But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *ye* do not enter, nor do ye suffer those that are entering to go in.
In Matthew, the Lord's public teaching ends with a verdict, not an appeal. He says "woe" seven times over Israel's religious teachers, and the first charge is the heaviest: they were standing in the kingdom's doorway, keeping people out.
One writer sets the Lord's first long sermon beside this last one and notes the change in where He sits:
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.
Another writer hears the same contrast, and notes what the Lord still refuses to leave out:
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.
This verse heads a list, and the order matters — opposition to the truth comes first.
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.
One writer explains how the shutting was done, and who got in ahead of the men who did it:
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 verse names two acts: staying outside, and blocking the entrance. One writer says who these men were, and why the blocking follows:
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.
Those kept outside were the ordinary people. The Lord's own care ran the other way:
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.
The Lord's name for them is not a general insult but a precise description:
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.
Commentators do not leave this verse in the first century.
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.
- Seat changed. The ministry that opened with "Blessed" on the mountain now closes with "Woe." The same King speaks, but from the seat of judgment.
- Door first. Opposition to the truth heads the list of seven woes. They refused the kingdom themselves and blocked others from its blessings.
- Key removed. They had taken away the key of knowledge. Their tradition and legal teaching barred the way to the King, the one place of blessing.
- Crowd outside. The ones shut out were the ordinary people the Messiah was foretold to preach to. Tax collectors and prostitutes went in more easily than their teachers.
- Mirror held. Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not. Writers apply the same woe today to any teacher who neither knows the truth nor lets others reach it.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye compass the sea and the dry [land] to make one proselyte, and when he is become [such], ye make him twofold more [the] son of hell than yourselves.
The second of the Lord's woes falls on men whose energy no one could question. They crossed sea and dry land for a single convert. What He challenges is not their effort but its result: the convert came out worse than the teacher.
The Lord speaks this woe inside a series of judgments on Israel's religious leaders.
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.
Commentators differ on the count: some read seven woes, some eight. Most of the older manuscripts leave out verse 14. The order follows from verse 13. There they took away the key of knowledge; here they spread what they put in its place.
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.
The energy was real. The Lord asks what it produced, and points at the pupils for the answer.
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.
Distance travelled proves nothing on its own.
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?
A proselyte was a Gentile who converted to the Jewish religion. Two things drove the hunt for one: authority and pride.
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.
The recruiting served a party, and their own religious teachers disliked it.
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?
The word twice is the sting. What passes to the convert is character, not only teaching.
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.
Religion turned to the wrong use does more damage than no religion at all.
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 names people elsewhere by what they belong to.
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 pattern outlives the Pharisees wherever the goal is the group rather than the soul.
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.
- Zeal — The Pharisees' effort was tireless; the Lord never denies it. He asks only what it produced in souls before God.
- Motive — The drive was pride and party: authority over men, and a convert to their own sect.
- Transfer — The convert copies the recruiter's character, only stronger. Pupils are the truest index of their teachers.
- Result — Not a neutral outcome but a doubled one: light misused makes a man worse than he was, "twice as much a child of hell."
- Test — Ask of any religious work what the Lord asked here: does it save souls and lead them on in Christ, or only tie them to a system?
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.
The third "woe" in this chapter turns from what the religious leaders did to what they taught. Jesus gives them a name that sticks: blind guides. Their rule about oaths sounds like careful religious detail. He treats it as proof that they could no longer tell what mattered from what did not.
The name is a verdict, and it settles the fate of everyone walking behind them.
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.
Swearing by the temple was ordinary speech back then. The teachers had built a ranking system around which phrases counted, and an oath on the temple itself ranked as nothing.
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.
Their ranking put the gold above the temple. That choice showed what they valued.
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.
Their distinction had a practical use. It handed people a way out of their own words.
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.
The Lord's argument rests on a principle they had lost. The smaller thing gets its worth from the greater thing it belongs to. One writer follows that principle to the altar and the gift laid on it.
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.
To people who are not thinking, teaching like this looks like depth.
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.
A bad leader does not excuse the one who chose to follow him.
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.
- Blind — the Lord's own name for these guides. What they taught came straight out of their blindness.
- Blind to value — they rated the gold above the temple. The gold was only worth anything because it belonged to God's house.
- Blind to Christ — the altar sanctifies the gift. The altar speaks of Christ Himself, and He is greater than His sacrifice.
- Blind by design — their system taught men how to swear empty oaths and dodge responsibility, but the Lord holds them to every oath.
- Blindness spreads — leader and led fall into the same ditch. The follower has no excuse: truth speaks for itself to anyone with ears to hear.
Fools and blind, for which is greater, the gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold?
The leaders taught that an oath sworn on the temple meant nothing, while an oath sworn on its gold was binding. In this third woe, Jesus asks which of the two gives the other its worth.
This chapter runs through a list of woes, each naming a different fault. One writer measures how serious they are and comes to the third:
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).
The Lord's question runs one way only. The temple makes the gold sacred; the gold never makes the temple sacred. The gold was ordinary gold until it belonged to the place God claimed as His own.
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.
One commentator sees Christ pictured in the altar and its gift:
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.
Fine distinctions like these can look like deep learning. The Lord's verdict falls on the teachers themselves, not only on what they taught.
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.
Their scale was not a harmless mistake in judgment. Ranking the gold above the house served the men who handled the gold.
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 scheme had a purpose. It let a man swear and still walk away from his word. The Lord shuts that door.
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.
"You blind fools" sounds harsh coming from Jesus. One writer asks whether such words were fair, and answers that they were.
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.
- Inversion. They flipped the scale of value. They rated the gold above the temple and the gift above the altar — the lesser thing over the greater that gave it meaning.
- Source. The gold was worth more than its market price for one reason: it belonged to the house God owned as His.
- Blindness. The fine distinctions looked like deep insight. They were imaginary, and they proved the teachers blind.
- Profit. The flipped scale paid off. It let the leaders turn temple gold to their own gain, and teach men to break a commandment.
- Responsibility. The system ended in an oath a man need not keep. The Lord answers by holding every oath binding, whatever a man swears by.
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it is a debtor.
The Lord is in the middle of a series of woes against the religious teachers. Here He repeats one of their own rules about oaths, and the question behind it is simple: which counts for more, the altar or the gift on it?
Their teaching turned the true order of value upside down. The thing they treated as small was the very thing that made the rest matter.
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.
The distinction had a practical use. It let a man swear and then walk away.
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.
Swearing ran right through their daily speech, and one assumption decided when an oath counted.
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.
Nothing there had worth on its own. The gold and the gift took their value from what they belonged to.
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.
Some writers read the altar as a picture of Christ. Taken that way, the man who swore by it bound himself to far more than he knew.
Distinctions this careful can look like depth. The Lord's verdict on them runs the other way, and the pattern outlives the men who invented it.
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.
- Upside down. They rated the gift above the altar and the gold above the temple. That cheapened the very thing that gave the rest its worth.
- Escape. They turned that upside-down scale into a system for swearing oaths and dodging responsibility — a responsibility the Lord affirms in every case.
- Loophole. They assumed an oath only bound you if you said God's name out loud, so a broken promise barely counted as sin.
- Source. Nothing had value before God in itself. The gift mattered because the altar set it apart for Him.
- Person. Read as a picture, the altar is Christ Himself. His sacrifice is precious because the One who offered it is greater still. To swear by the altar was to swear by everything on it.
[Fools and] blind ones, for which is greater, the gift, or the altar which sanctifies the gift?
Jesus is partway through a series of "woes" against the religious teachers of Israel. Here He turns their own rule against them. They had said that an oath sworn by the gift on the altar was binding, while an oath sworn by the altar itself counted for nothing. His question exposes a scale of values turned upside down. It also tells us something about Christ Himself.
Jesus calls them "blind men." They knew holy things well enough. Their fault was the order they put them in: they prized what sat on the altar above the altar that gave it its standing.
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 distinctions were not idle theory. They were a working system for saying words you never meant to keep.
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.
The altar "makes the gift sacred," as the ESV puts it. Older translations say it "sanctifies the gift." Both mean the altar sets the gift apart for God. That is what raised the temple gold and the offering above their ordinary worth.
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.
Commentators read the altar and its offering as a picture: the altar stands for who Christ is, the gift for what He did.
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.
If the sacrifice pictures the work of Christ, where does its worth come from?
"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.
The same order governs what we bring to God today.
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.
- Inversion. The teachers rated the gold above the temple and the gift above the altar. They had the order of holy things backwards, and their light turned to darkness.
- Evasion. That backwards order paid off: it let men swear oaths they never meant to keep. The Lord says the responsibility holds every time.
- Derivation. Nothing on the altar had worth of its own; the gift was valuable because the altar set it apart for God.
- Person. The altar pictures Christ Himself; the gift pictures His sacrifice. That sacrifice is precious, but He is greater, and His person gives His offering its value.
- Acceptance. The same order still governs worship. Our prayers, thanks and service reach God carrying the value of His offering, not their own.
He therefore that swears by the altar swears by it and by all things that are upon it.
Jesus is exposing teachers who had made oaths that sounded binding but were not. Here He shuts the escape route: name the altar in an oath, and you have named all that lies on it.
The system worked by sorting oaths into two piles. Only one pile counted.
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.
The distinctions were not accidents of scholarship. One writer traces them to what the teachers stood to gain:
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.
Their whole scheme rested on ranking small things above great ones. Jesus reverses the ranking and, with it, the loophole.
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.
The altar was the lesser thing in their system. One writer shows whom it pictures.
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 makes the gift holy. One writer asks what that means for the sacrifice of Christ.
"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.
The teachers looked deep. The verse shows they were only clever.
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.
An oath binds. So is there any place left for oaths at all? One writer draws a line between swearing by choice and being put on oath by a court.
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.
- Motive. The graded oath system was not honest confusion. Writers point to greed behind it. Their teaching let men swear worthless oaths and walk away from responsibility.
- Proportion. Their light was darkened by inverting proportion — gold above the temple, gift above the altar that sanctified it.
- Reach. An oath cannot be shrunk to fit convenience: swear by the altar, and everything resting on it is included.
- Person. The altar stands for Christ Himself, and since nothing outside could give His offering its value, He is greater than the sacrifice He made.
- Responsibility. The Lord affirms responsibility in every case. He honoured a lawful oath Himself, answering the high priest who put Him on oath.
And he that swears by the temple swears by it and by him that dwells in it.
The Lord is answering the religious teachers' own rulebook on oaths, and He follows each oath through to its end. They counted an oath "by the temple" as costing nothing; He says it reaches the God who lives in that house.
Oaths were everywhere in daily speech. A system had grown up for deciding which ones a person had to keep.
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.
The Lord's answer removes the gap between the building and God. Naming the temple names Him, and naming heaven names the One on the throne.
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.
Their scale was upside down: the gold mattered more to them than the house. Value, though, runs the other way — from the Owner outward.
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.
Commentators also read the pairing of altar and gift as a picture. On that reading, the man swearing takes far more onto his lips than he realises.
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 fine-sounding rules looked like expertise. They were the opposite, and the Lord refuses to let any of them stand.
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.
One writer adds that this blindness did not end with them.
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.
One writer separates answering an oath put to you from choosing to swear one.
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.
- Loophole. They counted an oath binding only when it named God out loud, so "by the temple" felt free of cost.
- Occupant. The Lord traces the oath home: the temple means the God who lives there, just as heaven means the One on the throne.
- Order. Holiness flows from the Owner outward. The house sanctifies its gold, and the altar sanctifies the gift — never the reverse.
- Person. Read as a picture, the altar is Christ and the gift His sacrifice; the sacrifice is precious, but He is greater than it.
- Responsibility. Clever distinctions cancel nothing. The Lord holds every oath binding, and He calls the men who invented the escape routes blind.
And he that swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him that sits upon it.
Jesus is taking apart a whole system of oath-taking. It let people sound solemn while leaving them free to break their word. His last stroke removes the safest-looking dodge of all: naming heaven instead of God.
The teachers of the day had built a sliding scale of oaths, and the scale had one purpose — to leave a way out. One writer describes how the vocabulary worked:
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.
The word "heaven" sounds impersonal and safe. The Lord answers that heaven is a throne, and the throne has an occupant.
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 fine distinctions were not harmless scholarship. They were a working method for escaping what you had promised — and the Lord cancels the escape without exception.
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.
Two things sat underneath the system: money, and the look of deep thinking.
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 reputation mattered too. One writer says the blindness behind these rulings is still with us:
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.
If no oath can be aimed away from God, the graded oath is useless. One writer traces where such swearing comes from, and what the Lord does with it:
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 same writer limits this to ordinary speech, not the courtroom. He points to the Lord's own answer at His trial:
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 dodge. The scribes graded oaths so that only ones naming God counted, leaving the rest safe to break.
- The throne. Naming heaven does not avoid God; heaven is His throne, and the oath lands on the One seated there.
- The reach. No oath can be aimed away from Him, so the responsibility the system tried to dodge stands in every case.
- The motive. Greed lay at the bottom, dressed up in distinctions that looked clever and were only blindness — a blindness still common.
- The remedy. People reach for guarantees because people evade. The Lord bans such swearing for hearts poor in spirit and pure — an oath before a magistrate is another matter.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cummin, and ye have left aside the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy and faith these ye ought to have done and not have left those aside.
Jesus is near the end of His public clash with the religious leaders of Jerusalem. He stops answering their questions and starts passing sentence. This fourth "woe" exposes a religion that counted garden seeds and ignored justice. It raises a question every careful religious person must face: how do you tell a small duty from a great one?
By this point in Matthew the arguing is over, and the tone changes from debate to verdict.
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.
The charge is not that they broke the law openly. It is that they became specialists in its fine print.
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.
These are not crops. They are kitchen herbs from a back garden. Cumin, for example, is "a plant yielding a small aromatic seed, used as a flavouring and for medicines" (Morrish Bible Dictionary). Even so, they measured out a tenth of it for God. (Older translations read "anise"; the ESV reads "dill".)
Their record on the herbs was flawless. That is what makes the gap glaring.
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!
Justice, mercy and faithfulness are not vague virtues. Each one names something the leaders had dropped.
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.
One writer traces these weighty matters back to the prophet Micah, and mercy is the one Jesus kept returning to.
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."
Why herbs rather than justice? Luke's account of the same woe names the root:
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.
Jesus does not cancel the tithing of herbs. He refuses to let it stand in for obedience.
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.
This is not a museum piece about an extinct group.
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.
- Weight — the whole verse turns on one word. The weightier matters of the law were, to these men, the things with no weight at all.
- Weight measured — God's scale weighs justice, mercy and faithfulness. Theirs weighed mint, dill and cumin, the smallest produce of a garden.
- Weight chosen — they picked the light duties because those were cheap and won them a good name. That is self wearing a religious veil.
- Weight kept — Jesus does not delete the small duty; He refuses to let it replace the great one. Do these, without neglecting those.
- Weight today — wherever people magnify small religious details and ignore the serious matters, they still strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.
Blind guides, who strain out the gnat, but drink down the camel.
Jesus is judging Israel's religious leaders, and He gives them a picture absurd enough to make a crowd laugh: men filter a tiny insect out of their drink, then swallow a camel. They were careful people, but the verse asks whether care about small religious rules can sit beside blindness to what God counts as weighty.
The image is a proverb, and its point is the gap between what people fuss over and what God values.
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.
Older Bibles read "strain at a gnat." The action is filtering a drink, not choking on it.
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.'
One writer works through the list of what they neglected: justice, mercy and faith.
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.
Why be so exact about tiny garden herbs? One writer traces the choice back to its root.
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.
The title Jesus gives them is not "careless guides" but "blind guides" — a self-appointed authority with no sight.
Blind guides! They thought themselves guides, but did not know that they were blind.
Jesus does not tell them to stop tithing herbs. He tells them not to leave the other things undone. That balance matters.
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!
Another writer draws out the other half of the Lord's sentence, and warns against overcorrecting.
"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 same men proved this true at the trial of Jesus.
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.
One writer warns that zeal for detail can itself become the disobedience.
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.
- Strain — the picture is a filtered drink, not a choking man. They pick the gnat out; the camel goes down unnoticed.
- Weigh — justice, mercy and faith are what God weighs. With them, these carried no weight at all.
- Cost — they picked the points that cost little and won a good name. That name was their whole reward.
- Blind — they took the guide's place without the guide's eyes. Blind leaders are worse than no leaders at all.
- Swallow — the same men feared defilement at Pilate's door but not innocent blood. The danger returns whenever fuss over detail replaces obedience.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within they are full of rapine and intemperance.
The Lord is partway through a series of "woes" spoken over the religious leaders of Israel. Here He picks a picture from an ordinary kitchen. A cup is scrubbed on the outside while what is inside stays foul. Can a life kept clean for public view ever satisfy the God who sees inside it?
Two words carry the charge: "greed and self-indulgence" (older translations read "extortion and excess"). One appetite reaches for what belongs to other people. The other reaches for its own pleasure. A spotless religious surface hid both.
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.
The problem was not one bad habit. It ran through the whole system these men had built.
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.
The clean outside was not just a failure to deal with the inside. It worked in the inside's favour.
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.
A well-kept surface can satisfy an audience. The question is what God makes of it.
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.
This habit is not limited to one group. It grows where inward life is fading.
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.
Behind the habit sits a hope: that a clean surface will make the heart clean, and that God will accept the result.
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.
The rules the Pharisees loved could reach the rim of a cup and no further.
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).
- Outside — They kept the correct forms of religion. The clean surface covered dishonest dealing with others and self-indulgence.
- Inside — The clean surface did more than leave the evil alone. It kept the lusts within and approved them.
- Deceived — Appearances satisfy onlookers. God is not deceived, and a fair exterior over an indulged heart offends Him.
- Decay — Zeal for forms rises as inward life falls. The soul then slides into ignorance of its true condition.
- Cleansed — The Lord's order is inside first. Real cleansing reaches heart, soul and conscience through the blood of Christ, and then shows on the outside.
Blind Pharisee, make clean first the inside of the cup and of the dish, that their outside also may become clean.
The fifth of the Lord's woes ends not with an accusation but with an instruction: start at the other end. He calls the man blind, tells him what to clean first, and adds a promise: deal with the inside, and the outside will follow.
The Pharisees were not careless. Their care ran the wrong way, and the Lord turns the order around.
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.
Cleaning only the outside of a vessel is not just incomplete work. It protects what is inside from any real change.
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.
The concern behind it is how a man looks to others.
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.
Washing the rim of a cup does nothing to the water it holds. The same holds in a person: the outside only shows what the heart is already producing.
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.
A clean outside may satisfy onlookers. God is another matter.
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.
Since the trouble is inside, the cure cannot be a change of clothes.
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.
Where faith is real, the cleansing reaches both sides of the vessel. That is the promise in the second half of the verse.
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.
A dish exists to be used. That is where this lands for the reader today.
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!
- Blindness. The Pharisees kept the outside correct while they held on to the lusts within. It was a double life, with the polished surface guarding the filth it hid.
- Fountain. Scrubbing the rim never reached the water. The stream was bitter because the fountain was bitter, and outward religion left the seat of the disease untouched.
- First. The Lord's word "first" turns the order around. Cleanse the inner motives, and a proper outward result follows.
- Inside. That inner cleansing is not a white robe over a black heart. It is an inward work that judges evil and forms new desires. The man must be born again.
- Useful. A clean penny mug beats a filthy jewelled goblet: the clean vessel is the one the Master will use.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outwardly, but within are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Jesus is partway through a series of woes against the religious leaders of Israel, and this one moves from what they did to what they were. He points to a grave: bright on the outside, full of death inside.
Each woe cuts deeper than the last. One writer places this one in the series:
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.
The verse says the inside is full of uncleanness. Another writer names what filled it:
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.
A whitewashed tomb holds a corpse, not just dirt. Israel had plenty of religious activity. One writer describes what the Lord saw under it:
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.
People choose outward religion for a reason. It costs them no change of heart, and it pays well in reputation:
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.
This danger is not only for the Pharisees. One writer turns the warning toward believers:
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.
The remedy is not a fresh coat of paint. One writer met the same excuse in the form of church membership:
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.
- Paint. This woe hits religion built for men to see: outward paint over inward pollution, snow lying white on a manure heap.
- Death. Behind the paint is a corpse, not just dirt: careful fasting, tithing and holy days, with no fruit of divine life in any of it.
- Appeal. Outward religion is popular because it costs no purity of heart and wins a name among men. It never brings anyone into God's presence.
- Contagion. A grave defiles those who touch it. A believer who settles for a religion of forms can become such a grave himself.
- Cleansing. To whitewash is not to wash white. Only the blood of Jesus reaches what the outside hides.
Thus also *ye*, outwardly ye appear righteous to men, but within are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Jesus is speaking a series of woes against the scribes and Pharisees. Here He names the charge: the outside looked right to people, while the inside stayed untouched. Two questions follow — what is hypocrisy, and what does God look at?
One writer defines hypocrisy by its two directions at once:
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!
The woes come in an order. One writer traces the movement from corrupt teaching, to corrupt practice, to the heart behind both:
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 tomb picture from the previous verse carries into this one. One writer applies it past the Pharisees, to believers who meet such graves every day:
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.)
The verse says they were full of something. One writer names six of the evils inside, and marks them as sins of the mind rather than of the body:
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).
These men did look righteous. The problem was whose praise they wanted:
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 remedy is not a better outside:
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.
Another writer points to where that honesty comes from:
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.
- Outside — hypocrisy is playing a part: pretending to be what we are not, and hiding what we are.
- Inside — the bones under the paint come from the heart itself: covetousness, deceit, pride, an evil eye.
- Audience — they wanted praise from men, not from God, so their righteousness was outward only and worth nothing to Him.
- Contagion — a grave defiles those who cross it. A believer can take in a religion of forms and become a hypocrite too.
- Cure — living before God, not before men, is what keeps the outside a true sign of the inside.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets and adorn the tombs of the just,
This "woe" turns on something that looked like piety: careful attention to the graves of the prophets. These men thought their monuments proved they were nothing like their fathers. Jesus says the monuments prove the opposite.
Graves at that time came in more than one form. One reference work describes them:
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.
It is not obvious why decorating a prophet's grave should count as siding with his killers. One writer points to what the builders got out of it.
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.
Killing a prophet and honouring a prophet look like opposites. One commentator finds the same root under both.
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.
The monuments did place these men in a family line. The timing shows which one.
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.
Their monuments came with a verdict on the past. One writer notes how comfortable that verdict made them.
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 does not leave their claim untested. He would send fresh messengers, and their answer would settle it.
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.
The same trap is easy to fall into today.
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.
Yet remembering faithful servants is not itself the sin. The difference lies in whether their message still has a claim on you.
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.
- Build — these tombs were ornamental structures raised over a grave, like a fine memorial in a cemetery today.
- Boast — the monument was self-promotion. The builders wanted the halo of the prophets to shine on themselves, and they got credit for piety at no cost.
- Betray — the honour came only after the voice fell silent. The real objection was never to the man but to his message, while it still stung the conscience.
- Be tested — Christ answered their claim by sending fresh messengers. How a generation treats living testimony shows which side of the past it stands on.
- Be different — remember faithful servants in a way that stirs your conscience and moves you to follow Christ. Do not file their warnings away as history.