Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part XII

Verse 36: “Believe me when I say, all these things will happen to you people who are living now.”

This warning was the result of the corruption of character that involved taking what God desired His created beings to be and turning it into what mankind themselves desired to be, and it is deeply embedded in Jewish literature. In one document we read: “God commands me to proclaim to men. O men, in your image you have a form fashioned by God, why do you vainly stray and walk not in the straight way, always mindful of your immortal Maker?”¹

But the greatest judgment was reserved for those who caused death, especially as the result of jealousy, envy, pride, or hatred. Say the Rabbis: “Because of the crime of bloodshed the Temple was destroyed and the Shekinah glory departed from Israel, as it is written, So you will not pollute the land wherein you live; for spilled blood pollutes the land.”² This was the general consensus among Jews that God’s judgment was revealed most fiercely by allowing the destruction of His Temple. One Rabbi answered his own question on this subject: “Why was the first Sanctuary destroyed? Because of three [evil] things which prevailed there: idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed.”³ Now, it also appears that the generation living today has not learned from history anymore than the generation that lived in Jesus’ day. Turning from God by not recognizing Him as the Creator of all things and the Redeemer of those who are enslaved by sin will result in their own damnation and eternal alienation from the Most High God.

Chrysostom shares this in his sermon on this text: “Mark how well He has forewarned them. Even after He has pointed out their hypocrisy, they claim that they would not have shed the blood of the prophets. Jesus shamed them thoroughly, saying, ‘While you condemn them, you do things worse. These things will not be without punishment.’ He thus implants in them fear beyond words. He reminds them of hell. Then because that was to come, He brought home to them the terrors already beginning. ‘Truly I say to you, all this will come upon this generation.’ He added also unspeakable severity to the vengeance, saying that they would suffer more grievous things than all these. Yet in no way did this cause them to be corrected. But if anyone asks why they will suffer more grievously than all, we would say, Because they have first committed more grievous things than all, and by none of the things that have been done to correct them have they been brought to a sound mind.”⁴

Little did these people know of the coming carnage and horrible conditions that would prevail in Jerusalem during the siege of Roman general Titus just a few years down the road. Had they known, would they have repented and accepted Jesus as the Messiah? With the attitude they expressed here, there is little evidence they would have changed their minds. Rather, they would have sought to kill Him even sooner because this saying would be taken as a curse from a false prophet.

Verse 37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets. You stoned to death those that God sent to you. Many, many times I wanted to help your people. I wanted to gather them together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you did not let me.”

Can you hear the compassion and disappointment in our Lord’s voice? Would their accepting Him have changed His going to the cross? I doubt it, no more than they would have saved a lamb from the altar whose blood was meant for the forgiveness of their sins and the promise of eternal life. This was the Messiah pleading for those who were chosen to receive Him, but they refused. While this particular verse is clearly intended for the Jews in Jesus’ day, it nevertheless contains the principle that will affect everyone who rejects the call to salvation.

Chrysostom shares this in his message on the rejection of Jesus. He says: “The emotive quality [of this plea] is like a woman who is much beloved and forever loved, yet who had despised the one who loved her. Now on the point of her punishment, just as the punishment is about to be inflicted, He pleads for her. The prophets also had similar words when they said, ‘Turn to me, and she did not return.’⁵ Then having called her, Jesus also tells about her bloodstained deeds, she who has been ‘killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her! In this way, Jesus is also pleading His own case. But even with all this, you have turned me aside. Yet I have not withdrawn my great affection toward you. It was my desire often to draw you to myself, but you would not.”⁶

Someday, hopefully, the Jews will realize that no one did more to bring them salvation and insure God’s promise to Abraham than this prophet from Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth. No other prophet had as many prophesies about Him in Scripture as He did. No other prophet had as many Scriptural prophecies fulfilled in their lifetime as He did. No other prophet spoke as wisely and clearly of God’s plan for salvation as He did. No other prophet performed as many miracles as He did. No other prophet cried over them as He did. No other prophet claimed to be the Son of God as He did. No other prophet died on a cross to pay the price for their sins as He did. No other prophet rose from the grave to bring eternal life as He did. Yet they found no reason to believe in Him as the Messiah. So, incredibly, they still wait for another Messiah to come.

Then Chrysostom continues: “Jerusalem is defeating itself by its sins. Yet what affection remains. With what warmth is His affection expressed, as a mother for her brood. Everywhere in the prophets is this same image of the wings, both in the song of Moses⁷ and in the Psalms,⁸ indicating His great protection and care. ‘But you would not,’ He says, so ‘behold, your house is forsaken and desolate,’ stripped of the protection which comes from Me. It surely was this same One who had been protecting the city, and holding it together and preserving it, who had found it necessary to chasten His beloved. So now a punishment is appointed, one that brings exceeding dread and implies the entire overthrow of the city.”⁹

Verse 38: “Now your house will be left completely empty.”

Did God not have to go through this once before? Would He now be forced to go through it again? Didn’t He say through Jeremiah: “I have abandoned my house, I have rejected my heritage, I have given my heart’s beloved over to the hands of her foes?”¹⁰ Upon hearing what Jesus was predicting, I wonder if the following words did not come to some listener’s mind who truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah? “Remove not your dwelling from us, O God, lest they attack us, those who hated us without cause.”¹¹

For those of you who may not have access to the works of the Jewish historian Josephus’, here is a small portion that describes the massacre in Jerusalem:

So the Romans being now become masters of the wars, they both placed their ensigns upon the towers, and made joyful acclamations for the victory they had gained, as having found the end of this war much lighter than its beginning; for when they had gotten upon the last was, without any bloodshed, they could hardly believe what they found to be true; but seeing nobody to oppose them, they stood in doubt what such an unusual solitude could mean. But when they went in numbers into the lanes of the city, with their swords drawn, they slew those whom they overtook, without mercy, and set fire to the houses to which the Jews were fled, and burnt every soul in them, and laid waste a great many of the rest; and when they were come to the houses to plunder them, they found in them entire families of dead men, and the upper rooms full of dead corpses, that is of such as died by the famine; they then stood in a horror at this sight and went out without touching anything. But although they had this commiseration for such as were destroyed in that manner, yet had they not the same for those that were still alive, but they ran every one through whom they met with, and obstructed the very lanes with their dead bodies, and made the whole city run down with blood, to such a degree indeed that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood. And truly so it happened, that though the slayers left off as evening fell, yet did the fire greatly prevail in the night, and as all was burning, came that eighth day of the month Gorpieus [Elul] upon Jerusalem; a city that had been liable to so many miseries during the siege, that, had it always enjoyed as much happiness from its first foundation, it would certainly have been the envy of the world. Nor did it on any other account so much deserve these sore misfortunes, as by producing such a generation of men as were the occasions of this its overthrow.¹²

To those Christians living today who believe that the world will soon start getting better and better until we all live in peace as a Godly world, have dismissed what Jesus said about the last days just before His return to gather His bride for the marriage supper of the Lamb. In fact, He said that when we begin to see the world fall apart into chaos and idolatry, then look up, for our redemption is at hand.¹³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part XI

Verses 33-34: “You snakes! You are from a family of poisonous snakes! You cannot hide from God. You will all be judged guilty and end up in torment! So I tell you this: I will send to you preachers and teachers who are wise and know the Scriptures. You will kill some of them. You will hang some of them on crosses. You will beat some of them in your synagogues. You will chase them from town to town.”

This was a harsh accusation, but it wasn’t the first time. Both John the Baptizer and Jesus called the Sadducees and Pharisees serpents back in Chapters 3:7 and 12:34. It was intended to define their craftiness and subtleties, their inward poison, and venomous nature; their pious costume on the outside, and insincere pretenses on the inside; their hypocrisy, malice, and wickedness; in which they were like the old serpent, their father the devil, and also their ancestors who murdered the prophets. Therefore, could any good thing be expected from such a viperous generation? Our Master says they will be held accountable for their actions. In one ancient version of Matthew, it reads, “…where can you escape?” In other words, what recourse did they have? What could they use to hide behind? Where could they go so they wouldn’t be discovered? There was only one place for them, and Jesus tells them it is Gehenna, the agonizing place of fire.

This reference to Gehenna as a place of punishment was not new to His Jewish listeners. In their Talmud we read: “Our Rabbis taught: A man who counts out money for a woman from his hand into hers or from her hand into his, in order that he might look at her, will not be free from the judgment of Gehenna even if he is [in other respects] like our Master Moses who received the law at Mount Sinai; and concerning him Scripture said: Hand to hand, he will not be free from evil [which means,] he will not be free from the judgment of Gehenna.” Also, in the Talmud, it says: “Death shall be chosen for the wicked, in order that they may not live in this world and thus sin and fall into Gehenna,”¹ and there are many other references. So they understood the future threat of torment and the everlasting vengeance and wrath of God; the unquenchable fire prepared for the devil and his angels which unrepentant, unbelieving sinners cannot escape. If Jesus ever preached a hellfire and brimstone message, this is it.

During this discourse, it appears that Jesus is taking the actions and hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees, personally. But in these verses, He seems to detach Himself from the present tense and regresses to the past. Here, He speaks with the knowledge of one who was present at the time of Abel’s murder and Zachariah’s assassination. His switch seems almost subconscious as though He did not flinch revealing that although He is the eternal Son of God He feels trapped in His human body only for a season; to a specific time and place. Why the scribes? They were those in charge of keeping the sacred script of all the writings of Moses and the prophets. Therefore, when a legal issue arose they were consulted not only about the commandment or law involved but to the proper rendering of holy writ. As such, it often fell to them to give an interpretation that condemned or acquitted an alleged violator. In many cases, they decided against the defendant based on their own religious or political views rather than the pure Word of Scriptures.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, were a later addition to the Jewish religious hierarchy. They built a bridge between the sacred writings and verbal teachings as well as the customs and wise sayings passed down through the ages by noted rabbis. One problem, though, they took the liberty of turning and twisting these texts to fit their own biases and prejudices. As a result, they were never wrong, it was always the other person. This should help us understand what Jesus was up against in His effort to spread the good news about the kingdom of heaven. But then our Lord looks to the future when those preachers He sends out will get the same treatment. If any of the disciples were listening, and I’m sure they were, the road ahead did not look bright for them. But they knew, that with God’s help they could overcome.

Verse 35: “So you will be guilty of the death of all the good people who have been killed on earth. You will be guilty of the killing of that godly man Abel. And you will be guilty of the killing of Zechariah son of Berachiah. He was killed between the Temple entrance and the altar. You will be guilty of the killing of all the good people who lived in between the time of Abel and the time of Zechariah.”

The guilt Jesus speaks of here is called, “guilt by association.” So when those of old who went before them are judged, they will be included in their number because they possess the same attitude and mindset. Bible scholars are not exactly sure who Zechariah ben Berekiah was, even though the text specifies that he was the one murdered between the Temple and the altar. One explanation involves a passage in Zechariah: “Zechariah son of Berekiah received a message from the LORD. This was in the eighth month of the second year that Darius was king in Persia. (Zechariah was the son of Berekiah, who was the son of Iddo the prophet.)”²

In Ezra, we find him listed as Zechariah the son of Iddo.³ If Zechariah would have been the grandson of Iddo, scholars believe Ezra would not have left out his father Berekiah. They suggest, that a scribe who was copying the Book of Zechariah made this designation because he misidentified him with Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, whom Isaiah mentions,⁴ and somehow in future copies, Jeberechiah became Berechiah. But the time frame chosen by Jesus may give us a better clue. Abel is the first person mentioned in Hebrew scriptures as having been killed, and Zechariah ben Jehoiada is the last one to meet a violent death in this last part of the Old Testament’s historical chronology.⁵ And it is clear from the text that he was stoned to death in the Temple courtyard.

There has been some debate on just who Jesus was talking about when He mention Zechariah son of Berekiah. There are many comments in Jewish documents on just who this may have been. But in a Jewish paraphrase, we find the follow rendering: “See, O Lord, and consider from heaven against whom you have turned in this way. Is it fitting for the daughters of Israel to eat from hunger the fruit of their wombs, the lovely young men whom they used to swaddle in sheets of fine wool? The Attribute of Justice answered, and thus said: Is it fitting to murder in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord the priest and the prophet, as you murdered Zechariah the son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet, in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord on the Day of Atonement, because he admonished you not to do that which was evil before the Lord?”⁶

Since Abel was the first one killed in the Old Testament, and this Zechariah the last, it seems appropriate to accept this as the one Jesus was speaking of, since the Old Testament speaks of him being the son of Berekiah, which spelling could easily have been corrupted from Aramaic into Greek.⁷ Jeremiah faced the possibility of being martyred himself.⁸ So the Jews knew this was not something Jesus made up, it was a sordid stain on their history as God’s people. It makes you wonder why He kept loving them so much. It was all because of Abraham. The same can be said today in a country that claims a Christian heritage but lives in such a moral mud pit. It is all because of Jesus. Our Lord is quick to remind them, that should they continue this practice, the same wrath of God will be poured out on them. Then our Lord seems to turn away from those to whom He was speaking and began to look around as He cried out.

Early church scholar Jerome discusses who was being talked about here: “Because we read about so many Zechariahs in Scripture, we need to inquire into the identity of this particular Zechariah, the son of Berekiah. Lest we mistake him for another, the Gospel specifies “whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.” Yet there remains a variety of diverse opinions on this question, each of which ought to be considered. Some say that this Zechariah the son of Berekiah is the eleventh of the twelve minor prophets. Although their fathers share the same name, however, they cannot be the same persons because the prophet Zechariah was never said to have been killed between the sanctuary and the altar and especially because the temple had just recently been destroyed in the prophet’s time. Others want us to believe that this Zechariah is the father of John the Baptist, killed because he proclaimed the advent of the Savior on the basis of something he had dreamed. Because this theory doesn’t have the authority of Scripture, however, it can be disproven as easily as it can be proven. Still, others maintain that this is the Zechariah who was killed between the sanctuary and the altar by Joash the king of Judah, as is chronicled in the book of Kings.⁹ But that Zechariah was the son of Jehoida the priest, not Berekiah, as the Scripture relates: ‘Joash did not remember the good which Jehoida, Zechariah’s father, had done for him.’¹⁰”¹¹

So in a sense, Jesus was simply placing the number of prophets and holy men who were killed in what the Jews accepted as their recorded history. I like the way Eric Lyons explains it: “Was Jesus referring to this particular Zechariah when He rebuked the hardhearted Pharisees? It is possible that He was, and there still be no contradiction. In ancient times, people frequently had more than one name. Moses’ father-in-law was known both as Reuel and Jethro.¹² Gideon acquired the name Jerubbaal after destroying an altar of Baal.¹³ King Jotham’s father is called both Azariah and Uzziah.¹⁴ The names are different, but they refer to the same person.¹⁵ The apostle Peter is sometimes called Simon, Simon Peter, and Cephas.¹⁶”¹⁷

“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself.” These words were penned by Arthur Conan Doyle, a Famous British mystery writer, and physician, best known for his mystery detective series Sherlock Holmes.¹ It was spoken of what Holmes saw in a young detective he was mentoring and his progress in becoming a very shrewd and capable investigator. To this first line of our quote, the writer, Doyle, added the following about Sherlock Holmes: “But talent instantly recognizes genius.”

Mediocrity is the quality of an average object or subject. It describes someone or something that is very ordinary, middle-of-the-road, uninspiring, undistinguished, unexceptional, unexciting, unremarkable, lackluster, forgettable, and amateurish. To put it another way, they are not listed among the bad, nor are they the best they can be. So, they have settled for what they are because it requires less work and effort.

Sean Simmons, a regular columnist for Collegiate Times, a student newspaper for Virginia Tech University, posted an article for the November 15, 2010, issue in which he wrote about how mediocrity was plaguing society to the point that it was becoming the norm. He wrote: “Now more than ever, mediocrity is dominant in action, thought, and creation. A mundane loop of mediocrity — that is what we are currently trapped in, and right now it doesn’t look like there is any initiative to get away from it.

Most prominent and important is the lack of creativity. Small actions and appearances of a creative presence show up every now and then, but overall, creativity appears to be gone. This slump in the creative community’s appearance in society is a small part of the whole — a society, our society leaning toward mediocrity, leaning toward that horrible idea of settling. And it is a horrible idea: settling, giving up on one thought or idea for something clearly inferior or something that has already been done — settling is giving up. Settling for boring, unoriginal, repetitive ideas we have already seen. This ties into everything: how we live, how we dress, how we see the world.”

If this is true in the secular world, it is certainly true in the spiritual world. How many Christians just read their Bible instead of studying it so they can become more knowledgeable of God’s Word? How many Christians spend hours and hours improving skills for their career but give God little time to developing their ability as a light of virtue and godliness in a dark world? How many Christians spend more time keeping up with the world than being prepared for the world to come? The last thing any believer should want to be called is a “mediocre Christian.” – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WHAT’S IN A NAME

You can find it in almost any grocery store or supermarket. If you surveyed the shoppers, you would find out that most of them have used it; many of them have it in their kitchen pantries; and most, if not all, have heard of it. Today it is one of the most popular products on the market.

In 1957 when a patent was issued to the inventor of a new cooking spray, a decision had to be made on how to market it. Should it be named after the inventor, like products from Johnson & Johnson? Or would it sell better if they just called it “New Cooking Spray.” After much discussion, they decided to name it “PAM”; PAM cooking spray. Why PAM? Because PAM is an acronym for the inventor’s name: Product of Arthur Meyerhoff. Amazing what you can learn when you discover what the name of something stands for!

The same is true of the word GRACE. It signifies unmerited favor; getting something one does not deserve or can earn. We see GRACE exemplified, when instead of doing away with Adam and Eve after they sinned in the garden, God allowed them to go on living. We see GRACE when God allowed Noah to escape the flood so his family could continue to expand. God’s GRACE was extended to David after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. Peter was the recipient of God’s GRACE after he denied Jesus three times. The GRACE of God was offered to Paul even though he was responsible for jailing and killing a number of Christians. The list goes on and on. The list of acronyms for GRACE is long, but one that I love is this: God’s Redemption At Christ’s Expense.

When you know more about how something came into being, it gives you a greater appreciation for the work that was done to bring it about and how fortunate you are in having it available to you. This is so true of God’s GRACE. It is more than just a word; it is a willful act by God of undeserved love, compassion, and mercy. So every morning, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to start each day by thanking God for His GRACE. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part X

Verse 29: Now, in quick succession, Jesus will focus on one type of tomb after another. “It will be bad for you teachers of the law and you Pharisees! You are hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets. And you show honor to the graves of the godly people who were killed.

In this indictment, Jesus uses terms that were very familiar to His listening audience regarding the way they excavated graves and built shrines over them. In the Jewish Mishnah, we find the following instructions on preparing tombs or digging graves: “Dug out graves¹ and built tombs may not be dug during weekdays of a Festival, but dug out graves may be adapted [e.g., shortened or lengthened] during the Festival, and a clothes washer’s vat may be constructed during the Festival, and a coffin, with the deceased [present for all to see] in the courtyard [may be made during festival weekdays since people will know that this is not ordinary project].”²

Rabbis Moses Maimonides and Obadiah Bartenura commented on this by saying that the graves were the holes which are dug into the earth, and the sepulchers are the buildings erected over the grave.³ Likewise, in the Babylonian Talmud we read in their commentary on the Mishnah – called “Gemara”: “What are KUKIN [dug out graves] and what are BURIAL PLACES?— Said Rabbi Judah, kukin are recesses made by excavation and ‘burial-places’ are structures made by building.”⁴ This should help you distinguish between the two.

We are told that many of these edifices, which they built over the graves of some of their prophets and righteous men, were very grand and beautiful. Those who have visited the Holy Land come back with pictures and descriptions of these sepulchers that are very impressive, especially Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem. Jesus was not speaking against such monuments since it was certainly an honor and laudable for people to show such respect to those they held in such high esteem, but to illustrate something that was made to look good on the outside while covering up their wicked deed on the inside.

Painting of Rachel’s Tomb as it looked in the late 1800’s © Holly Hayes

Chrysostom shares his view. He writes: “Jesus did not pronounce woe upon them because they blamed others or because they build monuments. Rather, He pronounces woe because while pretending to condemn those who killed the prophets, they do worse. They witness against themselves. As for evidence that their adorning of monuments is a pretense, Luke says, ‘Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you build their tombs.’⁵ Their purpose was not to honor those that were slain but to make a show of the murders. They are afraid lest, when the tombs had perished by time, the proof of their daring should fade away. They set up these buildings as a kind of trophy, priding themselves in the daring deeds of those men and displaying them. This is what is reproved by the Lord.”⁶

Verse 30: “And you say, ‘If we had lived during the time of our ancestors, we would not have helped them kill these prophets.’”

How many times have you heard someone say, “If I had lived back in the days of… I would have done this or done that?” That’s what Jesus said the scribes and Pharisees were claiming. What upset our Lord most, was the fact that while they patted themselves on the back for showing such respect to these holy men of God, they actually would have joined them in persecuting and killing these holy men. It was all a sham, Jesus said. Rather than these scribes and Pharisees being descendants of the prophets, they, were in fact, children of those murderers with the selfsame bloodthirsty, persecuting spirit inside of those who killed them.

It didn’t take very long to prove our Lord right because these same individuals started doing the things to the apostles that their forefathers did to the prophets. This had been a long-standing problem as we see in Chronicles, “The Lord, the God of their ancestors, sent prophets again and again to warn His people. He did this because He felt sorry for them and for His Temple. He didn’t want to destroy them or His Temple. But they made fun of God’s prophets and refused to listen to them. They hated God’s messengers.”⁷

If there was anything that the Lord despised, it was self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Such, He found breeding among the Scribes and Pharisees, these self-made and self-appointed experts who spent most of their time pointing out and criticizing all things contrary to their own views and beliefs. As Eliphaz said to his friend Job, “What you say clearly shows your sin. You are trying to hide your sin by using clever words. I don’t need to prove to you that you are wrong. The words from your own mouth show that you are wrong. Your own lips speak against you.” While these charges did not apply to Job, it certainly fits the character of the scribes and Pharisees.⁸

Chrysostom gives us a paraphrase of what Jesus is saying here to these religious leaders: “And you yourselves continue to do these things in this spirit. Though you may speak to the contrary, you still do them. You say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Yet your own disposition is evident. Even as you are unfolding your intention, you are already expressing it however disguised. So Jesus adds, ‘Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets.’ If you are the son of a murderer but do not partake of the mind of your father, you yourself are not to blame. But if you do so partake, you have an affinity with his wickedness.”⁹

Verses 31-32: “So you give proof that you are descendants of those who killed the prophets. And you will finish the sin that your ancestors started!”

The attitude of these opponents of Jesus would be much like (no offense is meant here nor any denigration of character intended) an illegitimate son extolling the virtues and the value of chastity, condemning all others who do not heed his words, all the while forgetting that he himself was the result of non-virtue and fornication. We must never forget that we are all sinners saved by grace, therefore we need to talk to unconverted sinners as once our brothers and sisters in the flesh while we try to get them to see the benefit and joy of becoming our brothers and sisters in the Spirit. Once the hypocrisy of these Pharisees had been exposed, the Lord would explain the consequences to them.

Cyril of Alexandria gives us his commentary: “We will carefully investigate what the Savior says. The forefathers of the Jews killed the holy prophets who were transmitting the divine word to them in those times. They surely have become witnesses for some of them, because the prophets are now revered and honored. They have placed crowns on their heads or assign … honor to their tombs as to holy things, for believing the prophets to be holy men, they have become the judges of those who have killed them. For by honoring them in this way, they have spoken against those who killed them, and through these things they accuse them of having acted wickedly. But though they agreed to condemn the murders committed by their own forefathers, they were about to become threshing floors for the same kind of evils, indeed, to things even worse. They ‘killed the author of life’ and added to their impieties against Him other murders, those of His holy apostles. For while one scrutinizes the sins of others, making a decision according to one’s innate reason, one sees the wickedness and censures it.… He who is led into similar passions is like a blind man carried away.”¹⁰

Some years later, Hilary of Poitiers has this to say on the text: “The form of judgment is perfect; the understanding and idea of equity are instilled in each of us by nature so that the more fully the ideal of equity is known, the less need there is for the forgiveness of iniquity. The people of the law killed all the prophets. They had become inflamed with hatred toward them because of the harshness of their reproaches since the prophets had publicly called them thieves, murderers, adulterers and sacrilegious. Moreover, because they had denounced the Jews as unworthy of the kingdom of heaven and because they taught that the Gentiles would be the heirs of the covenant of God, they afflicted the prophets with a variety of other punishments. The descendants, however, repudiated the deeds of their fathers, honoring the prophets’ books, decorating their tombs, restoring their sepulchers and attesting by these forms of respect that they were not culpable for the crimes of their fathers.”¹¹

Some 300 years later, another church scholar gives his impression of what he wants the reader to understand here. He writes: “Every good deed that is done for God is universally good for everything and everyone. Deeds that are not seen to benefit everything and everyone, however, are done on account of man, as the present matter itself demonstrates. For example, those who build reliquaries and adorn churches seem to be doing good. If they imitate the justice of God, if the poor benefit from their goods and if they do not acquire their goods through violence against others, it is clear that they are building for the glory of God. If they fail to observe God’s justice, … and if the poor never benefit from their goods and if they acquire their goods from others by means of violence or fraud, who is so foolish not to understand that they are building for human respect rather than for the glory of God? Those who build reliquaries¹² in a just manner ensure that the poor do not suffer as a result of it. For the martyrs do not rejoice when they are honored by gifts for which the poor paid with their tears. What kind of justice is it to give gifts to the dead and to despoil the living or to drain blood from the poor and offer it to God? To do such things is not to offer sacrifice to God but to attempt to make God an accomplice in violence, since whoever knowingly accepts a gift which was acquired by sinful means participates in the sin.”¹³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part IX

Verses 27-28: “It will be bad for you teachers of the law and you Pharisees! You are hypocrites! You are like mausoleums that are painted white. Outside they look fine, but inside they are full of dead people’s bones and all kinds of filth. It is the same with you. People look at you and think you are godly. But on the inside, you are full of hypocrisy and evil.”

In the Syriac and Arabic versions of Matthew, it reads, “you look like tombs covered with lime.” It is known that the Jews marked their graves with white lime so that they might be easily spotted. This was to assist priests, Nazarites, and travelers in avoiding them so they would not be polluted by inadvertent touching. As Moses taught: “Whoever touches one that is slain with a sword in the open fields or a dead body or a human bone or a grave, will be unclean seven days.”¹ We see this explained in the Jewish Mishnah, “…graves are marked with lime which is dissolved and poured on to forewarn a priest, or Nazarite, not to defile themselves by trespassing there.”²

Also, Rabbi Moses Maimonides offers his insight, “Whenever a person discovers a grave, a corpse, or a portion of a corpse that would impart impurity, he should mark it, so that it will not create an obstacle for others. During Chol HaMoed,³ agents of the court go out to mark the graves. An identification mark is not made over a body part that is the size of an olive, because ultimately, its size will be reduced in the earth. With what is the identification made? With lime. It should be mixed and poured over the place of the impurity. The identification mark should not be placed on the exact perimeters of the impurity, but instead, should extend somewhat on either side so as not to ruin pure articles. The identification mark should not be extended much beyond the place of the impurity so as not to spoil Eretz Yisrael.⁴ An identification mark is not made on places that are definitely known to be used for burial, for their identity is universally known, only on the places that are doubtful, e.g., a field in which a grave is hidden by low-hanging branches of trees, or rocks jutting out from a wall.”⁵

There is no doubt, the scribes and Pharisees knew what Jesus was talking about how many of the tombs were whitewashed during these events. At first sight, they hoped they would be thought of for what they pretended to be, pure and holy, righteous and pristine. But in fact, they were as rotten and filthy inside as a sepulcher full of dead men’s rotting corpses, and all the uncleanness; worms, and rottenness which arise from the putrefied carcasses, and are very nauseous and defiling. But there is a subliminal note here in what Jesus says. Just as people are made physically unclean by touching such whitewashed tombs, so people are made spiritually unclean by their contact with these whitewashed Pharisees.

Several early church scholars found a lot of things to say to their listeners and readers based on what Jesus was saying here to Jews who tried to look clean but did not have a clean look. For instance, one early church scholar says: “How men can be compared with a cup and a plate is made clear when Christ adds, ‘for you are full of robbery and iniquity within.’ The Jews washed themselves, their clothing and their utensils as often as they entered the temple or offered sacrifices on solemnities, but they never washed themselves from sin. God neither praised cleanliness of the body nor condemned bodily filth. Nevertheless imagine for the moment that God hates filth of the body, of vessels and other such things. If He were to hate the defilement of things like this, which necessarily get soiled during their ordinary use, how much more would He abhor the defilement of the human conscience, which it is possible for us to keep clean continually? It is not the vessels that need washing with water but the conscience that needs washing with prayer. No one notices if the bowl has been cleaned on the inside, but only if it is dirty on the outside does it get washed. A man … can never touch a drop of water and yet be perfectly clean before God if he has not been defiled by interior sin. If he were to commit a sin, however, he would be black with filth before God, even though he washes himself in the open sea and in every river of the world.”⁶

Then early church scholar Origen adds this commentary: “As the scribes and Pharisees were previously called ‘full of robbery and self-indulgence,’⁷ likewise here they are said to be ‘full of hypocrisy and iniquity’ and are compared with ‘the bones of the dead and all uncleanness.’ Hypocrisy, because it is a counterfeit of the good, possesses nothing vital of the good it simulates, but is only its dead bones, so to speak.… If we listen with wisdom to what the present passage wants to tell us, we will understand that every simulated righteousness is a dead righteousness, hence no righteousness at all. Just as a dead man can still have the appearance of a man, even though he is in fact no longer a man, so also a dead chastity is no chastity. For any virtue is dead when it is not practiced for God but feigned on account of men. He who feigns righteousness can give the appearance of being righteous even though what he has is not righteousness at all but only a figment of righteousness, much like impersonators who can take on the appearance of another individual without thereby actually becoming the other person. The same is true concerning chastity. Because of this, men who do such things are appropriately compared with ‘whitewashed tombs which look beautiful from the outside,’ for they give every external appearance of righteousness, even though they are full of ‘the bones of the dead’ within.”⁸

Then, around 370 AD, early church preacher Chrysostom has this to say to his congregation: “You have been counted worthy to become temples of God. But you have instead suddenly become more like graves, having the same sort of smell. This is dreadful. It is extreme wretchedness that one in whom Christ dwells and in whom the Holy Spirit has worked such great works should turn out to be a sepulcher, a place for death. What wretchedness is this? What mourning and lamentation does this call for! The members of the body of Christ have become a tomb of uncleanness? Remember your sonship and how you were born. Consider what things by which you have been counted worthy. Recall what sort of garment you received in baptism. You were intended to be a temple without fault, beautiful, not adorned with gold or pearls but with the spirit that is more precious than these. You are hardly ready to appear in the city above if you remain a tomb below. For if here, this is forbidden, much more there. Even here you are an object of scorn. You carry around a dead soul. You are shunned. Be honest. If anyone were to go carrying around a dead body, wouldn’t everyone else rush for cover! Wouldn’t they all flee? But this is what you are like. You go about carrying a corpse far more grievous than this. It is a soul deadened by sins, a soul paralyzed.”⁹

The remarkable thing about the words of Jesus is that although they were spoken over 2,000 years ago to a generation no longer with us, they are just as powerful, meaningful, and relevant to those today who call themselves children of God as they were back then. Such individuals claim, that the old man of sin within is dead and they are now alive in Christ Jesus. Yet, they continue to carry around the corpse of their old nature because they cannot bring themselves to bury it and move on.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part VIII

Verse 24: “You are delusional! You strain a gnat out of your drink, then turn around and swallow a camel!”

Here again, Jesus opens another four-fold series of indictments against the Pharisees and scribes on their dichotomous interpretation of verbal law, and God’s law. He starts with their punctilious payment of tithes, right down to the spices given to them. He matches three spices with three virtues. There is no reason to draw any inference as to how they match up either in essentials or use. However, there is a subliminal touché that Jesus accomplishes against the Pharisees’ pride.

According to the Jewish Mishnah: “Rue weed, wild asparagus, pigweed, mountain coriander, water parsley, and meadow berries, are exempt from tithes because tithes are only taken from owned produce; the aforementioned are generally abandoned and are considered ownerless property and are not subject to tithes.”¹ In other words, such spices were not subject to tithing, yet they did it anyway just for show. But we can also see that the three spices were designed to make them feel good when mixed with their soups and salads, while the three virtues are designed to make others feel good when mixed with compassion.

Here we have the same principle at work in the prophet Samuel’s question: “Which pleases the LORD more: burnt offerings and sacrifices or obeying His commands? It is better to obey the Lord than to offer sacrifices to Him. It is better to listen to Him than to offer the fat from rams.”² And Proverbs echoes the same sentiment, “Do what is right and fair. The LORD loves that more than sacrifices.”³

This was also the prophet Hosea’s message to the people, “This is because I want faithful love, not sacrifice. I want people to know God, not to bring burnt offerings.”⁴ One Jewish Rabbi comments on this verse: “We see that the burnt offering is the most beloved of sacrifices, for the burnt offering is entirely consumed by the flames. But the study of Torah is more beloved by God than burnt offerings. For if a man studies Torah he comes to know the will of God.”⁵ In other words, to know the will of God one must study the word of God. Hosea goes on to mention the acts of loving-kindness God expected, because “From the very first the world was created only with mercy.⁶”⁷

When Jesus mentions the weightier or more important issues in keeping the law, no doubt the Pharisees and scribes knew that He was making a reference to the teachings in the Mishnah, where Rabbis were discussing what proselytes should be taught. If he can prove his desire to be a proselyte, then the Rabbi says, “…he is accepted straightaway, and is given instruction in some of the minor and some of the major commandments,”⁸ among which was the “Poor Man’s Tithe.”⁹ So in effect, Jesus was putting these scribes and Pharisees on the level of proselytes in their knowledge and understanding of the law. The Jews had a law, which forbids them the eating of any creeping thing, and of this they were strict observant.¹⁰

With regard to straining out a gnat, we discover that this Greek word kōnōps is used only here in the New Testament. We are told that it refers to a wine gnat or midge that is bred in fermenting and evaporating wine. Straining was to prevent ingestion and thereby becoming impure. For instance, in the Jewish Talmud, we find: “If one eats a flea or a gnat he is an apostate. Now such a thing could only be done to provoke, and yet we are taught that he is merely an apostate! — Even in that case, he may just be trying to see what a forbidden thing tastes like.”¹¹

And, a highly respected Rabbi states: “One who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito [gnat] whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.”¹² Jesus is using this as an illustration of their inconsistency and hypocrisy. In other words, while they are trying to avoid being called an apostate, they are in fact showing themselves to be renegades. It was simply using one of the smallest of creatures in comparison with one of the largest to illustrate how they were so picky in pointing out the smallest of misdeed in others while ignoring the biggest mistake in their own lives.

One Jewish polemic writer sees Jesus teaching here in a different light. He says: “He meant, ‘I am the camel.’ Now, those prophets who are as significant as gnats you leave alone and tell nothing; indeed, you even accept their prophecies. But as for me who am as important as a camel and who came to suffer tribulations for your sake – just as a camel bears the burden willingly, so did I descend willingly to suffer tribulations and so redeem the world – you swallow me up; i.e., it is your intention to kill me.”¹³ In all my studies and reading I’ve not found any other scholar who accepts this interpretation. But it does show the faulty mentality that our Lord encountered.

Verse 25: Then comes the next warning. “It will be bad for you teachers of the law and you Pharisees! You are hypocrites! You wash clean the outside of your cups and dishes. But inside they are full of what you got by cheating others and pleasing yourselves.”

Rabban Gamaliel offered a similar comparison between what was on the outside not corresponding to what was on the inside. He proclaimed: “No disciple whose character does not correspond to his exterior may enter the Beth ha-Midrash.”¹⁴ We must make note at this point, what Jesus is saying here is still tied to His admonition about the inconsistency of the Jews who swore on the gold as being more valid that swearing on the Temple. And, swearing on the offering gave more certainly to the vow than swearing on the altar.

Early church bishop Apollinaris gives his explanation: “The law of Moses taught through the use of symbols how to maintain purity throughout life’s activities. It was the custom of the Jews, passed on to them from their ancient traditions, to wash carefully their cups and the dish that contained their food. They observed these practices to maintain their purity and to avoid contact with “sinful people.” Their aim was that they might flee from fellowship with sinners.… How much more through such practices were they preparing themselves to flee from sin itself. And yet those who were carefully observing these practices were themselves acting like robbers and violently making a profit, becoming loathsome by doing so. Therefore Jesus says this: ‘Flee unrighteousness, O blind Pharisee. For you fail to perceive how you are acting. For what is in the cup and dish are clean if they are not gained in an unrighteous manner. Righteousness cleanses the vessel much better than water.’”¹⁵

Then early church theologian Origen has this to say: “If it is proper to regard everything in the gospel according to the moral sense … we can say that it is a sort of spiritual food and spiritual drink that we receive when we read the law and the prophets in Scripture. Indeed, the language through which we take our spiritual drink and the biblical narratives on which we are nourished are the plates and cups for our food and drink. This is why we are warned not to take as much care for their outside as we do for their inside so that our hearts might be filled with pure understanding, not merely adorned with fine rhetoric and grammar. For ‘the Kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.’¹⁶ Whoever strives harder to dress his speech in elegant composition than to fill it with saving doctrine has cleaned only the outside, but the inside remains stained with vanity.…We can also say that the very words of the law and the prophets are the cups of spiritual drink for souls and that the plates or bowls of nourishing food for the faithful are their wise authors. The scribes and Pharisees work diligently at discerning only the external, literal meaning of these prophetic cups and plates and bowls, eager to demonstrate that the vessels themselves are pure and holy. The disciples of Christ … hasten to purify and sanctify the interior, spiritual meaning by means of knowledge and credible explanations, so that they might eat and drink the law and the prophets whose inside has been purified, desiring as they do to hear and understand the interior, mystical meaning and to go beyond the literal sense of the words.”¹⁷

Verse 26: “Pharisees, you are blind! First, make the inside of the cup clean and good. Then the outside of the cup will also be clean.”

There is no evidence that Jesus found the Pharisees and scribes in the same condition that Isaiah did: “But now those leaders are drunk. The priests and prophets are all drunk with wine and beer. They stumble and fall down. The prophets are drunk when they see their dreams. The judges are drunk when they make their decisions. Every table is covered with vomit. There is not a clean place anywhere”¹⁸ However, what our Lord saw was just as despicable and disgusting. This was a very important part of a strict Jewish family’s life.

As a matter of fact, in the Jewish Mishnah there is a whole tractate giving rules about the places where they washed, the things to be washed, and the manner of washing them; about which they were very nice, pretending to have achieved outward cleanness but had no regard for inward purity.¹⁹ For instance, in Chapter 1, they discuss what constitutes pure water, its source, etc. Then in Chapter 2, they talk about how much its depth constitutes immersion.

As John Gill points out, “Christ’s sense is, that they took much pain, and were very careful, that the cup they drank out of, and the platter, or dish they ate off of, should be very clean; when at the same time, the food and drink that were within them, were acquired by oppression and plundering; by devouring widows’ houses, by making undue claims upon, and extorting unjust sums from the fatherless, the poor, and the needy; and were abused by them, to enjoy luxury and intemperance. In like manner, the Jews themselves say of hypocrites.”²⁰ Then, our Lord transitions to another form of impurity which the Pharisees and scribes have attempted to camouflage.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part VII

Verses 20-22: “Whoever uses the altar to make a promise is really using the altar and everything on the altar. And anyone who uses the Temple to make a promise is really using the Temple and God, who lives in it. Whoever uses heaven to make a promise is using God’s throne and the one who is seated on it.”

Two things we need to notice here. Jesus was not promoting the idea of swearing by using the altar, Temple or heaven, nor was He telling the Jews that it was wrong. He was pointing out the seriousness of using such sacred objects when making a vow. By focusing on the gold and the offerings, they were trying to avoid the possibility of profaning the Temple and the altar. But our Lord wanted them to know, you can’t have one without the other because each gives the other its meaning. In other words, if a person swears by the altar they should know that the offering on the altar is automatically included and thereby make the oath binding.

But most of all, Jesus points out the connection between the altar, Temple, heavens, and God. It is to God that all the gifts on the altar are made; it is to God that all the praise in the Temple is directed, and it is to God that all adoration directed toward heaven is ascribed. So if you make an oath using God as the ensurer of that oath, you include everything that belongs to Him. Another way to put this is, if you dedicate your hands to do God’s work, you are including your heart, soul, mind, body, and spirit; if you dedicate your heart to Him, you are including everything you are, everything you have, and everything you own. Therefore, take your vows seriously.

Jesus was not fishing for things to criticize these religious leaders about, it was all part of Jewish tradition. For instance, according to John Gill, the following oath was taken: “…swear to me that you wilt not betray me, and he swore to him; by what did he swear? says Rabbi Jose bar Chanina, “by the innermost altar.”¹ Also, in another Midrash it is written, “Again, it is said of Zedekiah, ‘…that Nebuchadnezzar made him to swear’; ‘by what did he make him to swear?’ says Rabbi Jose, ‘by the covenant he made him to swear’; Rabbi says, ‘by the altar‘ he made him to swear.”²

But the real irony that Jesus points out, is that the Pharisees were vowing to offer something higher than the altar. No doubt they had forgotten God’s words to Moses: “Seven days you will make atonement on the altar and consecrate it; thus the altar will be especially holy, and whatever touches the altar will become holy.”³ They had gotten it backwards, but that didn’t matter to them because it didn’t fit into their scheme. Then the Master shows them their foolishness in not respecting the Temple. King David made it clear, “LORD, I love the house where You live, the place where your glory is.”⁴ And had they forgotten the words of Solomon, “Now, Lord, I have built a beautiful Temple for You, where You may live forever.”⁵

When the priest brought water from the pool for the altar, they chanted this hymn, “The LORD has chosen Zion to be the place for His Temple, the place He wanted for His home. He said, “This will always be My place of rest. This is where I want to sit on My throne.”⁶ Previously, Jesus told His followers, “Don’t make a vow using the name of heaven, because heaven is God’s throne.”⁷ But in the Mishnah we read, “[If a man said,] ‘I adjure you’, or ‘ I command you’, or ‘I bind you’, they are liable. [But if he said,] ‘By heaven and by earth’, they are exempt.”⁸

Origen has this to say about swearing on objects to validate one’s oath: “One of the Pharisaical traditions regarded oath taking. Some were swearing by the temple, others by the gold of the temple; some by the altar, others by the gifts of the altar. The Pharisees were teaching that one who swore by the gold of the altar or by the gift of the altar was obligated, whereas one who swore by the Temple or by the altar was not under obligation. Our Savior spoke against these traditions. He wished to call them back from human traditions to divine revelation. Those who hand on such traditions are blind and foolish. They do not see that what is placed in the Temple is not sanctified through itself but through the Lord of the Temple. That which is placed on the altar is judged already as a gift of God, which is why it is placed on the altar. It seems foolish to argue that one who swears in one way is bound and one who swears in another way is not bound. This assumes that what is sanctified is above the one who sanctifies. It seems foolish to argue that one who swears by heaven is less vulnerable than one who swears by God Himself. Jesus showed them that it was equally as absurd to swear by heaven as to swear by the Temple or by the altar. It is irrational to assume that one avoids punishment because he is not swearing by God but by the throne of God. Thus He spoke to the Jews prohibiting them to follow the Pharisaic tradition. Moreover, He clearly rejected the whole business of swearing at all, as if it were a superior way.”⁹

To put it another way, if someone has to swear or affirm on a person or object believed to be greater and more trustworthy than themselves, they are admitting that you cannot believe what they say. So without realizing it, these Jews were using God’s name and God’s house in vain. They had twisted the Scriptures to such a point that Jesus saw them as blind men leading the blind. But it appears that Jesus is just getting started because He presents another four-fold indictment of the scribes and Pharisees.

Verse 23: “It will be bad for you teachers of the law and you Pharisees! You are hypocrites! You give God a tenth of the food you get, even your mint, dill, and cumin. But you don’t obey the really important teachings of the law—being fair, showing mercy, and being faithful. These are the things you should do. And you should also continue to do those other things.”

Jesus was referring here to the established law on tithing produce: “A tenth of all crops belongs to the LORD. This means the crops from fields and the fruit from trees—a tenth belongs to the LORD.”¹⁰ And this included what is said in Isaiah: “A farmer prepares the ground, and then he plants the seed. He plants different kinds of seeds different ways. He scatters dill seeds, he throws cumin seeds on the ground, and he plants wheat in rows. A farmer plants barley in its special place, and he plants spelt seeds at the edge of his field.”¹¹ Mint, dill, and cumin were well-known aromatic plants used in cooking. It grew with very little effort and attention. So the Pharisees were not being all that generous with the Lord by tithing such spices because they didn’t require much investment.

The Rabbis were very detailed in the tithing of these edibles, describing it to this point: “One who peels the outer husk of barley, peels one by one, and may eat without tithing, but if he peeled several and put them into his hand and he is not standing next to the storage pile where he could return them to, he is liable.”¹² Also, the Rabbis specified that: “Pressed figs, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin and if one brought these from a distant country, since they are very similar in appearance as the ones grown in Israel, the Rabbis did not differentiate between the two. However, rice from outside the land [of Israel, since it is easily distinguishable from the white rice of Israel], whoever uses it is exempt from tithing it.”¹³

But while the Pharisees paid close attention to these specifics, they completely overlooked what God said: “People, the LORD has told you what goodness is. This is what He wants from you: Be fair to other people. Love kindness and loyalty, and humbly obey your God.”¹⁴ In other words, Jesus was pointing out the Pharisees’ attention to detail, at the expense of more important matters; weightier moral matters of the law.¹⁵

Origen sees an application for what Jesus teaches here to the church in his day. He writes: “Not only among the Jews but among ourselves as well, we find people sinning in these ways. They are swallowing camels. People of this type frequently show off their religion even in the smallest of things. They are rightly called hypocrites for wanting to exploit their religiosity before men but being unwilling to undertake that very faith which God Himself has justified. Therefore the imitators of the scribes and Pharisees must be dislodged and sent away from us, lest a woe touches us in the same way it touches them. The scribes could be described as those who valued nothing found in the Scriptures except its plain sense interpreted legalistically. Meanwhile, they condemn those who look into the very depths of God Himself. Mint and dill and cumin are only spices for food but are not themselves substantial food. What substantive food would mean in conversion would be that which is necessary for the justification of our souls—faith and love—unlike these legalisms, which are more like condiments and flavorings. It is as if a meal might be thought to consist more of condiments and flavorings than the food itself. The seriousness of judgment is neglected while great attention is given to minor matters. Spiritual exercises which in and of themselves are hardly justice are spoken of as justice and compassion and faith. It is lacking in justice to treat these small parts as the whole. When we do not offer to God the observance of all that is necessary for worship, we fail altogether.”¹⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

Part VI

Verse 16: Now comes the fourth warning to both the Pharisees and scribes from our Savior: “It will be bad for you teachers of the law and you Pharisees! You guide the people, but you are blind. You say, ‘If anyone uses the name of the Temple to make a vow, that means nothing. But anyone who uses the gold that is in the Temple to make a promise must keep that promise.’”

Here Jesus throws the words of His opponents back at them and introduces to the western reader a custom known only among the Jews at that time. In so doing, our Lord points out their inconsistency of interpretation by showing how some say that swearing by the Temple will demand that a vow be kept, but others say it’s not the Temple, but the gold in the Temple that makes the vow binding. The gold, meaning the money.

Using the holy Temple to swear on was done in order to make the most sacred of vows. In the Jewish Mishnah we read where using the Temple in a vow was being discussed regarding what happens to the wives of priests taken captive or coming under Gentile rule if they are suspected of cohabiting with the enemy, “Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav who was a priest said; I swear by this Temple, her hand did not move out of my hand from the time that the heathens entered Jerusalem until they departed and she was not defiled.”¹ And again, in the Talmud, we find, “It once happened that the price of a pair of birds in Jerusalem had risen to gold denarii. Thereupon, Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel vowed, ‘By this Temple! I shall not go to rest this night before these can be obtained for silver denarii’.”²

Today we have similar validations such as, “I swear on the Bible,” or “I swear to God,” or “I swear on my Mother’s grave.” In Jewish literature, we find that Rabbi Johanan emphasized that when swearing by the Temple it was then an obligation for the person making the oath to carry it out even it proves to be inconvenient.³ So we can see that swearing by the Temple was a long-standing tradition, not something that Jesus made up.

However, as far as using the gold in the Temple to back up a promise was concerned, scholars say this is to be understood not of the gold that covered any part of the Temple; nor of the golden vessels in it; but of the gold, or money, or gifts which were offered for the service of the Temple which are called “Korban.” As Jewish scholars explain, the term “ḳorban” was frequently used in vows. By saying, “Let my property be to you a ḳorban”—that is, a gift or donation consecrated to God. When such a donation was identified as korban, it would prevent any other person from deriving any personal benefit from what he was donating.⁴ In Christianity, we can liken this to the tithe.

This, of course, led to such vows being greatly abused by religious leaders, as all inconsiderate vows did, and therefore, was much opposed by the sages.⁵ Jesus had such a vow in view when He accused the teachers of the Law and Pharisees: “If someone says to his father or mother, ‘I have promised as a korban’ (that is, as a gift to God) ‘what I might have used to help you,’ then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. In the same way, with your tradition which was handed down to you, you nullify the Word of God! And you do other things like this.”⁶

However, the charge of hypocrisy, or lip-service, raised by some against the Pharisees in connection with making such vows was not all bad. Pharisaic tradition did actually provide a remedy against rash vows by empowering any sage consulted to dissolve the vow in case it could be shown that it was not made with a full consideration of all its consequences. This very power, “to unbind that which is bound” by the Law being declared to be a privilege of the Rabbis, derived from the spirit of the Law while seemingly against the letter of the law.

So in this sense, when making a vow, the Pharisees taught, that whosoever swore by the gold treasury in the Temple in dedicating their korban, they could not go back on their word anymore than they could not pay their korban. This showed the covetous disposition of these men, who made nothing of oaths that were sworn by the Temple; but only those made as korban, or donations to it, as binding because to them the money was more important than a man’s word. And besides, by holding them to their promise sworn to such korban it produced more money for the Temple. So in a way, they were dissing the Temple while making the korban holy.

Verse 17: “You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!”

So these four accusations involve the Pharisees’ Insincerity, Instigation, Instability, and Insecurity in their faith. They thought that because of their positions and superior knowledge they could get away with it by claiming to be practicing righteousness. But Jesus called it right by accusing them of being not only blind but blind fools. Today, this would be similar to someone preaching to their congregation on tithing and giving, and emphasize how such contributions to the church was the basis for bringing them more blessings so that they could then give even more, without realizing that it is the giving that is the blessing, not what you get in return. But Jesus will have more to say on this subject.

One early church bishop commented about the gold in the Temple: “Jesus is saying that the gold in the Temple…were considered by the Jews to be worthy of much more honor than the Temple. Therefore they were condemned by the Lord.… But the saying possesses a figurative meaning directed against them because they are not receiving the truth regarding Christ. Instead, they were judging Moses and the types given through him as more valuable than Christ.… They were rejecting the Christ who sanctifies Moses while simultaneously praising the law. Just as the law was praiseworthy, not because it possesses the types and the symbols but because it prefigures the true mystery of worship in Christ in the same way that gold is precious because of the one who sanctifies the temple, and heaven is beautiful because of the God who sanctifies it and dwells within it.”⁷

Verses 18-19: “And you say, ‘If anyone uses the altar to make a promise, that means nothing. But anyone who uses the gift on the altar to make a promise must keep that promise.’ You are blind! Can’t you see that the altar is greater than any gift on it? It’s the altar that makes the gift holy!”

One of the earliest theologians of the church gives us his commentary on this subject. He writes: “Those who work in the fields of the gospel seek the hidden meaning of these passages of Scripture. We are not simply confiscating the higher parts of Scripture but rather looking toward its whole sense. As regards swearing, it is intended as a binding action, seeking to confirm the word concerning which something is sworn.

Consider this analogy. Think of the altar as the heart and the temple as the whole of Scripture. The temple of God’s glory, spiritually understood, is the divinely inspired Scripture. The gold refers to the meanings it conveys. To swear is to witness to the Scriptures, as a validation and confirmation of the word we speak. Therefore we ought to profess the whole sense of Scripture as a confirmation of the sense which we invoke in all of our words.

Gold found outside the temple is not sanctified. Rather, that gold which is found in the temple is the measure of that which is outside it. Similarly, the meaning which is found outside of the Scriptures is not holy, but it is contained in the meaning of the Scriptures. Only that sense of Scripture is sanctified which can be seen from within the temple itself, that is, within the whole of Scripture. The temple, that is, the reading of the Scriptures, makes a great and venerable sense, just as consecrated gold is valuable. So we ought not to swear by our own intellects to confirm our beliefs as if we were creating witnesses that could judge according to the truth. But let us explore further the analogy of the temple, the gold, and the altar. The altar is the place where a vow is sanctified. The altar in this passage is the heart of a man. What happens in the heart happens deeply within a person. Vows and gifts placed on the altar are clearly those placed upon the human heart. When you begin to pray, you place the vow of your prayer upon your heart, as if you had placed something upon the altar, so that you might offer your prayer to God.

Suppose you are ready to place an offering of psalms upon your heart, so as to offer to God an offering of psalms, accompanying yourself with a harp. Or suppose you are ready to give alms. You make an offering of alms upon your heart, just as if you had placed something on the altar, as you would offer your alms to God. Suppose you have proposed to fast in order to make an offering of your fasting upon your heart as if you had placed something upon the altar.

In this way, the heart of a man makes vows in a holy and venerable way. It is from the heart, that is, the altar, that the vow is offered to God. Therefore it is not possible for the offering of a man to be more honorable than his heart from which the offering is sent up.”⁸

From all this discussion involving making vows by using God’s name, the Temple, the Altar, or some other sacred object to secure its validity, we can see why Jesus was so upset at those who did so under the guise of doing God’s will when, in fact, it was for their own benefit. The apostle John did not tell us: “For God so love the world that He put up His one and only Son as collateral so that those who wanted to could buy their salvation at a bargain price could do so.” No! It was a gift! Likewise, whatever we do in His name for others should also be a gift. God help us if preachers start charging for their prayers, sermons, advice, and counseling. Promising blessings from God while making themselves wealthy.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” This wise saying was made by famed 19th-century African-American author and orator. Frederick Douglass as he began his speech on Monday, August 3, 1857, in Canandaigua, NY, on the 23rd anniversary of the West India Emancipation. He reminded everyone of the British efforts toward emancipation as well as the crucial role of the West Indian slaves in their own freedom struggle.

This saying has greater meaning when we learn what Douglass himself struggled through. His mother died when he was 10, his father was suspected to be a plantation owner since he was moved into the main house. He was sent to work as a servant in a white household in Baltimore. The owner’s wife defied the law against teaching slaves how to read and taught young Frederick the alphabet. When she was forbidden to continue, Frederick learned to read on his own.

He was then transferred to a less hospitable owner who had a reputation as a “slave-breaker.” But the abuse did not break 16-year-old Frederick emotionally or psychologically. Douglass eventually escaped with the help of a free black woman and traveled by train to New York to the house of a slavery abolitionist. There, the woman who helped him escape came and they were married.

They settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts in a thriving free black community. They joined a church and regularly attended abolitionist meetings. At one meeting, Douglass was asked to tell his story. It was so moving, that he was asked to speak at other meetings. Once during a lecture tour through the Midwest, Douglass was chased and beaten by an angry mob before being rescued by a local Quaker family.

But opposition to his message continued and he finally had to sail overseas to escape capture. With many supporters who attended his lectures there, he was able to raise enough money to purchase his legal freedom and return to the USA a free man. In 1872, he was the first black man ever nominated for vice president of the United States on the Equal Rights Party ticket.

Just like Douglass, many of us were once slaves, but slaves to sin. When we heard the Word about the emancipation effort of Jesus of Nazareth, we wanted to be free. But it didn’t come easy. There were struggles both within and without. Sometimes, we even tried to escape but it always caught up with us. But once we learn that the price for our freedom had been paid by Jesus, the Son of God, and once we accepted this payment by faith, we became free in Christ. But then, the struggles continued on a different level.

Too often we try to hide what we went through, but just like Frederick Douglass, we should never be afraid to tell our story to inspire others, because we too have learned on an emotional and spiritual level, if there is no struggle, there is no progress. – Dr. Robert R Seyda