Matthew 23:1–33

The arguments were now closed. The Jews stood convicted and silenced. Not one adviser among them could answer a word when asked. As a religion and a nation, they stood condemned. The Lord then, as one in the place of judgment, sets out the matters in evidence against them and pronounces the solemn sentence.

Matthew 23 shows how far the disciples are still seen as part of the nation, since they were Jews. Yet the Lord judges the leaders, who misled the people and dishonoured God by their hypocrisy... They are linked with all that is of God in the nation. That is, they are linked with the nation as God's recognised people, and so with the law as carrying God's authority. At the same time the Lord judges the walk of the nation, seen in public through its leaders, and the disciples were to judge it too.

It was an address both to the multitude and to the disciples, with woes for scribes and Pharisees. The Lord fully approved that mixed way of speaking for the time. It seems He provided not only for the disciples, but for the remnant in a future day who will hold this in-between place: believers in Him, yet still filled with Jewish hopes and Jewish associations.

In various ways the first discourse of our Lord in this Gospel, the sermon on the mountain, matches this last one, spoken to the crowds and to His disciples... He sat there as the great One greater than Moses, expounding and expanding the Law. Here He is upon the seat of judgment; the King is the Judge. In the sermon on the Mount He utters His Blessings, Beatitudes, but here as judge He pronounces His Woes.

In Matthew 23 the Lord, while owning the law's authority (despite the falseness of those who administered it), calls His disciples to the lowly position He had taken as their pattern; and He who began with "Blessed, blessed," now ends with "Woe, woe." ... But even here, in declaring the inevitable retribution, He cannot close without a door of hope in the last verse (39).

This chapter records His burning words. In a few days the multitude, influenced by these men, would be shouting for His death. The Lord's warning about the true character of their leaders greatly increased their responsibility and guilt.

The Lord carefully warned against making the scribes and Pharisees a personal standard of right and wrong: they talked and did not act, so they were warning beacons, patterns of wrong, not of right. Still, not only were the disciples classed with the crowd, but even in the strongest denunciations of these religious guides they were still bound by the Lord to acknowledge those who sat in Moses' seat. They really sat there, and the Lord keeps that obligation in force instead of dissolving it: own them and whatever they set out, not from their own traditions, but from the law. This honoured God Himself, despite the hypocrites who only wanted honour from men for themselves. It gives no warrant for false apostles or their self-deceived successors today.

Pharisaism is still on the earth. Ritualism, traditionalism, and with them the rejection of the Lord's authority and His written Word — that is Pharisaism, the evil leaven the Lord warns about... And where in Christendom is a little of that leaven lacking? Only one thing keeps a believer from showing a Pharisaical spirit: the grace of God, an unbroken fellowship with the Father and His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 23 shows how far the Lord still links the disciples with the nation, since they were Jews. He does judge the leaders, who misled the people and dishonoured God by their hypocrisy. He speaks to the crowd and to His disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat." They were the ones who explained the law. So they were to be obeyed in all that they said from that law. Their own conduct, though, was nothing but hypocrisy.

The scribes and Pharisees had set themselves down in Moses' seat. They put themselves there. Even so, it was not entirely a case of seizing a place that was not theirs. A real zeal for the law of God, against the slackness all around, had first put them in the place they now held. Then decay set in. They lost the old spirit but kept the place. Here the Lord recognizes them in that place, and He recognizes the decay just as fully.

So part of our Lord's mission to the Jews was to say that "the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat: so practise and observe whatever they tell you." But He also gave a careful warning. His hearers were never to make the scribes and Pharisees personal standards of good and evil. "But not what they do. For they preach, but do not practise." In themselves they were warning lights, patterns of wrong, not of right. There they were in fact. The Lord upholds the duty to own them, and to own whatever they set out — not from their own traditions, but from the law. He does not dissolve that duty. This honoured God Himself, despite the hypocrites who only sought honour from men for themselves.

About that higher claim of obedience I mentioned: it is the safeguard wherever authority rests in hands that can be wrong. So Christ tells His disciples to obey the scribes sitting on Moses' seat. But when those scribes tell them not to preach Christ, they cannot obey, because God had told them to do otherwise. A parent's authority is sacred. But suppose I were a Jew, and my father told me not to become a Christian. I disobey him, because a higher obligation stands over his. This matters morally. No one may leave or refuse a lawful authority on the ground of his own will or self. The only ground is the direct authority of God.

The leaders occupied Moses' seat. As long as they enforced the law of Moses, they were to be obeyed. But they lacked the very first principle of a true lawgiver: he must be under the laws himself. These, on the contrary, exalt themselves at the cost of a burdened people.

Our teaching and our appeals have no more value than our lives give them. Of the scribes and Pharisees in His day, the Lord had to say that they preach but do not practise. How solemn this is! The teaching was good, but the teachers did not match the teaching.

The Lord had even authorized obedience to scribes and Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat. To make this text apply the way people apply it now, they first had to set up Moses' seat in the Christian Church.

The scribes and Pharisees had set themselves down in Moses' seat. It was their own act, yet it cannot be called a complete takeover. An earnest zeal for the law of God, against the slack ways of the day, first put them in the place they now hold. Then decline set in. They lost the old spirit but kept the place — and the Lord plainly recognises them in it here, while fully recognising the decay too.

The Lord leaves the disciples in the relation with the Jewish leaders in which they were then found... All were subject to the authority of the scribes and the Pharisees. These men sat in Moses' seat. People ought to hear them about the instructions they drew from the law given through Moses. Still, one must carefully guard against following the way they lived: they were hypocrites who spoke and did not act.

But the Lord carefully warned them not to make the scribes and Pharisees personal standards of good and evil in any way: "but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice." They were in themselves warning lights, patterns of wrong, not of right... The Lord keeps that obligation in force instead of dissolving it. People still had to own them and whatever they set forth — not their own traditions, but what came from the law. This was to honour God Himself, despite the hypocrites who only sought honour from men for themselves. It gives no warrant to false apostles or their self-deceived successors now.

After the Lord's death the apostles laboured, and their work bore fruit in Israel. For that work the chief priests and scribes were wholly set aside. Before the cross it was different (Matt. 23:2-3).

He began by granting them the place they claimed as the interpreters of the law of Moses. So the people were to keep and do the law as they heard it from their lips. Yet they were to carefully avoid taking them as examples. Their lives contradicted the law they proclaimed. They made rules for others without the smallest conscience about their own obedience... it is a very common fault among professional religious people, who love directing others while taking it easy themselves.

An ounce of example is worth more than a ton of precept... When the Lord Jesus was on earth, the Jewish people had many teachers — scribes and Pharisees. Their teaching was good, but their own lives were bad... Mr. Spurgeon once spoke of a minister who was so good in the pulpit, but so questionable in the way he lived. When he was in the pulpit, the people said it was a pity he should ever come out of it. When he was not in the pulpit, they said it was a scandal that he should ever be allowed in! Let us above all things be real! God forbid that we should proclaim to others truths of which we do not know the power in our own souls.

In Matthew 5:19 He links His promise to the agreement between actions and doctrine.

He carefully warned them not to treat the scribes and Pharisees as personal standards of good and evil in any way. Do not do what they do, "for they preach, but do not practice." In themselves they were warning lights, patterns of wrong, not of right. Yet even while He condemned these religious guides in the strongest terms, the Lord still bound His disciples, for the time being, to acknowledge those who sat in Moses' seat. He kept that duty in force instead of cancelling it. The people were to accept these men and whatever they taught — not their own traditions, but what came from the law.

A serious zeal for the law of God, against the general slackness, first put them in the place they now held. Then decline set in. They lost the old spirit but kept the position. They now claimed to serve God and bore no fruit, and their lives contradicted what they claimed. Meanwhile the rule of the rabbi was a tyranny of the harshest kind. It tied burdens hard to bear on men's shoulders — an oppression that kept growing, more and more unbearable, and never lightened.

"Rabbinism placed the rules of tradition above those of the Law... There was a general rule that no rule should be laid on the people heavier than they could bear. Even so, the teachers admitted this much: the words of the Law contained both what 'lightened' and what 'made heavy,' while the words of the scribes contained only what 'made heavy.' They held another principle too. Once they had increased a burden, that increase had to be kept for good." No wonder the Lord said they would not put out even a finger to move the unbearable load.

The idea in the Greek word phortion (from a verb meaning "to carry") is that someone has to carry it, like freight or baggage, though it need not be heavy. The burden the Jewish leaders laid on others was heavy (Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46). Or it may be light, as the Lord says, "my burden is light" (Matthew 11:30).

They legislated for others without the smallest conscience about their own obedience. The Lord said this here. It is a very common fault in people who make a career of religion. They love directing other people while having an easy time themselves.

It is an easy thing to lay burdens upon others; it is hard to bear them. Christianity is the exact opposite of this. Christ comes down first and takes the heaviest burden of all — the judgment of our sin and guilt, our condemnation from God. Then He leaves us under the gospel, without that burden... Grace does bring the highest obligations. But they are the obligations of free men, who use their freedom for the One they love.

It was said of the Pharisees that they tied burdens hard to bear on men's shoulders. But they would not touch those burdens with one of their own little fingers. This was the spirit that was creeping in among the Galatians; the direct result of turning to the law as a rule of life.

Short portions of the law were written on strips of parchment. These were placed in a case made of calf skin, and worn on the forehead and the left arm, supposedly in obedience to Deuteronomy 6:8 and Deuteronomy 11:18. The Pharisees and scribes made them large to attract attention, and the Lord condemned this making them "broad." In later times they wore them as a sort of charm.

Strictly speaking, something to be worn on the forehead and, as the passages say, between the eyes. Israel's rescue from Egypt and the law were to be always before them, as a token on their hand and as frontlets between their eyes (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18). They were also told to lay the words up in their hearts. So it seems clear that wearing them as frontlets was meant as a picture. In the New Testament we find that people took it literally, and they called the articles they wore phylacteries.

When we turn to Matthew 23:5, we learn the sad use that man had made of this God-given institution. The very thing set up to make them remember the Lord, and to obey His precious word in lowliness, they turned into an occasion of self-exaltation and religious pride. Instead of thinking of God and His word, they thought of themselves, and of the place they held in the opinion of others. Not a thought of God. They lost the spirit of the original institution altogether, while keeping up the outward form for selfish ends. So let us take care. We must not turn the heavenly memorial into an earthly badge, or turn what should lead to lowly obedience into an occasion of self-exaltation.

It was to be a reminder of the sacredness of the commands of God, and a protection against doing their own wills. As the centuries passed, men twisted even this, as Matthew 23:5 shows so plainly. The Pharisees showed a false piety by enlarging the borders of their garments. Yet these same men set aside the commands of God in favour of their own tradition.

Yes, the eye of the Son of God saw that ribbon of blue on the fringe of their garments as a mark of hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Then, in verses 5-12, He exposed their love of notice and pre-eminence. All was for the eye of men. At feasts, in synagogues, in markets — the social circle, the religious circle and the business circle — they wanted the chief place as Rabbis and Masters. The disciple of Christ is to be the exact opposite of all this, so let us take it deeply to heart.

This is the only place where phylacteries are mentioned. They bound four portions of the word of God in a leather case on their foreheads and on their left arm. This was to show that they were obedient in mind and heart. God knows best. He is the searcher of the heart. This is the exact opposite of Philippians 2. The Lord Jesus is the great example of going down: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus." When I know I am a dear child, I can afford to go down.

Then, in verses 5-12, He exposed their love of notice and of being first. All was for the eye of men. At feasts — the social circle. In synagogues — the religious circle. In markets — the business circle. In all of them they wanted the chief place as Rabbis and Masters. The disciple of Christ is to be the exact opposite of all this, so let us take it deeply to heart.

A chest stood at one end, holding the sacred books. Near this was the place of honour, or the 'chief seats,' which some people wanted, Matthew 23:6, and James 2:2-3 (where the word translated 'assembly' is 'synagogue').

In this verse, the word "rooms" is out of date in our language in this sense. It means "place." Standing above others, being higher in the church, is completely against what the Lord taught… The great thing is to be true inwardly. God will have truth in the inward parts no matter what others think of us.

But it was not only this God-dishonouring pettiness. "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces." Now we come to something else. It is not so much their personal conduct, or their claim to be the strictest of all in conscience. It is their love of a public name for holiness, and of honour in the religious world.

Such people love display — "long robes;" public recognition — "greetings in the marketplaces;" top place in religion — "the best seats in the synagogues;" social standing — "the places of honor at feasts;" building themselves up, even at the expense of widows; and religious showing off, when "for a pretense they make long prayers." How solemn are the Lord's words: "They will receive the greater condemnation." The greater the pretension, the greater the judgment.

Then comes a more positive word: "When you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place." He had done so Himself. Then "when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher.'" He took the form of a servant. He was found in human form, humbled Himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. "Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name" (Philippians 2:9).

If I know I am a sinner, and so deserve no place, I will take none. I will wait until God gives me one… When God gives me a place, it is a place of power and nearness to Himself. When a man takes a place for himself, it is a place of weakness and separation from God, because self is the object.

So the very thing God set up to lead them to remember Jehovah, and to obey His precious word in lowliness, they turned into an occasion for self-exaltation and religious pride… Can we not see something like this around us and among us? Let us think of it — think deeply and seriously.

Then, in verses 5-12, He exposed their love of notice and pre-eminence. It was all for the eye of men. At feasts, the social circle. In synagogues, the religious circle. In markets, the business circle. In each of them they wanted the chief place as Rabbis and Masters. The disciple of Christ is to be the exact opposite of all this, so let us take it deeply to heart.

A title of respect among the Jews, meaning "master, teacher." There is no known use of it before the time of Herod the Great. People used it of the Lord Himself... Jesus forbade His disciples to be called Rabbi, for Christ alone was their Master (Matthew 23:8). In Jewish use the steps of honour rose from Rab to Rabbi, and then to Rabban or Rabboni.

They liked to be recognised as something great — "Rabbi," my master. "Rab" means great one.

All this increased their power with the people. Power and place were what they were always seeking... With it came a love of prominent places too — at feasts and in the synagogues. They also loved greetings in the markets, where people addressed them as Rabbi, with all due respect.

There are few greater snares than human honour and praise, for they destroy faith. "How can you believe," said our Lord, "when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" (John 5:44). John 12:42-43 tells us the same thing. Many of the rulers believed in Him. Yet they did not confess Him, because they feared the Pharisees would put them out of the synagogue. They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.

The spirit of the disciples was to be the opposite of all that. They were not to be called Rabbi, for Christ alone was their Master, and they were all brothers. They were not to call others by the name of father, for only One was their Father, He who is in the heavens. Finally, they were not to be called teachers, for Christ alone was the One who taught them. Whoever would be great among them was to be their servant.

All this calls for serious attention from everyone who truly calls Christ Lord. Yet it also needs wisdom in how we apply it. Scripture itself applies all these terms — "teacher," "father," "leader" — to disciples. So they cannot be forbidden outright. But that is what happened in Israel then, and it has largely happened in the Christian Church today. Men who should have been the servants of their brothers claimed to be masters. They stood between the consciences of men and Him who alone is Lord of the conscience.

A title of respect among the Jews, meaning 'master, teacher.' There is no record of anyone using it until the time of Herod the Great... Jesus told His disciples not to let anyone call them Rabbi, for one was their Master (kathegetes), even Christ. According to the Jews the levels of honour rose from Rab to Rabbi, and from there to Rabban or Rabboni.

The "leader" here (kathegetes) is more than a teacher: he is the teacher who may have many teachers under him... But it was so in Israel then, and it has become so in much of the Christian Church today. Those who should have been the servants of their brothers claimed to be masters. They stood between the consciences of men and Him who alone is Lord of the conscience.

The spirit of the disciples was to be the opposite of all that. They were not to let anyone call them Rabbi, for Christ alone was their Master, and they were brothers. They were no longer to call others by the name of father, for only one was their Father, He who is in the heavens. Finally, they were not to let anyone call them teachers, for Christ alone was the One who taught them. Whoever would be great among them was to be their servant. Whoever exalted himself on earth would be brought low, and whoever humbled himself would be lifted up.

Such things were not to be among believers. So the Lord next puts His finger on the beginnings of things. If allowed, they would produce the very same thing in Christianity as they had done in Judaism. So — they were to avoid the principles of the Rabbi who sought to form a school around himself. Their Instructor was Christ, and His word their sole authority and unerring guide... And there was to be no leadership apart from the leadership of Christ Himself.

Of course, there are God-given teachers. No one with Scripture in front of him could deny that... It is the intended glory of all these special 'gifts' to enable those they speak to to do without them — to send men from themselves to Christ.

Scripture is clear that some believers are, in a spiritual way, "fathers" (1 Cor. 4:15), "teachers," "pastors," "evangelists" (Ephesians 4:11), and "leaders" (Heb. 13:17). But the Lord forbids anyone to give or to accept such a title. Only Christ has a right to the title "Teacher" or "Leader." Only God the Father in heaven has the right to be called "Father." "All you are brothers," He insists. That is, none are above others; all stand on the same level.

The question here is not about the various gifts the Lord gives by the Holy Spirit to His members in His body the Church. It is about religious authority in the world, and about the status and respect that come with church office or position.

Here as elsewhere Scripture shows the dignity of using the term. Had not Christ said, "One is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brothers"? Besides, He is not ashamed to call us brothers... Since there will only be brothers in the Father's house, let us be only brothers down here.

We are glad to receive the truth, "One is your Master, Christ; and all you are brothers." But if we make our common brotherhood a reason for ignoring God's order, we lose its blessedness and disobey the Master... Anyone who thinks that being a "brother" leaves him free to take up any function in the assembly makes a serious mistake.

This cannot refer to our father in the flesh. Scripture insists strongly that we owe full respect to our own father and mother on earth. It clearly refers to calling anyone on earth "father" in a spiritual sense, in contrast to the Father in Heaven. To call anyone "father" in a religious sense is an insult to the great Father in Heaven. But the Roman priesthood sets this ban aside. Their fatherhood is plainly a religious one, for they are celibate. Their own Church laws do not allow them to marry.

Nothing was to be allowed that would weaken their sense of relationship to God as their Father.

They were not to be called Rabbi, for Christ alone was their Master, and they were brothers. They were no longer to call others by the name of father, for only one was their Father, He who is in the heavens. Finally, they were not to be called teachers, for Christ alone was the One who taught them. Whoever would be great among them was to be their servant. Anyone who exalted himself on earth would be brought low, and anyone who humbled himself would be lifted up.

On the other hand, Scripture is clear that some are "fathers" in a spiritual way (1 Cor. 4:15), and others are "teachers," "pastors," "evangelists" (Ephesians 4:11), and "leaders" (Heb. 13:17). But the Lord strictly forbids giving or accepting any of these as a title. Only Christ has a right to the title "Teacher" or "Leader." Only God the Father in heaven may be called "Father." "You are all brothers," He insists; that is, none are above others, but all on the same level.

The question here is not about the various gifts which the Lord gives by the Holy Spirit to His members in His body, the Church. It is about religious authority in the world, and about the status and respect that come with church office or position.

But it was so in Israel then, and it has become just as common in the Christian Church today. Those who should have been the servants of their brothers claimed to be masters. They stood between the consciences of men and Him who alone is the Lord of the conscience. Neither the Church as a whole nor any group of men in it can rightly claim an authoritative place for their teaching. Scripture alone, as the word of the Lord, has that place. Yet in many forms this is what men keep doing, and the people of God, for their part, are not merely allowing the claim but encouraging it.

It is striking that the word "reverend" is found only once in the Bible, and that time it refers to God. It appears in Psalm 111:9. That verse tells us God's name is reverend, and no other name in Scripture is ever called this. How then can any mortal man, however godly and worthy of respect, be given or take a title which God's Word gives to God alone?

Kathēgētēs means a Guide or Leader. It appears three times, and the Lord applies the title to Himself in Matthew 23:8, 10.

The "leader" here (kathegetes) is more than teacher: he is the teacher who may have many teachers under him.

They were not to be called Rabbi, for Christ alone was their Master, and they were brothers. They were no longer to call others by the name of father, for only one was their Father, He who is in the heavens. Last, they were not to be called teachers, for Christ alone was the One who taught them. Whoever would be great among them was to be their servant.

Matthew 23:10 proves that He did call Himself "the Christ." So Carr is wrong to say, about this passage in John, that our Lord applies the term "Christ" to Himself only there.

The question here is not about the various gifts the Lord gives by the Holy Spirit to His members in His body the Church. It is about religious authority in the world, and a certain status and respect that come from holding church office or position.

Scripture itself uses all these terms — "teacher," "father," "leader" — of disciples. So they cannot be meant to be forbidden in an absolute way. But in Israel then, as widely in the Christian Church today, those who should have been the servants of their brothers claimed to be masters. They stood between the consciences of men and Him who alone is the Lord of the conscience... The louder and more commanding the Church's voice, the more the voice of God in His word goes unheard.

Such titles as Rabbi (Teacher) or Father or Master (Leader) are neither to be given to men, nor are men to accept them. The Lord is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense. Of course children may rightly call their natural father by that name. But we must refuse completely any title that puts a person in a place of spiritual prominence. Men may invent variations of these, such as "reverend," which is worse, for the title means "worthy of reverence."

My Christian friend, allow no one to stand between you and Christ! Christ alone is your Master. You must give account to Him alone... Of course, you don't refuse the help that He gives you through another: that would be pride and self-sufficiency. But one of Satan's most subtle and successful traps catches us here. We fall into it when we let the respect we have for one another, the rightful confidence in someone's genuineness, wisdom or godliness, make that person the director of our consciences in the things of God.

We have to pray against letting in the world's spirit — the love of being first, both inside and outside. So the word is, "Do not be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers." ... The question here is not about the various gifts the Lord gives by the Holy Spirit to His members in His body, the Church. It is about religious authority in the world, and about a certain status and respect that come from a church office or position. But the great moral principle of the kingdom (which is always true) is enforced here: "The greatest among you shall be your servant."

"The greatest among you shall be your servant." In service — in the ability to serve — true greatness is. And if the spirit of service is love, and love is the spirit of heaven, then this must follow. There is no avoiding so plain a fact: "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

The principle, "The greatest among you shall be servant of all," seems to have two sides. The first, perhaps, is this: any thought of self-importance only makes it necessary for a person to be brought low. The other side is this: the best proof of a spirit of rule is to serve the beloved sheep of Christ, in a place where they face all kinds of attacks. So He, the true King, could say in the fullest way, "I am among you as the one who serves."

Verse 11. "The greatest among you shall be your servant." Here is the opposite principle. ... When I go to Exodus 21, I see the Hebrew servant serving six years, a full term of service. Then he has the chance to go out free. Outside, liberty; inside, service. The question arises: which will love choose? Love delights to serve; there is the path of the Lord Jesus Christ. On the mount of transfiguration He has the glory there. The Father says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." Yet He comes down and goes to Calvary! There He plainly says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free." He will not be in the glory alone.

In Israel then, those who should have been the servants of their brothers claimed to be masters. They stood between the consciences of men and Him who alone is Lord of the conscience. That is also what has largely come to be in the Christian Church today.

Anyone who seeks to be great, and to take the lead among Christians, has completely falsified the Christian character. He will be the last of all. The true way to have the highest place is to serve. Count yourself the slave of what other disciples need.

"Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time He may exalt you" (1 Peter 5:6). It is far more blessed to humble ourselves under His mighty hand and have Him exalt us, than to exalt ourselves and leave Him to put us down!

The mind that was in Christ is the exact opposite of the mind that was in Adam. The Lord's own words in Matthew 23:12 illustrate it. There was found in Adam the self-exalting mind, and as a consequence he fell into the depths. In Christ there was found the self-sacrificing, self-humbling mind, and, as we see in this passage, He is exalted to the supreme place.

True humility is not saying bad things about oneself, for this may go together with the most dreadful pride. The blessed thing is to be able to forget oneself, to be so taken up with the Lord that self is shut out. When Moses thought his face shone, the people did not see it. But once he had been long enough in God's presence for his face to shine, everyone else saw it — and he did not.

The unchanging way of God is this: "Whoever humbles himself will be exalted." Only faith gives true humbling of self. There are two forms of it: the happiest of all is to be humble; the next best thing is to be humbled. It is better to be humble than to be humbled, but there is no comparison between being humbled and being lifted up. Humility is the effect of grace. Humbling comes instead from God's righteous government, when we are not humble.

Our Lord's words were, "whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matt. 23:12). Here we have an illustration of this. Daniel had humbled himself in exceptional measure, and so he is permitted to know that he is greatly loved in Heaven. What an exaltation! Had he not been truly humbled, such an assurance might have puffed him up to his ruin.

Our Lord's first discourse in this Gospel is the sermon on the mountain. In several ways it matches His last one, spoken to the crowds and to His disciples… He sat there as the great One greater than Moses, expounding and expanding the Law. Here He is upon the seat of judgment; the King is the Judge. In the sermon on the Mount He utters His Blessings, Beatitudes, but here as judge He pronounces His Woes.

He Who began with "Blessed, blessed," now ends with "Woe, woe." Their evil did not stop at His cross; it went on against His servants, as we know too well. But even here, while He declares the certain punishment, He cannot close without a door of hope in the last verse.

Seven solemn woes are now pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees (verse 14 is not found in authentic manuscripts). The Lord does not hesitate to call them "hypocrites," for theirs was a mere pretence of spirituality. First, they were against the truth. They deliberately kept men from entering the kingdom of heaven, refusing it themselves and depriving others of its blessings. To defend their own pride they were willing to make others suffer.

As it is put in Luke, they had "taken away the key of knowledge." Their legal and traditional teachings barred man's approach to the only place of blessing, which was submission to the glorious King. In Him the Kingdom was presented to them. So the outcasts of Israel, the "tax collectors and prostitutes," went into it more easily than they did.

The Lord denounces the scribes and Pharisees, the religious teachers of the day, pointing to the different traits of wickedness that marked them. They shut up the kingdom of heaven before men, and would neither enter nor let others enter. That is because religious teachers always oppose the entry of the truth into other hearts.

In word and deed, the Lord showed a special loving interest in the welfare of the ordinary people. The Pharisees and scribes oppressed them and shut the kingdom of heaven against them. It was foretold that a mark of the Messiah's ministry would be that the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not. By their religious acts they claimed great piety before men. By their words they claimed to honour God. But their hearts were far from God.

They had heard the Kingdom preached, but they chose to shut their eyes and turn away from the light that had burst upon them. They did not enter in, and they kept others away from it. This same awful "woe" falls on the modern Pharisees too, though in a different sense. How many man-made "priests" and "teachers" follow the traditions of men and wrongly take the place that belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. They are themselves unsaved, and they keep others from knowing the truth.

Nothing could be more solemn than this condemnation. The number of woes reminds us of those spoken in Isaiah 5 and 6. It suggests how complete and final was the judgment they had brought on themselves. In general, the woes declare the blindness, hypocrisy and unrelenting hatred of those who posed as the religious models and leaders of the people.

They had taken away the key of real knowledge. It fitted this perfectly that they should be zealots for their own false knowledge, and eager to win proselytes to it. It fitted just as well that, in the state they were in, their proselytes would go beyond themselves. Calling the light darkness, they naturally called the darkness light, and would spread it as light.

Their zeal to make proselytes was untiring, granted. But what was the fruit in souls before God? Were not the pupils, as usual, the truest index of such teachers? They were more open and unguarded about their ways, their aim and their spirit.

These people would travel over sea and land to make one proselyte; but what was it all worth if there was no work of grace in the soul?

They tried every means to make even one proselyte, because they wanted their own authority over men. If they could bring a Gentile over to the Jewish religion, this was a great triumph for their pride. Then they made him double the son of hell that they were themselves, propping up men's improper pride in their religious zeal and dignity. Pride is the very thing that drags men down to Gehenna.

They were sectarians, and sectarianism is the fruit of the flesh, as the Epistles clearly teach. They did everything to make proselytes, and that too for selfish motives. The rabbinical schools condemned proselytism. One of the talmudic sayings is, "Proselytes are as a scab to Israel."... Is it any different in proselytising Christendom, down to the smallest party?

Great zeal for making proselytes marks the Pharisaic mind. The Lord's words in verse 15 expose a remarkable feature of mere proselytism. It reproduces the character of the recruiters in their converts, with added emphasis. The Pharisees were children of hell, and their converts were the same twice over. This is why evil men and deceivers always tend to grow worse and worse, until all is ripe for judgment.

False religion deceives, and that is where Satan displays his direct power. God gave that very thing for light and blessing, to win the heart and bring us into fellowship with Himself. The enemy abuses it to make a man worse than ever — twice as much a child of hell as before.

Scripture speaks of those who refuse the gospel of God's grace as "sons of disobedience". It calls the weeds "sons of the wicked one". And the Lord called the proselytes of the hypocritical Pharisees sons of hell — or rather, "of Gehenna". All of them show by their ways what they are, and where they are going.

The activity and zeal will be for the system. It will be to make proselytes, and to establish them in whatever will keep them there — not to save souls or lead them on in Christ... The views that mark out that institution will matter most, not what saves.

What could they be but blind guides at best, as the Lord said to them (Matt. 23:16-17, 26)? And if the blind led the blind, what could they do but both fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:14)? And that sad result is just what happened when the chief priests persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and crucify Jesus.

The Jews loved to swear on every possible occasion to stress their words. They used all kinds of impressive phrases for it. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, and so on. The scribes clearly thought that only an oath that named God out loud was a "real" oath. Only that kind bound the person who swore it. On top of that they made further distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, the altar and the gift on the altar (Matt. 23:16-22). The Jews hardly counted it a sin to swear careless oaths, vows and promises and then break them, as long as no one named God.

It was clear that in the eyes of these proud and foolish men the gold was worth more than the house in which God dwelt. The gold that decorated the temple had a value beyond its market price for one reason only: it formed part of the house God was pleased to own as His.

The third woe again shows how their reversal of the true proportion of holy things darkened the light in them. They rated the gold of the temple above the temple itself, and the gift above the altar that sanctified it. Then they used this hair-splitting to teach men how to swear empty oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility the Lord affirms in every case.

They degraded the basic truth of the altar, while treating the gift on it as too sacred to swear by. Yet the altar speaks of the person of Christ, who sanctifies the gift, and the gift speaks of His sacrifice. His sacrifice is certainly precious, but He Himself is greater than His sacrifice.

They drew distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on it. People who did not think might look at them in awe, as men with very superior minds. In reality their distinctions were made up. They only proved their own blindness and folly... They were blind indeed, and that type of blindness is all too common today.

The "blind" here are the Jewish leaders first of all, no doubt. But the follower will not escape the ditch just by being a follower. The truth speaks for itself to anyone who has ears to hear. Anyone who hands himself over completely to another man's leadership has his conscience before man, not before God.

Nothing could exceed the solemnity of this denunciation... In general, these woes declare the blindness, hypocrisy and unrelenting hatred of men who posed as the religious models and leaders of the people... First: For shutting up the Kingdom (v. 13). Second: For false proselyting (v. 15). Third: For unholy trickery about sacred things (vv. 16-22).

These proud and foolish men clearly valued the gold more than the house where God lived. The gold that decorated the temple had a worth beyond its market price for one reason: it was part of the house that God was pleased to own as His. It was the same with the gift on the altar. The real value before God of what was offered came from the altar that set it apart for Him.

The temple sanctified the gold: the gold got its importance from its link with the temple... the altar speaks of the person of Christ, which sanctifies the gift, which speaks of His sacrifice. Certainly His sacrifice is precious, but He Himself is greater than His sacrifice.

In verses 16-22, the Lord condemns their fanciful teachings. They drew distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on it. Such distinctions might make thoughtless people look on them with awe as men of very superior minds. In reality the distinctions were imaginary. They only proved the blindness and folly of the men who made them.

Empty hair-splitting set aside all righteous principles. They could arrange the "Corban Oath" (see Mark 7) so that they made their own gain out of the temple gold. To fill up the Corban treasure, they taught men to break the fifth commandment.

The third woe again shows the light in them turned to darkness. They had turned the true order of holy things upside down. They valued the gold of the temple above the temple itself, and the gift above the altar that sanctified it. Then they used this hair-splitting to teach men how to swear empty oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility the Lord affirms in every case.

John the Baptist counted himself unworthy to untie His sandal-strap. Yet He pronounced woe after woe on these scribes and Pharisees, though they stood highest in Jewish esteem. He called them blind guides, fools, hypocrites and serpents. How should they escape the judgment of hell? His words were overwhelming, but was the blessed Lord not fully right to speak them? It was not enmity to tell an evil-doer the truth, so that he might repent. Flesh hates faithfulness.

The third woe calls them blind guides. It deals with the way they twisted the truth to suit their own whims. They let men swear by the temple, but forbade swearing by the gold of the temple. Yet the temple was the dwelling of God. The temple sanctified the gold: the gold got its importance from being connected with the temple. In the same way they cheapened the basic truth of the altar, while they treated the gift on it as too sacred to swear by.

They valued the gold of the temple above the temple itself, and the gift above the altar that sanctified it. Then they used this hair-splitting to teach men how to swear empty oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility the Lord affirms in every case.

The Jews loved to swear on every possible occasion to give weight to their words, and they used all kinds of impressive phrases. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, and so on. The scribes clearly thought that only oaths that named God out loud were "real" oaths, and so binding on the man who swore. The Jews barely counted it as sin when men carelessly swore oaths, vows and promises and never kept them, as long as God's name was not mentioned.

What gave the gold in the temple a value beyond its market price was that it was part of the house God was pleased to own as His. It was the same with the gift on the altar. What was offered had real value before God because the altar set it apart for Him.

The distinctions they draw between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on it, might make thoughtless people look at them with awe, as men of very superior minds. In reality their distinctions were pure invention, and only proof of their own blindness and folly. It was the same in other matters: great fuss over small things, great carelessness about great things. Blind they were indeed, and that type of blindness is all too common today.

The third woe again shows how the light in them had turned to darkness: they reversed the true proportion of holy things. They valued the gold of the temple more than the temple itself, and the gift more than the altar that sanctified it. And then this hair-splitting served to teach men how they could swear empty oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility which the Lord affirms in every case.

The Jews loved to swear on every possible occasion to add weight to their words, and they used all kinds of impressive phrases. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, and so on. Clearly the scribes thought that only oaths which named God were "real" oaths, and so binding on the one who swore. On top of that they made further distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, the altar and the gift on the altar. The Jews hardly counted careless oaths, vows and broken promises as sin at all, as long as no one mentioned the name of God.

In the eyes of these proud and foolish men, the gold clearly counted for more than the house where God lived. Yet the gold that decorated the temple had a value beyond its market price for one reason: it formed part of the house God was pleased to own as His. The gift on the altar was the same. Its real value before God lay in the altar setting it apart for Him.

In the same way, they degraded the basic truth of the altar, while treating the gift on it as too sacred to swear by. Yet the altar speaks of the person of Christ, which sanctifies the gift, and the gift speaks of His sacrifice. His sacrifice is certainly precious, but He Himself is greater than His sacrifice. So the one who swore by the altar was thereby swearing by it and by whatever was offered upon it. He was in effect swearing by Christ and by everything connected with Him.

"The altar sanctifies the gift." If the sacrifice stands for the work of the Lord Jesus, then nothing outside it could make it holy. The person of the Offerer alone could give value to His offering. The character of the altar brings this out and develops it.

Under the law the worshipper could bring his offering to the door of the tabernacle, but there the priest's work began. The priest had to lay it on the altar, and only there could the Lord accept it... But now it is by the offering of Jesus Himself, once for all, that we are sanctified as worshippers... Whatever comes up to God through Him has the value of His own offering attached to it, and is a sweet-smelling aroma too. In this way God keeps showing His own estimate of the offering of Jesus: through Him He accepts as precious everything done or offered in His name. What a comfort, then! Our persons, our prayers, our thanksgivings and our services all carry before God the sweet aroma of the name of Jesus.

The Jews loved to swear on all possible occasions to give weight to their words. They used all kinds of impressive phrases for it. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, and so on. The scribes clearly thought that only oaths naming God outright were "real" oaths. Only those bound the man who swore. They also drew further distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, the altar and the gift on the altar (Matt. 23:16-22). The Jews hardly counted it as sin to swear oaths, vows and promises carelessly and then not keep them, as long as God's name was not mentioned.

They have an evil purpose in making these distinctions. And we see how the Lord openly exposes them. Greed was at the bottom of it — the desire to make money.

The third woe again shows how the light in them was darkened. They turned true proportion upside down about the holy things. To them the gold of the temple counted for more than the temple itself, and the gift for more than the altar that sanctified it. Then this clever reasoning taught men how to swear worthless oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility that the Lord affirms in every case.

They let men swear by the temple, but forbade them to swear by the gold of the temple. Yet the temple was the dwelling of God, and the gold got its importance from its link with the temple. The altar speaks of the person of Christ, which sanctifies the gift, which speaks of His sacrifice. Certainly His sacrifice is precious, but He Himself is greater than His sacrifice. So the man who swore by the altar was by that act swearing by it and by whatever was offered on it. He was in effect swearing by Christ and by everything connected with Him.

"The altar sanctifies the gift." If, then, the sacrifice stands for the work of the Lord Jesus, it could not be made holy by anything outside itself. The person of the Offerer alone could give value to His offering. The character of the altar brings this out and develops it.

In verses 16-22, the Lord condemns their fanciful teachings. They drew distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on it. The unthinking might look at them with awe, as men of very superior minds. In reality their distinctions were imaginary, and only proof of their own blindness and folly. So with other matters: much fussiness over small things, much carelessness about great things. Blind they were indeed, and that kind of blindness is all too common today.

But we must carefully remember that our Lord in no way forbids an oath before the magistrate or judge. This is not evil but good, being of divine authority. For men swear by a greater, and the oath puts an end to all dispute by making matters sure. To refuse it is to deny God's authority in those who represent Him in earthly things. They are called by His name, which is translated "judges," as in Ex. 21:6, Ex. 22:8-9, 28. See also Ps. 82:1, 6. The principle is stated in Lev. 5:1, and far from setting it aside on the mount, the Lord bowed to it when the high priest put Him on oath (Matt. 26:63-64), though He had been silent before.

The Jews loved to swear on every possible occasion to give weight to their words. They used all kinds of impressive phrases for it. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, and so on. Clearly the scribes thought that only oaths which named God out loud were "real" oaths, and so binding on the person swearing. The Jews barely counted it as sin to swear careless oaths, vows and promises and then break them, as long as no one mentioned the name of God.

If someone swore by the temple, he was really swearing by the living God who dwelt in the temple. Men also treat swearing by heaven as a light thing. Many use the word "heavens" as an exclamation. But heaven is God's throne, so such swearing means swearing by Him who sits on the throne. All of these things show a lack of recognition of the supreme honour God is entitled to.

It was obvious that in the eyes of these proud and foolish men the gold was worth more than the house in which God dwelt. The gold that decorated the temple had a value beyond its market price for one reason: it formed part of the house God was pleased to own as His. It was the same with the gift on the altar (Matt. 23:18-19): the real value before God of the gift came from the altar it lay on, which set it apart for Him.

They degraded the basic truth of the altar, while they treated the gift on it as too sacred to swear by. Yet the altar speaks of the person of Christ, which sanctifies the gift, and the gift speaks of His sacrifice. His sacrifice is certainly precious, but He Himself is greater than His sacrifice. So the one who swore by the altar was swearing by it and by whatever was offered on it. He was in effect swearing by Christ and by everything connected with Him.

The third woe again shows how the light in them had gone dark, because they turned the true proportion of holy things upside down. They valued the gold of the temple more than the temple itself, and the gift more than the altar that sanctified it. Then they used this hair-splitting to teach men how to swear empty oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility the Lord affirms in every case.

In verses 16-22 the Lord condemns their invented teachings. They drew distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on it. People who did not think might look at them in awe, as men with superior minds. In reality their distinctions were pure invention. They only proved their own blindness and folly... Blind they were indeed, and that kind of blindness is all too common today.

The Lord answered when the high priest put Him under oath. There we have solid proof to guide us. But choosing to swear is another thing: "Anything more than this comes from evil." ... In each case you will find an evil motive behind all these distinctions the Lord is exposing.

The Jews loved to swear on every possible occasion to stress their words. They used all kinds of impressive phrases for this. They swore by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, by the temple, and so on. Clearly the scribes thought that only oaths naming God directly were "real" oaths. Only those bound the person who swore them. They also drew further distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on the altar (Matt. 23:16-22). The Jews barely treated it as sin to swear thoughtless oaths, vows and promises and then not keep them, as long as no one mentioned God's name.

If one were to swear by the temple, he was actually swearing by the living God who dwelt in the temple. Men think little of swearing by heaven too, and many use the word "heavens" as an exclamation. But heaven is God's throne, so such swearing means swearing by Him who sits upon the throne. All of these things show too little regard for the supreme honour that God is due.

The third woe again shows how the light in them turned to darkness: they turned true proportion upside down when it came to holy things. They valued the gold of the temple above the temple itself, and the gift above the altar that made it holy. And then they used this hair-splitting to teach men how they could swear empty oaths and escape responsibility — a responsibility which the Lord affirms in every case.

They have an evil purpose in making these distinctions. And we see how the Lord openly exposes them. Greed was at the bottom of it, the desire to make money.

In verses 16-22, the Lord condemns their fanciful teachings. They draw distinctions between the temple and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift upon it. Thoughtless people might look at them with awe, as men of very superior minds. In reality their distinctions were made up, and only proved their own blindness and folly... Blind they were indeed, and that type of blindness is all too common today.

All this strong swearing, which the Lord illustrates from Jewish habit, grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving or dodging. So they turned to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves... The Lord took it for granted that those He spoke to were poor in spirit and pure in heart. So He forbade all such swearing outright. It offends God, and it does not fit the place of His sons.

The question here (as in James) is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with how they relate to the governing powers. It is a matter of ordinary conversation, not an oath before the magistrate. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and a man's own head, were ways of swearing in the everyday talk of Jews... So the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God. (Matt. 26:62-64.)

The pleadings were now closed — the Jews convicted and silenced. There was no counsellor among them who, when asked, could answer a word. As a religion and a nation, they stood condemned. The Lord then takes the place of a judge. He sets out the evidence against them, and pronounces the solemn sentence.

They put forward the fine points of hair-splitting experts and neglected the essential things of God's law. They were exact about the smallest details of the tithes the law of Moses demanded. Yet they neglected justice, mercy, and faith — everything that truly mattered in the eyes of God.

A claim to complete integrity could hardly go further than paying tithes on the very mint and anise and cumin, the least product of their fields. Yet on the other side, they failed entirely to give what they owed. The moral elements, the weightier matters of the law, were exactly the things that carried no weight with them. In such things they strained out the gnat with care, but they swallowed the camel with ease!

To them, fair judgment between good and evil did not matter at all next to tithing the smallest, most trivial items of income. They also ignored mercy toward others in need. And they forgot faith, the one principle of any true relationship with God. They should have stressed these things far more. Of course they should not have neglected the small things either — but small things should not have come first.

I would judge the "weightier matters of the law" here to be a reference to Micah 6:8. There you find the principle… The Lord often pointed out in His talks that they did not understand mercy. "If you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless."

It was really the same root of self, fallen human nature under a religious veil. Why did they want to stand out from others like this? Others gave the tithes they honestly owed to God. The Pharisees seized on the tiniest points, which cost them little, and won credit from men no wiser than themselves. But they slighted judgment and the love of God.

We know the Lord has said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much." And so we get, "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." We must not be careless about little things. But the Lord was speaking of reality. It did not cost them much to tithe the little herbs in their gardens, and they got a good name by it. They had their reward.

Their self-righteousness and piety consisted in being very careful about minor things, while they ignored the important matters altogether. They strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. It is not different today. People make far too much of small, unimportant details in religious practice, and ignore the important matters.

The proverb of a camel being swallowed when a gnat was carefully strained out, Matt. 23:24, shows how people can neglect the weightier precepts of God while paying great attention to trivial things.

The Greek word here is thought to refer to any species of gnat or mosquito. Matt. 23:24 should read 'strain out' in contrast to 'swallowing.'

Judging fairly between good and evil meant nothing to them next to tithing the smallest, least important items of income. They also ignored mercy toward people in need. And they forgot faith, the one principle of any true relationship with God... It is evident that blind guides are worse than none at all. But the Pharisees had no excuse. They could find the gnat and strain it out of their diet. Yet they never noticed the camel, and swallowed it.

It was really the same root of self, fallen human nature under a religious veil. Why did they want to stand out from everyone else? Others gave the tithes they honestly owed to God. The Pharisees seized on the tiniest points, which cost them little. They took credit for it in the eyes of men no wiser than themselves, but they slighted judgment and the love of God.

Blind guides! They thought themselves guides, but did not know that they were blind.

The moral elements, the weightier matters of the law, were exactly the things that had no weight with them. They carefully strained out the gnat in such matters, but they easily swallowed the camel!

"These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." We must not be careless about little things. But the Lord was speaking of reality. It did not cost them much to tithe the little herbs in their gardens, and they got a good name by it. They had their reward.

The religion of the flesh is always marked by straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. They had no scruple about staining their hands with the blood of the Innocent One. Yet, as John tells us, they would not go into Pilate's judgment hall. They feared defilement would keep them from eating the Passover.

Nothing is so good and safe and pleasing to God as full and unquestioning obedience to His Word. It holds every instruction the man of God needs, as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. So we may disobey by going beyond it, just as we may by falling short of it. We can easily become a little fanciful. We think we are maintaining the testimony, or honouring the Lord, when we are only straining at gnats. And we end by swallowing the camel of clear disobedience to what the Word of God most plainly says.

The fifth woe rebukes the Pharisees for a purity that was only on the outside. They kept the correct forms of religion, while inside they were full of extortion and excess. They dealt dishonestly with others and gave themselves to lustful self-indulgence. So He tells them to clean the inside of the cup and dish first, since that matters most. Then He adds, "that the outside also may be clean." He does not mean that washing the inside of a cup makes its outside clean. He means that a clean outside follows when a person cleanses his inner motives. True spiritual cleansing inside will have a proper result outside.

Whatever they claimed, their religion was a religion of the outside. Far from being clean, they were full of plunder and wickedness — they plundered others and were wicked themselves… They had forgotten Him. They cared only about what men could see. The Lord looks upon the heart. They did not think of this. Unbelief is always blind. Where things differ in importance, it fixes on the least important. The reason is clear: it seeks the praise of men and not that of God.

They cleansed the cup and dish on the outside. Inside they could keep them full of plunder and indulgence. With a correct outside, they kept the lusts within and approved them.

Is this going to satisfy God? He is not deceived. It deeply offends God when someone indulges evil in the heart and keeps a fair exterior. There is no real happiness apart from holiness… But we need to be holy inside. The word of God is our standard for judging everything… If the word of Christ lives in us richly, we should be quick to judge an evil thought. Believers know so little of spiritual joy because they leave these things unjudged.

A soul that has drifted from God often keeps up the outward forms of religion, sometimes with even more zeal. As life decays, attention turns to rites and ceremonies. The soul deceives itself this way and slides into ignorance of its real condition. It loses all sense of its relationship with God and leans on performing the required ceremonies exactly. The Pharisees, for example, took great care to clean the outside of the cup and the dish. They were completely indifferent about being cleansed inside.

He hopes that cleaning the outside of the cup will make the inside clean. He wants to be "not like other men," to stand out by some superior religiousness and good works, and by these things make himself acceptable to God.

In the law there were many ceremonial defilements, each with its appointed purification. The scribes and Pharisees added more, such as washing the hands before eating, and washing cups and plates (Mark 7:2-8). They were very zealous about these things, while inside they were full of extortion and excess. In Christianity the purification required extends further: to the heart (Acts 15:9; James 4:8), to the soul (1 Peter 1:22), and to the conscience through the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9:14).

The fifth woe condemns the outward purity the Pharisees put on. They kept up correct, formal religion, while inside they were full of extortion and excess — dishonest dealings with others, and lustful self-indulgence. So He tells them to clean the inside of the cup and plate first, which is by far the most important; but He adds, "that the outside also may be clean." He does not mean that literally washing the inside of a cup will make the outside clean. He means that a clean outside follows when a person cleanses his inner motives. True spiritual cleansing inwardly will have a proper outward result.

They cleaned the cup and dish on the outside; inside they could keep them full of plunder and self-indulgence. With a correct outside, they held on to the lusts within and approved them.

Next He exposes their effort to look right on the outside, whatever the impurity within. This showed in their work, and in their own lives and persons, which were full of deceit and self-will.

The Pharisees made the outside of the cup and plate clean, but that did not cleanse the inside. What comes from within is what defiles a man. The stream was bitter because the fountain was bitter; and the fruit was bad because the tree was bad. The fountain of a man's defilement lies in his own heart. Going through a religious ritual could be of no value. Doing that alone only made men hypocrites. The Pharisees could wear an appearance of holiness and goodness like an outer garment — and they had — while the seat of the disease stayed untouched.

Is this going to satisfy God? He is not deceived. Giving in to evil in the heart while keeping a fair outside offends God deeply. There is no real happiness apart from holiness. God was living among them, so He required holiness. But we need to be holy inside, and we have the word of God as our standard to judge everything by.

The cleansing is not an outward change, as a Pharisee might cover the blackest of hearts with a white robe and blue fringe; but an inward work that truly judges evil and forms new desires. The man must be born again.

This faith cleanses within; it makes the inside of the cup and plate clean. It also beautifies the outside; it makes the outward conduct and the inner motive clean. So the man, if his faith is true and real, becomes from then on a different man from what he was before.

You and I — and we want to make this practical — would rather drink from a clean penny clay mug than from a filthy gold goblet covered with diamonds. So we get in 2 Timothy 2, "If anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel... useful to the master of the house." There is something very blessed in this. I, a poor weak thing, yet He will stoop to use me if I am clean!

In the third woe, He had condemned their corrupt teaching. Here, in the fourth, He condemns their corrupt practice, and, in the next, we get, under a correct exterior, the corrupt affections of the natural heart. Again, they were more anxious to appear right before men than to be right before God. It was outward paint to cover inward pollution. The grass grown green on the sides of the volcano, snow lying white on a manure heap.

They worked hard at outward cleanness, while they were full of robbery and excess. If they could only look righteous on the outside, they were not afraid to be full of hypocrisy and lawlessness within.

This could not deceive the eyes of the Holy One who searches the heart. There was much outward religion: a careful round of fasting, of tithing, of holy days. But in all of it there was nothing for God, no fruit of divine life. There was good reason to call the Pharisees, the religious and orthodox leaders, "whitewashed tombs" (Matt. 23:27) and unmarked "graves" (Luke 11:44) — homes of death, like the body when the spirit has left it.

Outward things are easy to do. Man likes to make his religion of them, because they do not need a pure heart. He likes to do them, to exalt himself, and to set himself apart from others in doing them. By them man boasts of great piety in front of other men, and gains a great reputation for it. But he can be bad at the same time. These outward acts do not bring him into the presence of God, who searches the heart. By these acts man is religious without possessing holiness, and he finds that this just suits him. Pharisees did not exist only in our Lord's time; they are found in every age.

A grave might be walked over without anyone knowing it. The grave is a heart that chooses to hide its inner corruption beneath a fair exterior. Such were the Pharisees whom the Lord blamed. And what crowds of God's children meet such graves in daily life! They accept the principles of the world's religion, and settle for a religion of forms that the state of their heart in no way matches. Sad to say, a grave may defile a Christian. He may also be, in this sense, a hypocrite himself.

A lady in Florida told me the other day that a man could live in drunkenness and immorality — anything he liked — if only he belonged to a church. That whitewashes him. But remember, to whitewash is not to wash white. People whitewashed the tombs of the dead, and they still do it today in a moral sense. But only the blood of Jesus washes white — yes, whiter than snow.

This opens the way for "hypocrisies" — pretending to be what we are not, and pretending not to be what we are. Hypocrisy is the opposite of sincerity. It is simply playing a part in something that is a mere fable, if it is not the most solemn of realities and the most precious. How awful to make the truth of God a man's game for a little while!

In the third woe, He had condemned their corrupt teaching. Here, in the fourth, He condemns their corrupt practice. In the next, we get the corrupt affections of the natural heart under a correct exterior. Again, they were more anxious to appear right before men than to be right before God. It was outward paint to cover inward pollution. Grass growing green on the sides of a volcano; snow lying white on a manure heap.

The Lord uses the picture of a tomb to show the hypocrisy of a heart. It looks pleasant on the outside, while inside it is full of dead men's bones and every kind of uncleanness. The grave is a heart that hides its inner corruption on purpose, under a fair exterior. Such were the Pharisees whom the Lord blamed. And how many of God's children meet such graves in daily life! They take on the principles of the world's religion. They settle for a religion of forms that the state of the heart in no way matches. Sadly, a grave can defile a Christian. He may also be, in this sense, a hypocrite himself. The apostle Paul had avoided such uncleanness. He did not seek the approval of men, but of God. He said, "What we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience." (2 Cor. 5:11.)

These six offences — covetousness, deceit, lust, an evil eye, pride, foolishness — are closely tied to the inward workings of the human heart. If the others previously named may be described as the lusts of the flesh, these are the desires of the mind (Eph. 2:3); if they illustrated the filthiness of the flesh, these show the filthiness of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1). These inward tendencies are the dead bones. They are the uncleanness of the hypocrisy and iniquity inside the whitewashed tombs the Lord spoke of in another place (Matt. 23:27-28).

The New Testament often describes the Pharisees and scribes as men whose religious activity was only for show (Mark 12:40), done in front of people. They loved and sought the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 5:44; 12:43). Hypocrisy — the effort to appear better than one really is — was the great sin of the Pharisees. This is why the Lord Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees as of something totally evil (Luke 12:1). Their righteousness was only an outward one and had no value before God.

The outside should be the true sign of the inside. When it is not, we are leavened with Pharisaism — hypocrisy. … Let us be honest with God and ourselves.

Whenever we are living before men, instead of before God, there will be restlessness and disquiet. There may be the desire to do many things that are written in the word, but they will not be done in quiet and peaceful joy. Nothing keeps us from hypocrisy except living before God. It is the very best possible cure for the excessive conceit that all of us naturally have of ourselves.

Some were cut into rock, with a single stone placed or rolled against the opening. The tomb of Lazarus and the tomb of Joseph, where the body of Jesus was laid, were of this kind. Others were called built tombs. An ornamental structure stood over the place where the body lay, like those found in almost every modern cemetery.

They sought their own honour in it instead of receiving the testimony of the prophets. That testimony would have humbled them to the dust over the moral and complete ruin of the nation. Instead they were decorating the tombs of everything good in the nation, as if all were well. Holy fear at the prophets' rebuke would never have decorated the prophets' tombs. It was the spirit of this world.

It seemed the opposite of what their fathers had done. But it was the same love of the world that killed the martyrs in that day, and it now led men to build their tombs to make religious capital out of this pious honour. They would gladly have the halo that surrounded those men of God shine on themselves.

Their monuments in honour of slain prophets and past heroes were really a testimony to their own relationship — not to the righteous, but to those who murdered them. Their fathers killed the witnesses of God, who condemned them while they lived. The sons only built to their memory once there was no longer a present testimony to their conscience.

They were on very good terms with themselves. They sat in judgment on their forefathers. Yet they inherited the very same character, and they persecuted the Lord of the prophets. You can see they were advertising and commending themselves and condemning their ancestors. It shows their unreality.

The Lord would bring this fully to the test. He would send them prophets, wise men, and scribes, and they would treat these messengers of the Lord as their fathers had. This was so that upon them might come all the righteous blood shed on earth from Abel down. It is a solemn principle in God's ways: guilt piles up when testimony is rejected, since the conscience becomes more hardened with each act of rejecting it.

It is easy to praise a man to the skies a hundred years after his death. The same man would have met fierce opposition during his life of testimony.

Scripture does not only allow us to remember those whom God has given as leaders of His people. It commands it. To forget them often means forgetting the truth they brought. That paves the way for that "building the tombs of the prophets" by a godless later generation, one that ignores every warning those prophets spoke. There is a sober, careful way of dwelling on the ministry of faithful servants. It strengthens our own faith, stirs the conscience, and moves us afresh to follow them as they followed Christ.

They were on very good terms with themselves. They sat in judgment on their forefathers. Yet they had inherited the very same character, and they were persecuting the Lord of the prophets. You can see they were advertising and commending themselves and condemning their ancestors. It makes us think of Rom. 2:1... It shows their unreality.

Most people seem to like religion in theory, even bad ones. But holiness that is lived and walked out bites. The Pharisees can spend their money on the prophets' tombs, while Christ is scorned and hated. What is the mystery of this? The reason was, these prophets are off the stage and Christ is on.

These teachers of the law busied themselves with laying burdens on others... after the prophets had been killed, they honoured them by building their tombs. In this way they hoped to gain the prestige of those names, now that the prophets' words no longer tested them. A cunning device, that! But one not unknown even in our day. A century after a man's death it is easy to praise him to the skies. The same man would have met fierce opposition while he was giving his testimony.

It might not appear at first why building the tombs showed approval of those who killed them, but they took up their place, as it were. They sought their own honour in it. They would not receive the testimony of the prophets. That testimony would have humbled them to the dust over the moral and total ruin of the nation. Instead they decorated the tombs of all that was good in the nation, as if all were well. Holy fear at the prophets' rebuke would never have decorated the prophets' graves. It was the spirit of this world.

They showed much regard and outward reverence for the memory of the prophets, who had suffered for their testimony at the hands of their forefathers. They built their tombs and honoured the dead and silent witnesses. Yet the same spirit they condemned in their fathers was about to show itself in a far more shocking way. It would show in how they treated the living Witness, the One all the prophets had spoken of.

They would build memorials to them and decorate their graves. They claimed that if they had been alive in those days, they would not have shared in rejecting or murdering the prophets. But they were the sons of these murderers. They had the very same attitude: they still refused the prophets' word while pretending to honour them... They would fill up the measure of their fathers by their rejection and murder of the Lord Jesus.

Faith does not act by decorating tombs, or by putting up memorial tablets to the holy sufferers of days gone by. Faith walks and suffers reproach, and sometimes worse persecution, in the days that are now. It looks for heaven and glory only when Christ appears. Unbelief does the opposite. It seeks present satisfaction and credit by honouring those who no longer give a living testimony to their consciences.

They would build memorials to them and decorate their graves. They said that if they had been alive when these men lived, they would not have shared in rejecting or murdering the prophets. But they were the sons of these murderers. They had exactly the same attitude: they still refused the prophets' word while pretending to honour them. Their hostility against the Lord Himself was the same as their fathers' hostility against the prophets. Their own attitude was a clear witness against them.

In the end, their monuments to murdered prophets and good men of the past pointed instead to who they were truly related to — not to the righteous, but to those who murdered them. Their fathers killed God's witnesses, who condemned them while they lived. The sons only built monuments to their memory once no living voice was left to press their conscience. And their honours to the dead would cast a halo around themselves.

It may not seem clear at first why building the tombs showed approval of those who killed the prophets. But they took up their place, as it were. They sought their own honour in it, instead of receiving the testimony of the prophets. That testimony would have humbled them into the very dust over the moral and complete ruin of the nation. Instead, they decorated the tombs of all that was good in the nation, as if all were well. Holy fear at the prophets' rebuke would never have decorated the prophets' graves. It was the spirit of this world.

Sons are those who reproduce the typical or distinctive traits of their fathers. This sense of representing a parent is often used in moral matters. So the "sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) are those whose conduct displays disobedience as clearly as a son resembles a father.

In verse 31 we get their family character. They fully inherited the place their forefathers occupied. If we don't see that, we cannot understand what follows — that the blood of Abel and the rest was chargeable to them. They inherited the place.

In the sight of God one generation inherits from the generations before it all the iniquity they completed. Their conscience ought to be warned by that iniquity. "Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers," says the Lord. Christians who are not fully separated from Babylon inherit the iniquity of earlier times. They join themselves to it, and their conscience learns nothing from it.

Stephen's closing words carry great power. They are like an appendix to the Lord's own words in Matthew 23:31-36. They carry the charge on to its dreadful end: the betrayal and murder of the Just One.

Their monuments honouring murdered prophets and other great men of the past really testified to which family they belonged to. They belonged not with the righteous, but with the men who killed them. Their fathers killed God's witnesses, who condemned them while they were still alive. The sons only built tombs in their memory once no living voice was left to trouble their conscience. And the honours they paid to the dead threw a halo around themselves.

It is easy to praise a man to the skies a hundred years after his death, when people would have fought him fiercely during his lifetime of testimony. The Lord's words imply that the sons would do again what their fathers had done.

The Lord speaks to the Jews as already guilty. He points back to their earlier acts, and says, "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers" — so that this blood would come upon them. The words would have no force at all unless He meant a past act that they had not committed themselves. They would deliberately commit acts like it and complete the dreadful series. Then the time of vengeance would arrive. All the piled-up guilt of past ages would bring its piled-up consequences on their head — guilt God had borne with patiently, in case they would repent.

They testified against themselves that they were children of the men who killed the prophets. So let them fill up the measure of their fathers. They would fill it up and more, as He had already shown them, because these men standing face to face with Him would be His betrayers and murderers.

God had to require of that generation all the blood shed since the blood of righteous Abel. He had not required it before. He had given them light by His law, stirred them up by His prophets, warned them through discipline, and appealed to their whole moral being by sending His Son. The sins of the fathers should have warned the children away from the same offences. Coming after their fathers, the children sinned in full light.

Suppose a child has grown up knowing his father's dishonour, and hearing of his disgrace and punishment. Would not that sin look especially hateful to him, if he had any right feeling? The public example of his father's evil ways would always be in front of him. But suppose the son treated it lightly, and used it as encouragement to walk the same path. Is it not just that a still heavier punishment should fall on that son?

"Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (verses 32, 33). Of course, even in a person like that, if repentance were worked in him there would be mercy. John the Baptist used the same words, "Brood of vipers," about those who came to him for baptism.

In practice, "this generation" still stood identified with their guilty fathers, so they shared the same guilt. We cannot escape this principle: we carry responsibility for what we are identified with, even if much of it happened before our day. So today the church of God on earth bears the shame of many acts of disobedience in the past. We cannot brush this aside.

The pleadings were now closed — the Jews convicted and silenced. There was no counsellor among them who, when asked, could answer a word. As a religion and a nation, they stood condemned. The Lord then took the place of a judge. He set out the evidence against them and pronounced the solemn sentence.

All we learn from the passages that speak of the viper is that its bite was poisonous... It is only otherwise referred to in the New Testament as a symbol of evil ones. John the Baptist called the crowd who came to be baptised "a brood of vipers." The Lord uses the same words for the scribes and Pharisees. This shows how deadly their opposition was.

He first admits that God gave them their office, but only to expose their unfaithfulness more fully. Then He cries bitter woes on them. He shows that they were not just faithless servants but fierce enemies. They were not simply unreliable guides but false seducers. They were tombs indeed, but tombs full of corruption inside. They were children of those who killed the prophets, but they went further than their fathers. They were offspring of vipers, no doubt, but serpents themselves.

They boast in their own righteousness and religion. They claim to be further on than their fathers, and more tolerant. But the One who knows all things reads their hearts. He declares that they fill up the measure of their fathers. They were unsaved men. They were not the offspring of God but of vipers. Their father was the devil, and they were facing the judgment of Gehenna.

This passage gives us the most terrible denunciation from the lips of Jesus of which we have any record. He never said such things to any poor tax collector or sinner. These hot words were reserved for religious hypocrites. He was full of grace and truth. Grace with truth He extended to the confessed sinners. The searchlight of truth, without mention of grace, was reserved for the hypocrites.

These were scathing words; but if anger dictated a word, it was unselfish and holy. It was indignation at men who sought a religious form to cover their unbelief and wickedness... He called them blind guides, fools, hypocrites, and serpents. Was not the blessed Lord fully justified in His words, overwhelming as they were? It was not enmity to tell a wrongdoer the truth, that he might repent. Flesh hates faithfulness.

Gehenna is the Greek form of two Hebrew words meaning "valley of Hinnom." It was a place near Jerusalem. There the Jews made their children pass through fire to pagan gods. Later the place was left defiled. A fire burned there all the time, which made it a fitting picture of the place of eternal punishment.

The New Testament, and the Lord Himself above all, deepens how the word is used. It no longer means only something seen outside Jerusalem. It means what we in English call Hell. Hell should never be confused with Hades, which refers to departed spirits. No spiritual mind can doubt that He taught its final and everlasting character.

His scathing words, "You serpents, you brood of vipers," ought to have woken some of them up — and may have done. It was a dreadfully serious thing to be counted with the scribes and Pharisees as a class. At least Nicodemus got free of them, and later Paul, so they escaped being sentenced to hell. But the Lord's question was a grave one for those who clung to the pride of their religious standing.