Why did Jesus refer to the Pharisees as a "child of hell" in Matthew 23:15?

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

Secondly, they sought by every means to make even one proselyte, for they desired their own authority over men, and if they could proselytize a Gentile to the Jewish religion, this was a great triumph for their pride. Then they made hi m double the son of hell than they were themselves, bolstering men's unseemly pride in their religious zeal and dignity. Pride is the very thing that drags men down to Gehenna.

The third woe (v.16) calls them blind guides, dealing with their perverting the truth to suit their own whims. They gave permission to men to swear by the temple, though forbidding to swear by the gold of the temple. But the temple was the dwelling of God. The gold was sanctified by the temple: it received its importance because connected with the temple. Similarly, the fundamental truth of the altar they degraded, while the gift upon it they considered too sacred to swear by. Yet 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. Therefore one who swore by the altar was thereby swearing by it and by whatever was offered upon it. He was virtually swearing by Christ and by everything connected with him.

"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" (verse 13). The Kingdom has been preached unto them, but they shut willfully their eyes and turned away from the light, which had burst upon them. They did not enter in and kept others away from it. And this is an awful "woe" which falls likewise upon the modern Pharisees, though in a different sense. How many of the man-made "priests" and "teachers," following the traditions of men, usurping the place of the Lord Jesus Christ, are themselves unsaved and keep others from knowing the truth.

Omitting that which is given as the next verse, we read the second Woe. "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" (verse 15). Coming from such lips, what a condemnation they contain! They were sectarians, and sectarianism is the fruit of the flesh, as clearly taught in the Epistles. They did everything to make proselytes, and that too for selfish motives. Proselytism was condemned by the rabbinical schools. One of the talmudical sayings is, "Proselytes are as a scab to Israel." It was for selfish reasons they made proselytes to their sect. Is it any different in the proselyting Christendom, down to the smallest party? And after they had attracted some to themselves they made them worse than they were. An awful indictment indeed.

Great zeal for the making of proselytes is characteristic of the Pharisaic mind, and the Lord's words in verse 15 expose a remarkable feature of mere proselytism. It reproduces with added emphasis the character of the proselytizers in those who are proselytized. The Pharisees were children of hell, and their converts were the same in a twofold way. This is why there is always a tendency for evil men and seducers to wax worse and worse, until all is ripe for judgment.

In verses 16-22, the Lord condemns their fanciful teachings. The distinctions they draw between the temple and the gold of the temple, between the altar and the gift upon it, might make the unthinking regard them with awe as possessing very superior minds; in reality their distinctions were purely imaginary and only a proof of their own blindness and folly. So with other matters; much punctiliousness over small things; much negligence as to great things — whether positively, as to what they observed, as in verse 23, or negatively, as to what they refused, as in verse 24. Blind they were indeed, and that type of blindness is all too common today.

(2) But while they had taken away the key of real knowledge, it was in perfect accord with this that they should be zealots of their own false knowledge, and eager to gain proselytes to it. Perfectly accordant, too, it was that they should, in the condition in which they were, have proselytes that would go beyond themselves. Calling the light darkness they naturally called the darkness light, and as light would propagate it. The second woe, therefore, follows the first in easily intelligible order.*

(3) The third woe again shows how the light in them was darkened by their inversion of true proportion as to the holy things. With them the gold of the temple was more highly estimated than the temple itself, and the gift than the altar that sanctified it. And then this casuistry was used to teach men how they could swear vain oaths and be excused responsibility ― a responsibility which the Lord affirms in every case.

In verse 10 He calls to Him the multitude, and speaks to them in such plain words that one would think they would be the ones to be offended; but we are told that it was the Pharisees or religious leaders who were offended. Then the Lord speaks still more plainly. These people would compass sea and land to make one proselyte; but what was it all worth if there was no work of grace in the soul?

History shows to what an extent proselytising was abused. The Jews held that on a Gentile becoming a proselyte, all his natural relationships were annulled: he was 'a new creature.' Many became proselytes in order to abandon their wives and marry again. This, with other abuses, caused the emperors to interfere; the stricter Jews also were scandalized, and repudiated such proselytes. The Lord describes such a proselyte as the Scribes and Pharisees would make, as "twofold more the child of hell" than themselves. Matt. 23:15.

Other instances of the use of this term, but in awful contrast to what has just been stated, may here be noticed. Scripture writes of those who refuse the gospel of God's grace as "sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2; 5:6). They were, in common with all of us, "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). They are known by their rejection of the Gospel as "sons of disobedience" having refused to obey it. Judas Iscariot and Antichrist are respectively termed the "son of perdition" (John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3), The tares are designated as "sons of the wicked one" (Matt. 13:38). Bar-jesus, the sorcerer, was addressed as "son of the devil" (Acts 13:10); and the Lord termed the proselytes of the hypocritical Pharisees sons of hell — or, rather, "of Gehenna" (Matt. 23:15). Each and all of these openly evidence by their ways what they are, and whither they are going.

Matt. 23:15. — Ye make him twofold more the child (lit. son) of hell than yourselves.

86 In former days they had not despised him, in spite of the infirmity in his flesh: when he had brought them the pure gospel, unmixed with Judaism, they had received him as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus Himself. They had accepted it with such joy, had felt and declared themselves to be so greatly blessed, that they would have given their own eyes - what they most valued - to Paul, so rejoiced had they been to receive the pure gospel, free from all mixture of law. Where was now their blessedness, if they found it needful to add the law in order to enjoy the blessing? Had the apostle become their enemy in speaking the truth to them? They had at first received it with joy, but now that he sought to lead them to cleave firmly to this blessed truth, was he become their enemy? The Judaising teachers were zealous, but not rightly so. It is possible to be zealous in binding souls to oneself, or to the sect to which one is attached. The Pharisees compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, and they made him twofold more the child of hell than themselves.

The condition in which man is renders it an absolute necessity that he be born again. He needs not reformation, but new birth. Reformation will not do. Have not I seen many a young man try to reform? Did not I try it myself? I recollect well the time when, on a sick-bed, I thought I was dying; and I was very near it. I remember well, when I thought I might soon die and felt my unfitnesss to die, that I turned to the Lord and cried, "If Thou wilt spare my life, I will serve Thee." God answered my prayer, and I recovered from my sickness; but I was more than ever the child of hell after than before. You see I was going to turn over a new leaf. I tried it for a time, but the fact was I was a lost sinner, and the devil was too strong for me, and I was soon worse than ever. Man has no strength in himself. He has to be brought to this point sooner or later — and you have to be — that he is a sinner, ungodly, without strength, and therefore a lost man.