and religious exploitation. “Phylacteries,” in Greek “phylakteria,” in the Old Testament—“totafot,” among the rabbis—“tefillin,” from “tefila”—prayer, are used by Jews to the present time on the basis of Exod 13:9; Deut 6:8. Every Jewish man must wear two phylacteries, one on the forehead, another on the left arm, tying them with straps during the morning prayer (except on the Sabbath and festival days). They are made of parchment in the form of a small box, in which is placed a small scroll with passages from Exod 13:1-16; Deut 6:4-9. The phylactery worn on the forehead had the distinction that the box was divided into four parts, into which were placed four small scrolls with the aforementioned prayers. As usually happens, zealots made their phylacteries larger than others in order to manifest their supposed piety here too. “Phylactery” is an imprecise translation into Greek of the Hebrew “tefillin,” prayers. Zigabenus derives “phylactery” from phylassein (to guard) and resthai (to save from danger, to guard, to preserve, to defend). Phylakterion means, properly, a guard post, fortification, tower, in a figurative sense—guard, amulet. The word “enlarge” perhaps refers to the straps by which the phylacteries were tied, but perhaps also to the cases themselves or boxes, as Zahn thinks. To the same category belonged the tassels on the “tallit,” a special white garment that looks like an oblong four-cornered cloth with a round slit in the middle for the head. The tassels were made of white and blue threads, in Hebrew called “tzitzit,” and in Greek—kraspeda. The tallit with tassels is worn by Jews even now (only by men, as well as the phylacteries) in fulfillment of Num 15:37 ff.; Deut 22:12. “Thus the Pharisees did,” says Theophylact, “because this was prescribed in the law. And it was prescribed so that, seeing this, Jews would not depart from God’s commandments. But God wanted not such a literal fulfillment, no, to have phylacteries meant to fulfill the commandments of God.” “Because Jews often forgot God’s benefactions,” says saint John Chrysostom, “God commanded them to write the miracles of God on special small pieces and bind these small pieces to their hands... God commanded them, as little children, to do the same as many do to avoid forgetfulness, binding a thread or string around a finger.” In recepta the Greek gar is omitted, which is proven very easily. The second half of the verse serves as one of the proofs of the hypocrisy and vanity of the Pharisees, who desired to be seen by people. This was a peculiar form of religious publicity, testifying to the acquisition and assimilation of religious righteousness and piety.

Matthew 23:6. “Also they love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues; (Compare Mark 12:38-39; Luke 20:46.) Here something so common is depicted that the Savior’s words are fully understandable. The expressions in Mark and Luke are almost literally the same. Matthew changes the order, speaking first of “feasts” and then of “synagogues.”

Matthew 23:7. “And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. The last word “teacher” should be read once, not twice. The rabbis displayed pretensions to higher dignity. They distinguished themselves by their clothing, wore long garments (stolai), and according to Epiphanius (Adversus haereses, 15), special ampekhonas (cloaks) and dalmatikes (Dalmatian garments). The word “rabbi” means “my lord,” from “rab” or “rav”—highest, greatest, lord in opposition to slaves, teacher in opposition to disciples.

Matthew 23:8. “But you are not to be called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren. “You are not to be called”—do not call yourselves, and do not accept such a designation from others. The word “rabbi” is here changed in the second instance to “teacher.” In Russian and Slavonic this is not expressed, rabbi and didaskalos are translated the same: “teacher.” But in the Vulgate it is exact: you are not to be called rabbi; for you have one teacher. Thus, Christ does not say: “you are not to be called rabbis; we have one rabbi,” but, speaking of Himself, He replaces “rabbi” with “teacher.” The word “rabbi” began to be associated with “hated associations,” began to denote people inclined “to wordiness, self-complacency and dogmatism,” so the Savior leaves the designation with some dissatisfaction and Himself calls Himself more humbly a teacher (didaskalos). The expression “your teacher” indicates that Christ is speaking here of Himself. In Russian, Slavonic, and generally in recepta (but not in the Vulgate) after “one is your teacher” is further added “Christ.” The latter is proven very weakly and therefore is usually omitted, although this insertion points to what the ancients understood by the expression “your teacher.” The addition was made after the model of verse 10. Alford thinks that “your teacher” is understood not Christ but the Holy Spirit on the basis of John 14:26; Jer 31:33-34; Ezek 36:26-27. To this one can say that the Savior called a teacher also Himself (Matt 26:18; John 13:13-14 and others). The addition Christos, made according to the sense, is properly correct. This is proven also by the fact that the further words “all you are brethren” can be explained better by the relation of the disciples to Christ than to the Holy Spirit. In any case, if the Savior were speaking here of the Holy Spirit, then here would be found a silence that would make His speech completely incomprehensible to the disciples. The expression “all you are brethren” seems better to fit the end of verse 9: “one is your Father, which is in heaven”; all you are brethren.” But for such a transposition, found only in one uncial codex U (9th or 10th century) and more than thirty cursive ones, there are not sufficient grounds. The change of “your teacher” to kathegetes, as in verse 10, found in many manuscripts, is not uniquely proven. In examining this verse, many commentators pose the question: if Christ forbade the disciples to be called teachers (rabbis), is it then correct to strive to obtain so-called academic degrees of doctor, master, and the like? Jerome asked why, contrary to this commandment, the apostle Paul called himself “a teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11; quotations in Jerome 2 Cor 5; Col 1, apparently incorrect). Or how is it that in popular speech, especially in Palestinian and Egyptian monasteries, people mutually call themselves fathers? This is answered by Jerome, is resolved thus: it is one thing to be a father or teacher by nature and another by “condescension” (indulgentia). If we call a man a father, we show him honor corresponding to his age, but do not consider him the author of our life. Cornelius a Lapide reasons: “It is permissible to strive to obtain the degree of doctor as proof of knowledge, so that with the help of this proof one acquires the authority to teach and preach to the people and thus brings greater fruit by teaching and preaching.” Therefore the Council of Trent (Session 24, chap. 12) prescribed that “all honorific positions and at least half of the canonical positions in cathedral churches and important collegiate churches be filled by masters and doctors or even licentiates of theology or canon law.” Therefore Christ does not say: “do not be,” but—“do not be called teachers.” “Christ, consequently, forbids not the degree of doctorship, but the pride and vanity concerning the obtaining of this degree, the arrogance and presumption, when a person who has obtained the degree of doctor considers himself above others, walks about puffed up and despises others, as though he has knowledge and learning from himself, and not from Christ, as the scribes did.” Barnes (Barnes) on the basis of Christ’s words objected to the title doctor divinitatis (doctor of divinity), because Christ forbade to be called so. But, says Morison, Barnes did not pay attention to the fact that the title “teacher of divinity” by its significance is humble; Barnes also did not notice that if it is truly deserved, then it is not clear why people should not allow this and speak so. The fact that in antiquity the Jews had no academic degrees. “Rabbi,” “rabbin,” and so forth are a product of rabbinism and Phariseeism. In the early Christian Church there were no candidates, masters, and doctors; such titles were completely foreign to early Christian antiquity. “All who accepted the word were fully disciples of only one Jesus; in this lay the principle of equality for all.” Christ was not the founder of a school. The title doctor ecclesiae appeared in later times of scholasticism, and concerning theologus a definition was made at the 2nd Lateran Council in 1215, by which “the capital church should have one theologian so that he might teach priests and others Sacred Scripture and especially teach them pastoral care of souls.” As always happens, originally the degrees meant simply “field” (from German das Fach—“subject,” “line of business”), the activity and occupations of a person who was engaged in teaching, but subsequently, on one hand, obstacles and difficulties for persons wishing to acquire academic degrees, and on the other—advantages, produced a whole series of dreamers who, calling themselves doctors and teachers, began to look upon themselves as gods and scientific lawmakers. It is precisely this that Christ condemns in the scribes and Pharisees, explaining the principle that no title should remove from a man the consciousness of his unworthiness, nor his dependence of all his activity on Christ as the Vine, only in connection with which the branches can bear good fruit.

Matthew 23:9. “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. The remarks made to the preceding verse apply in part also to this one, that is, the words of Christ cannot be understood in a literal sense, for example, in the sense that a child should not pronounce the words “father” or “mother.” Already the fact that “mother” is not mentioned here shows that we are not speaking of simple family relationships. Christ again has in view only the scribes and Pharisees with their vanity. In the Talmud there is an entire tractate called Avot, that is, sayings of the “fathers.” In the tractate Edeot I, 4 Hillel and Shammai are called “fathers of the world” (Talmud, trans. Perefekovitch. Vol. 4, p. 406). In the Mishnah and Tosefta the word “father” is found as a title of many rabbis (Schürer, Geschichte, II, 377). Probably such a name had basis in the Bible (Sir 44). The Savior, of course, speaks only about the fact that the disciples should not call anyone a father in the rabbinic sense. Chrysostom restricts the meaning of Christ’s words thus: “This does not mean that they should not call anyone a father, but that they know whom properly should be called a father.” The last words of the verse are read differently: “in heaven” or “in the heavens.” The best reading seems to be not ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (which is not in Tischendorf) and not ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, but the adjective “heavenly,” accepted by the best and newest editors of the New Testament.

Matthew 23:10. “And do not be called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. The words “masters” (kathegetas) and “Master” (kathegetes) are imprecise, because kathegetes means “leader,” “guide” only in a figurative sense, but literally means “leader,” “director.” In the Russian translation, due to the absence of this distinction, in verses 8 and 10 an almost tautology is permitted, because the words “teacher” and “master” in common speech are the same thing, with the only difference that the latter is somewhat softer and perhaps has a broader sense than the more specialized “teacher.” In Greek there is no such tautology, because verse 8 has didaskalos, while verse 10 has kathegetes—more of an educator than a teacher. Kathegetes differs well from hodegos (Matt 15:14; Acts 1:16; Rom 2:19), and is used in the New Testament only here (if one does not pay attention to a variation in verse 8). It is interesting that the word hodegos in the New Testament in the indicated places is everywhere used to denote false guides. But etymologically one word does not differ from the other (Zahn). In pronouncing the words of this verse, Christ does not refer them directly to Himself, but proposes a general principle: the Messiah is your leader.

Matthew 23:11. “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Compare Mark 9:35; Luke 9:48—in a different connection.) Undoubtedly, with these words the claims to rule are unconditionally and irrevocably condemned. The Pharisees always strove and strive to dominate and direct the people among whom they live, and for this the Savior publicly reproaches them. That Christ does not deny power and rule here is evident from the fact that, according to His thought, there may be “greatest” among people. But the character of power is completely different from what is usually characteristic of rulers. This character is service to people out of love (diakonos in distinction from doulos). Anyone can strive to excel others and, consequently, become “greater” than them, to gain power over them in self-denying and full of love service to people; in fact, true rulers are those who undertake this self-denying service. It is interesting to note the remark of Origen, showing how this was viewed in antiquity: “Whoever in himself possesses what Paul enumerates concerning a bishop, even if he is not a bishop before men, is a bishop before God, even if he did not attain this rank through human ordination.” Of course, due to human weakness and imperfections, heads and leaders may deviate from this ideal, but one should never forget that these are deviations, not the ideal itself.

Matthew 23:12. “For whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Compare Luke 14:11.) See the explanation of the verse in the commentaries to Matt 18:4. “Do you see,” says Chrysostom, “how He here leads the listener to deeds completely opposite to pride? He not only forbids seeking first place, but also prescribes choosing the last place.” (Compare Job 22:29; Prov 29:23; Ezek 21:26-27; 1 Pet 5:5.)

Matthew 23:13. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Compare Luke 11:52, which says that the lawyers “took the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and you hindered those who were trying to enter.” In Matthew, as we see, a similar thought is expressed differently and in a different connection. Some think that the word “woe” is repeated in this and subsequent verses eight times; others, not counting verse 14 as authentic, about which will be spoken below, only seven. The correspondence of “woes” to “blessings” at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount is difficult to find. But the fact that the Messiah, almost at the very beginning of His preaching to the people, began a speech about blessings, and at the very end of it announced woe, is remarkable. However this fact is interpreted, one cannot think that the last speech of Christ to the people was the result of embittering due to the hostility toward Him of the people’s leaders. Here was rather something organic, a lament at the sight of a dying man before his last breath in the face of complete hopelessness. Christ with His penetrating gaze saw that the condition of affairs contemporary to Him could not continue long, and he expressed this in a stern reproving speech, which in principle applies to all peoples, showing that fanaticism, petty formalism, robbery and greed, hypocrisy and love of external conventions can threaten ruin to any people if it does not strive to free itself in time from all these and kindred vices. Similar proclamations of woe are found in the ancient prophets (Isa 5:8, Isa 5:20-22, Isa 10:1; Hab 2:6). Christ’s mission had a definite character. He was to preach repentance and the approach of the kingdom of heaven to the Jewish people. One has only to imagine what would have happened if “his own received him.” Probably Jerusalem, having become Christian, would have avoided those calamities and destructions which shortly afterward befell it. The same definiteness that characterizes Christ’s mission characterizes also His reproofs of the scribes and Pharisees in His last speech to the people. Christ reproaches them for deviating from the moral ideal, and not only for deviation, but for stubborn refusal to understand it. According to Hilary, “woe” is “the voice of grief” (see commentaries to Matt 11:21). In Luke (Luke 11:39-52) the word “woe” is repeated six times, and the proclamations of woe are divided into two groups—to the Pharisees and the lawyers. The meaning of this verse is explained in detail and satisfactorily by Origen. The scribes and Pharisees themselves do not enter the kingdom of heaven and do not allow others to enter. These two sins are naturally inseparable from each other. Not a single person is known who, entering into the kingdom of heaven himself, would hinder others from entering it. In Origen’s time such deeds were done chiefly by those who appear in the church more famous, such as bishops, priests and deacons. Those who live well and preach the word of truth well open the kingdom of heaven before people; and they themselves enter and invite others to enter. The evil ones, who are not shepherds but hirelings, lock the doors of the kingdom of heaven before people. “One can see,” adds Origen, “many teachers who do not allow those who wish to enter the kingdom of heaven to do so, especially when without discernment and unwisely they excommunicate some, not because they allow any sins, but because of envy and enmity they often forbid to enter even those who are better than themselves.”

Matthew 23:14. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation. (Compare Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47.) Some commentators consider this verse of Matthew an interpolation from the indicated passages of Mark and Luke. It is absent in the Sinai Codex, B, D, Z, L, I, 28, 33 and others. In Mark and Luke this verse is authentic. The condemnation is directed against the most despicable predation—the offenses, injuries, and robberies of the property of poor and helpless widows and against the pretended piety of those who pray long for show.

Matthew 23:15. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you travel over sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more a child of hell than yourselves. The meaning is that a pagan converted to Judaism by the Pharisees becomes twice as bad as he was, and consequently, a person twice as worthy of hell than the Pharisees themselves. This was not always the case. But usually it was so, like how from under the direction of corrupted teachers come usually corrupted disciples (compare Rom 2:17-24).

Matthew 23:16. “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated! Another characterization of Phariseeism is given, which has no particularly close external connection with other characterizations. It is easy to notice that the reproofs grow more and more intense up to verse 33, where a kind of completion of all previous characterizations is found and the strongest rebuke. “Which say” (hoi legontes) indicates that the Pharisees habitually or even constantly taught thus. Christ’s rebuke is very characteristic. People who have lost the spirit and meaning of religion always indulge in trifles and argue about such subjects that have no significance whatsoever, committing logical and all possible other mistakes, moving about in a narrow and cramped area of empty speculations. About oaths by the temple or the gold of the temple long and serious discussions could take place. But Christ condemns all their emptiness, arguing ad hoc concerning the particular case under consideration and not explaining the higher principle which would be completely incomprehensible to the scribes and Pharisees, as well as to the disciples and the people. From the point of view of this latter principle, swearing in general is reprehensible, and oaths neither by the temple nor by the gold of the temple should be permitted. But if we set aside this higher principle and reason, moving exclusively in the sphere of Pharisaic thinking, then even so the teaching of the Pharisees will turn out to be not only incorrect, but absurd. This is explained in the next verse. The word “debtor” is translated into Russian as a Greek “opheilei.” The translation is inaccurate, because in the original the idea of guilt is not expressed. In the Slavonic Bible it is more precise—“is obliged,” that is, obliged to fulfill his oath (in the Vulgate—debet).

Matthew 23:17. “You fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? “Fools and blind” (moroi kai typhloi—“fools” in the proper sense, “stupid”—“and blind”) indicates the lack of understanding, stupidity, illogicality, and spiritual blindness of the Pharisees and scribes. Even adopting their own point of view, one should reason differently. Just as a man is always more important than his clothing, so any house and temple themselves are more important than those objects which serve only for their adornment. “For” (gar) shows that the expression “which is greater: the gold?” serves as proof that Christ correctly called the scribes and Pharisees “fools and blind.” In the Russian translation this particle is not expressed.

Matthew 23:18. “And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. The thought is the same as in the preceding verse, only a different particular case is chosen, proving the incorrectness of the Pharisaic teaching about oaths. Reasoning from a logical point of view (again not departing from the sphere of Pharisaic concepts and thinking), one must, of course, recognize that the altar is higher than the gift which is laid upon it. The word “guilty” or “debtor” in verse 16 is also inaccurate (see commentaries to verse 16).

Matthew 23:19. “You fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? The word “fools” is added here after the model of verse 17 and is not found in the best manuscripts. The thought of the verse is the same as in verse 17.

Matthew 23:20. “Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. The Savior “says this not as permitting swearing. Because in chapter 5 He completely (pantelōs) forbade swearing; He speaks because the Jews swore by these objects” (Euthymius Zigabenus).

Matthew 23:21. “And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein; The construction of the verse is the same as in the preceding one. In verses 21 and 22 special and separate kinds of oaths are indicated. Christ here also reasons, taking the point of view of the Pharisees and scribes. They thought that some oaths are important and binding, others—not. But if one reasons independently of whether swearing is permitted, then one must affirm that every oath by sacred objects is in reality an oath by the name of God.

Matthew 23:22. “And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. A continuation of the speech of the preceding two verses. The speech is, of course, figurative. God is represented as sitting on a throne, which heaven serves.

Matthew 23:23. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these you ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Compare Luke 11:42—in a different connection.) Prescriptions about tithes, that is, a tenth part of property for the benefit of the Levites and the temple, are set forth in Lev 27:30-34; Num 18:21-24; Deut 12:6-17. Legal prescriptions are elaborated in detail in two Talmudic tractates Maarot (tithes) and Maaer Sheni (second tithes; see Talmud, trans. Perefekovitch. Vol. 1, p. 295–362). Upon reading these tractates one immediately sees that the Savior condemns the extreme minuteness of the Pharisees, to which they carried the general legal provisions. So, in Maarot I, 1 it is said: “Concerning tithes the following rule is established: everything that is food, is guarded and grows from the earth is subject to tithe collections. And another rule they said: everything that at first is food and at the end food (that is, what is suitable for food, just as soon as it begins to grow), although it were left in the ground for further development, is subject to tithe collections, whether it be gathered small or large; everything, however, that at first is not food, at the end food (that is, what at first growth is not suitable for food, but only at the end) is subject to tithe collections only from the time when it becomes edible.” Further in Maarot IV, 5 it is said: “Anise is subject to duties by seed and greenery and seed coat, but the wise men say: by seed and greenery are subject to duties only cress and mustard.” Occupying themselves with such minute provisions concerning small and worthless herbs, the scribes and Pharisees completely lost sight of what was most important in the law—judgment, mercy, and faith. This last enumeration of three items, as is thought, corresponds to the prophecy Mic 6:8 and Hos 12:6. Judgment, mercy and faith are called the weightiest in the law (ta baryttera tou nomou) not because they are difficult to perform—“God’s commandments” “are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3)—but simply comparatively: judgment, mercy and faith are much more important (baryttera) than the paying of tithes of mint, anise and cummin. The last words: “these you ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone,” are rather difficult to interpret. The direct meaning is this: one ought to observe the demands of judgment (justice), mercy and faith, not leaving off the payment of tithes. Perhaps Christ wanted to say only with these words that the paying of tithes is in essence a matter of indifference; they can be paid and not paid, but even they have importance when there is justice, mercy and faith. If, however, there are not the latter, then not the tithes themselves become objectionable, but that minuteness and folly with which discussions are conducted about them. Tauta refers, of course, to “judgment, mercy and faith.” The remark is made that the last expression “not to leave undone” is weaker than the preceding “to do.” Christ does not say: “just as this (judgment, mercy and faith), so that (tithes) one should fulfill (do).” No, there is no need to leave off the payment of tithes even from the smallest herbs, if this does not serve to the detriment of the chief virtues—judgment, mercy and faith.

Matthew 23:24. “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel! Blind guides, as in Matt 15:14 (compare 2 Pet 1:9; Rom 2:19; Rev 3:17). Only those guides who are blind can engage in such empty activity as “straining” gnats. They are actually unable to move forward themselves or lead others forward and sit idle in one place, engaging in the most insignificant activity. But this does not prevent them from being extremely evil, bloodthirsty and greedy. While straining a gnat, they think they are fulfilling the law of the Lord, but when instead of a gnat they drink (so literally—katapinontés) an entire camel, they do not think that this is contrary to the law. The camel, as a large animal, is chosen obviously for opposition to such a small animal as a gnat. Gnats were “strained” (diylizontes), that is, water poured into a vessel was strained through a sieve or cloth so that a dead gnat would not be found in the vessel, and so that he could be seen during straining. Thus, the purpose of straining—to protect oneself from water made unclean by a corpse, which, if there were a gnat in it, should be poured out and replaced with another. But, being blind, the scribes and Pharisees did not notice that instead of a gnat, an entire large camel fell into the vessel and they drink it together with the water they drink from the vessel. Obviously, this is a hyperbole, which contains a very subtle and apt characterization of all hypocrites. The opinion that instead of “camel” one should read “gnat,” “gadfly” (asilum) has no basis whatsoever.

Matthew 23:25. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. (Compare Luke 11:39—in a different connection.) Cleansing occupies no less than twelve tractates in the Talmud. On the basis of the Old Testament prescriptions concerning purity (Lev 11-15; Num 5:1-4; and especially Num 19), an introduction to the tractate “Kelim” is laid, which enumerates the “chief types of impurity” (I, 1–4). On this basis, says Schürer, a huge, broad and comprehensive building has been erected. Here the rabbis surpassed themselves in the careful elaboration of this subject (for details see: Schürer, Geschichte, II, 560–565). The Savior proves the inconsistency of all Talmudic teaching about purity by the fact that, despite all efforts to clean vessels, what is contained in them and what appears clean as a result of various washings and cleansings is actually extremely filthy, being the result of robbery and intemperance. What a profound, piercing through all hypocrisy with all its extreme stupidity, thought! It is amazing that numerous hypocrites did not fear and do not fear this thunderbolt, this terrible thunderclap and do not at all question that the vessels from which they drink and eat are full of the most terrible, the most heinous, and the most shameful robbery and intemperance! “Gemo” means to be filled with something (is joined with the genitive). Here it is not said that cups and dishes are filled with robbery and intemperance, but that their contents come from robbery and intemperance. Therefore, the genitive is used not without a preposition, but with the preposition “from.” “Harpagē” means properly robbery, plunder (in comparison, “extortion” is somewhat softer). “Akrasia”—a later form of “akrateia,” means intemperance, lack of moderation (compare 1 Cor 7:5). In the Russian and Slavonic translations a different, less substantiated reading is adopted—“unjustness”—“intemperance.” But in the Vulgate and some translations exactly (filthiness, Unenthaltsamkeit). Generally, the word akrasia is translated differently and sometimes inaccurately. According to Bengel, akrasia is opposed to restraint not only in food and drink, but also from money and profit.

Matthew 23:26. “Blind Pharisee, cleanse first what is within the cup and dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also. (Compare Luke 11:40-41.) This means: stop the robberies and intemperance (injustice), then what you will eat and drink, with which various vessels are filled, will be clean, and you will have no need to debate and worry much about the external, external cleanliness of vessels. Regarding the words of the Savior in this verse, sometimes very minute discussions are conducted about whether He had in mind people or vessels, whether He invited people to be clean or spoke about the cleanliness of vessels. When comparing the verse with the indicated parallels of the Gospel of Luke, indeed some difficulties arise. But they are generally not significant. The entire speech is obviously figurative, and Christ invites, properly speaking, to moral cleanliness of people, not saying that they should clean vessels.

Matthew 23:27. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful on the outside, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness; (Compare Luke 11:44.) In Luke the saying, placed in a different connection, has a different meaning than in Matthew. There hypocrites are compared to hidden tombs over which people walk and do not know, and as a result of this ignorance—what should be understood in Luke—they become defiled. In Matthew the tombs are not hidden, but, on the contrary, visible to all and beautiful, but inside full of bones and all impurity. Understanding the words of the Savior here is not complicated. We all know what beautiful tombs are, which are adorned with various objects, as a last tribute is paid to the deceased. But, despite all possible external decorations, no tomb, of course, is pleasant, otherwise it would not be buried in the earth to hide it from people’s eyes and free people from the constant contemplation of the sad consequences of human sin. Among the Jews there were somewhat different attitudes toward the dead than among us. Touching generally a corpse, a dead body or a tomb resulted in defilement for seven days (Num 19), and for cleansing it was necessary to sprinkle fresh water from a vessel into which was put the ash of a red heifer, preserved for the children of Israel. To protect from defilement, burial monuments were whitewashed with slaked lime (conia). In the time of Christ this was done usually at the end of winter, the first adar (“Shekalim,” I, 1; see Talmud, trans. Perefekovitch. Vol. 2, p. 268). Thus, the Savior refers here to customs very common at that time among the Jews. At the same time, it should be noted that Christ did not actually need to speak about tombs themselves. He used this metaphor to characterize people; not about tombs, but about people could one speak that, resembling “whitewashed tombs” in their inner content, they are sometimes externally very beautiful. Many hypocrites develop during prayers and divine services such artistic methods that one cannot but admire the excellent beauty of them. But in life this does not prevent such persons from being completely “whitewashed tombs.”

Matthew 23:28. “Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Matthew 23:29. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, (Compare Luke 11:47.) There is indicated a common and general phenomenon of human life, by which the best people are very often subjected to persecutions from their contemporaries, and the descendants of the latter build them monuments and honor their memory as benefactors of mankind. This phenomenon is so common that there is no need to search for any particular examples. Christ does not say what Hilary interprets, that the people of the law killed all the prophets. There were exceptions, for example, Elijah and Elisha. But in general Christ’s words are accurate. About the building of monuments and tombs are found in the Palmyra and Nabatean inscriptions, where this is called “bana”—oikodomeín, as in Matthew (Merx). Near Jerusalem were the “tombs of David” (Nehem 3:16), of the high priest John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus and many others. For the adornment of tombs with flowers on certain days, some left money (Schürer, Geschichte, III, S. 18 at the beginning).

Matthew 23:30. “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; (Compare Luke 11:48.) So speak all people, spiritual and secular, ancient and modern, building monuments to prophets and generally remarkable people of the past. Properly speaking, there is nothing reprehensible about this. On the contrary, the memory of many persons of past time is honorable and worthy of perpetuation, if only in the form of building monuments to them. But all this is good only under the moral condition of society. But when hypocrisy and the vices accompanying it are developed in it, then people who build monuments to the tormented and persecuted prophets, take only part in the persecutions and torments on the part of their ancestors, not directly, but indirectly. While showing apparent respect to the prophets that were, they persecute and torment the prophets of the present, their contemporaries. So it was with the generation contemporary to Christ. It built monuments to the prophets of the past, who prophesied about Christ, while delivering Christ Himself to crucifixion death. Instead of “in the shedding” (in the Russian Bible underlined) “of blood” you can simply translate “in blood.”

Matthew 23:31. “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the children of those who killed the prophets. In the Book of Acts (Acts 7:52) the protomartyr Stephen speaks with the same words: “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain those who showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers.””} The word “sons” contains a double meaning: sons by flesh and by spirit. There is indicated one of the traits of the unsatisfactory moral condition of the scribes and Pharisees: their fathers were murderers of the best people, the prophets; such murderers or capable of murder they themselves are.

Matthew 23:32. “Fill up then the measure of your fathers. The image is taken from the ordinary way of filling vessels for dry, liquid or granulated matter. The Russian word “mera” (measure) fully corresponds to the Greek metron and means here a measure in general, not some particular one, for example, a grain measure. Thus, the meaning is that the ancestors of the Pharisees and scribes tried to fill the “measure” with their lawlessness and cruel treatment of the prophets. Their descendants not only did not stop this activity, but to the lawlessness committed by their ancestors, strove to add even new ones. A clear indication of the impending delivery to death of the Savior Himself and of the persecutions of His disciples. “Plerosat” in the Russian translation is not precise: “fill up”; it should be “fill to the brim, abundantly.” Obviously, this is not a commandment from Christ, but only a designation of a fact (compare John 14:27). The Savior speaks as if to say: you have already decided to fill the measure of your fathers; do this so as to undergo even greater condemnation.

Matthew 23:33. “You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of hell? About the “generation of vipers” see the commentaries to Matt 3:7. A similar expression in Matt 12:34; Luke 3:7. The words of Christ shed light on the words of the Baptist (Matt 3:7). There the future wrath is only supposed; here it is presented as already come. The Pharisees and scribes can now no longer escape the judgment of hell.

Matthew 23:34. “Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city; In Luke (Luke 11:49) this is not the words of Christ Himself, but a quotation from the speech of wisdom. But from exactly which book this quotation is taken is completely unknown. Some even suppose that in Luke 11:49 the words “therefore also the wisdom of God said” could have been an insertion by the evangelist himself into the speech of Christ, and under sophia he could have understood Him Himself. Others think that in Luke there is a reference to 2 Chr 24:18-22, but finding similarity here is difficult. Matthew does not say that the words of verse 34 are a quotation and makes no allusion to this. The best opinion is that the quotation, if only it is here, is borrowed from an unknown source. It should be noted that some expressions of the section being considered are distinguished by similarity with several verses in the 3rd Book of Ezra (3Ezr 1). This can be seen from the following comparison: Fill up then the measure of your fathers (Matt 23:32)—The sins of their parents grew in them (3Ezr 1:6). Let all the righteous blood come upon you (Matt 23:35)—You have defiled your hands with blood, and your feet are swift to commit murder (3Ezr 1:26). How often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings (Matt 23:37)—I gathered you, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings (3Ezr 1:30). Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city (Matt 23:34)—I sent you My servants, the prophets; you seized them, killed and tore apart their bodies. Their blood I will also require, says the Lord (3Ezr 1:32). Behold, your house is left to you desolate (Matt 23:38)—Thus says the Lord God: your house is desolate (3Ezr 1:33). It may be that in the Book of Ezra these passages were borrowed from the Gospels. The time of origin of the book is still not determined with precision; the most probable assumption is that it was written in the time of Domitian (81–96 AD) and was subsequently supplemented (Schürer, Geschichte, III, S. 328). By prophets, wise men and scribes are understood Christian teachers. They are called so in correspondence with various Hebrew designations of officials. In distinction from the false prophets, wise men and scribes whom Christ condemns, these are true. Many of them, as known from history, the words of His were fulfilled literally (see Acts 12:2; Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History.” III, 32—concerning the crucifixion of Simeon and others).

Matthew 23:35. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar. (Compare Luke 11:50-51.) When examining this verse, the first question arises: why were the scribes, Pharisees and Jewish people contemporary to Christ guilty, so that upon them should come all the righteous blood shed from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias. In the murder of Abel, Cain was guilty, not they. Why then were they subject, according to the words of Christ, to responsibility for this? This is explained by the fact that in the life of both individual persons and entire societies and even peoples, there is a concentration of both good and evil. The murder of Abel was an expression of Cain’s malice, but this malice developed and reached extreme intensity in the Pharisees and scribes contemporary to Christ. Hence the usual biblical view that descendants are punished for the sins of their fathers, sins for which the descendants are, properly speaking, factually not guilty. The scribes and Pharisees contemporary to Christ were so corrupted, so evil, that they had to bear responsibility even for previous crimes, because they were capable and ready to commit not only them, but far greater ones. The history of the murder by Cain of Abel is known, and there is no need to repeat it. It was the first murder of a man committed in the world. It would be expected that Christ would then point to the last murder, wishing to briefly indicate all intermediate murders, from beginning to end. He points to the murder of Zacharias, son of Barachias. Which Zacharias is meant here? Jerome assumes that the Zacharias mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew was the one who was killed by Joash, the king of the Jews, between the temple and the altar (inter templum et altare). But it should be noted, says Jerome, that this Zacharias was the son not of Barachias but of the priest Jehoiada. In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, instead of “the son of Barachias,” we find written “the son of Jehoiada.” Modern commentators agree with Jerome that this was Zacharias killed by Joash (2 Chr 24:20 ff.). The naming of his father as Barachias is explained by the fact that the father may have borne two names—Barachias and Jehoiada.

Matthew 23:36. “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation. (Compare Luke 11:51.) A confirmation of the thought expressed in verse 35. In Luke, in essence, the same is said, but differently and more clearly: “it shall be required of this generation.”

Matthew 23:37. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not! (Compare Luke 13:34—in a different connection.) All of Christ’s discourse stands out for its prophetic character and has a connection to His further prophetic discourse about the fate of the world and Jerusalem. He does not say: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who killed the prophets and stoned them, etc., but “the one killing and stoning” (ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα). These words cannot raise doubt in anyone that this actually happened, and they were repeated several times after by the writer of the Acts and by the Apostle Paul, also without raising doubt in anyone, although in the past concrete instances of such actual slayings could not be found.

Matthew 23:38. Behold, your house is left to you desolate. (Cf. Luke 13:35.) By the word “house” (ὁ οἶκος) one can understand the temple, all of Jerusalem, or interpret this word in a general sense – a dwelling abandoned by all.

Matthew 23:39. For I say to you: you will not see Me henceforth, until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! (Cf. Luke 13:35.) The Savior does not mean to say that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not see Him in person. But they will not see Him as He appeared among them – as the Great Teacher, the Reprover, the Healer of diseases. From the subsequent history it is evident that this indeed was so. The account of the healing of the high priest’s servant (Luke 22:51) does not contradict what was said. The discourse about Christ’s stay in Jerusalem, met with cries: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matt 21:9), here flows entirely naturally and fittingly as if drawing to a close. But the events in which people should cry out: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” will now be new and utterly unlike the former ones.