CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 23:1. Then spake Jesus.—The day of grace is over for the leaders of the people; but for the people themselves there may still be hope; so the Lord of the temple turns to the multitude, the general throng of worshippers, mingled with whom were several of His own disciples, and solemnly warns them against their spiritual guides. There is every reason to suppose that many of the scribes and Pharisees were within hearing; for when He has finished what He has to say to the people, He turns round and addresses them directly in that series of terrible denunciations which follow.—(Gibson).
Matthew 23:2. In Moses’ seat.—That is, as interpreters of the law given by Moses (Brown).
Matthew 23:3. Do, but do not.—(See R.V.). His warning is couched in such a way as not in the least degree to weaken their respect for Moses, or for the sacred Scriptures, the exposition of which was the duty of their spiritual guides. He separates sharply between the office and the men who hold it (Gibson).
Matthew 23:5. To be seen of men.—They did works, many works; but they did them theatrically (Morison). Phylacteries.—Passages of the law upon leaves of parchment which the Jews at the time of prayer bound, one on the left arm, one on the forehead, to show that the law should be in the heart and in the head. At first, they were simply remembrancers of the law; the heathen notion, that they were personal means of defence against evil spirits, did not arise till afterward. It is probable that the perversion was not perfect at the time of our Lord; otherwise He would have done more than condemn their enlargement of these phylacteries, i.e. hypocrisy and boastfulness in matters of religion (Lange). The borders of their garments.—The wearing of memorial fringes on the borders of the garments rested on a Divine ordinance (Numbers 15:37-40; Deuteronomy 22:12). In Scripture these fringes are prescribed to be of blue, the symbolical colour of the covenant; but the Mishnah allows them also to be white (Edersheim).
Matthew 23:6. Uppermost rooms.—Chief place (R.V.). The Jews, like the Romans, reclined at meals on couches, called triclinia—each seat containing three seats, and each seat having its special dignity (Carr). Chief seats in the synagogues.—These were at the upper or Jerusalem end of the synagogue, where was the ark, or chest that contained the law. These were given, either by common consent, or by the elders of the synagogue, to those who were most conspicuous for their devotion to the law, and, as such, were coveted as a mark of religious reputation (Plumptre).
Matthew 23:7. Rabbi.—The word Rabbi was just budding into common use about our Saviour’s time. It is a Hebrew word, properly meaning “my Master,” and was originally used not in speaking of a master, but, vocatively. in speaking to a master (Morison). The true teaching on this point is found in the Talmud, “Love the work, but hate the title” (Carr).
Matthew 23:8. Master.—Teacher (R.V.). Even Christ.—Wanting in best MSS. and omitted in R.V. Probably crept into the text from a marginal explanatory note, completing the sense as in Matthew 23:10.
Matthew 23:9. Father.—Abba (father) is a name of honour corresponding to Rabbi (Juchasin, fol. 31, 2). To understand and follow such commands in the slavery of the letter, is to fall into the Pharisaism against which our Lord is uttering the caution (Alford).
Matthew 23:10. Masters.—The word is not the same as in Matthew 23:8, and signifies “guide” or “leader”; the “director” of conscience rather than the teacher. Cf. Romans 2:19 (Plumptre).
Matthew 23:11. Shall be your servant.—This plainly means, “shall show that he is so (greatest) by becoming your servant”; as in Matthew 20:27, compared with Mark 10:44 (Brown).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 23:1-12
The rights of enemies.—In the temporary confusion which follows that overthrow of His enemies which we described in our last, how does Jesus behave Himself towards them? In what language does He speak concerning them to those that stand by? This we are told in the verses before us. He speaks, on the one hand, in the language of testimony. He speaks, on the other hand, in the language of caution.
I. In the way of testimony.—Testimony which is not a little striking regarded in itself. “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2). Their duty is to explain and enforce that which Moses has taught. To obey them, therefore, when they do this faithfully, is to obey Moses himself. It is also, He implies, and that with much emphasis, to do what is pleasing to Him. “Whatsoever they bid you” in this manner, that “do and observe” (Matthew 23:3, R.V.). Testimony which is still more striking when taken in connection with certain previous words and actions of His own. Long before He had made the announcement, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it” (Matthew 5:17). Here He upholds the authority of those undertaking to explain it. Some time before He Himself had shown respect to this kind of authority by directing Peter to pay for both of them the temple-tribute at Capernaum (Matthew 17:24-27). Now He goes farthest of all and openly enjoins on all who listen to Him to pay similar deference too. Most striking of all is this testimony when considered in connection with what has just been spoken to Him. What a juncture is that chosen by Him for this declaration of His will! Just after these scribes and Pharisees have been most unscrupulously plotting against His authority, He is thus scrupulous about theirs! Just when they have most disgraced their office, He honours it most! In the time of their confidence He had withstood them. In this time of their discomfiture He upholds them. What forbearance—what mercy—what meekness, are here!
II. In the way of caution.—While it is thus important to both the “multitude” and the “disciples” alike (Matthew 23:1) that they should honour every one to whom honour is due, it is equally important that they should not be seduced thereby into the commission of sin. Hence the counsels which follow. Counsels to all (apparently) about these teachers. Distinguish carefully between their teaching and their example. Their practice is faulty, even when their precepts are right. On the one hand, they “say and do not” (Matthew 23:3). The more onerous and irksome the precepts of Moses, the greater their eagerness in laying these requirements, not on themselves, but on others. On the other hand, in all such outward obedience as they themselves render to Moses there is an evil motive at work. To appear pious before men in their dress and demeanour, and to receive honour from men when appearing before them, are the real aims they pursue. Hence, even when they attain to success, their success is a loss. Special counsels next, on account of these things, to the disciples themselves. Do you who wish to be My disciples indeed, look to yourselves on these points. Look on one another only as brethren in Me (Matthew 23:8). Call no man your father (except in a subordinate sense) upon earth (Matthew 23:9). To you there must be but one ultimate Object of trust and source of command (Matthew 23:8-10). Amongst yourselves let your great object be not to be great. Pride, in short, is the object of those teachers. Humility must be yours. Wisely so, too (Matthew 23:12).
How insidious a thing is the love of human applause! This seems the great lesson to be learned here by ourselves. Our Saviour had dwelt on this much, at the beginning of His ministry, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:1-18). And here again, towards its close, when arrived at Jerusalem, and not far from the cross, He does the same thing. This love of men’s praise—this desire to be “seen” (Matthew 23:5)—this anxiety to be “chief” (Matthew 23:6)—was the thing which lay at the root of all the evil traceable in those teachers who were now seeking His death. It was to be specially avoided, therefore, by those other teachers who were about to go forth in His Name. What had ruined those who sat in Moses’ seat would be equally ruinous, if not avoided, to those who should stand in His place. It would be so because of the insidious and subtle manner in which it wrought on men’s minds. One principal peril of physical stimulants is to be found in the fact that they create a thirst for themselves. The more a man takes, the more he desires. The more, also, he thinks he requires. The like is true of that spiritual intoxicant—the love of distinction and praise. Therefore it is that the wise man has said, as in Proverbs 27:21. Equally mischievous is it also in shutting out the love of that which is better (John 5:44). There are few things, therefore, which the true follower of Jesus must be more careful to avoid.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 23:1-3. The attitude to be taken towards the Pharisees.—Our Lord, having put His adversaries to silence, endeavours to save His people from their ways.
1. The people must be warned to beware of the contagion of corrupt teachers, when they will not amend their doings; for this is the course which Christ taketh about the Pharisees and scribes.
2. Albeit the faults of teachers must not be spared, yet their authority and office must be guarded, lest the message of God by their mouth be marred; their office must be defended, albeit their persons be corrupt. Therefore saith He, They sit in Moses’ seat, i.e. they succeed to Moses in the ordinary office of teaching the Word of God.
3. What Moses’ successors teach, as Moses’ successors, must be obeyed; that is, the truth which from the warrant of God’s word is recommended unto us from corrupt teachers, clad with lawful authority to teach, we ought to obey, because the message is the doctrine of God, albeit the messenger be corrupt.
4. People are in danger of following the example of the evil life of corrupt teachers rather than the command of God delivered in their doctrine, and therefore have need to be warned. “After their works do not.”
5. Whatsoever commanded works a man doth, and not for the commanded ends before God, it is as good as no doing; therefore, albeit the Pharisees did many works commanded in the law, yet because they did them to be seen of men, and as works meritorious to oblige God, and were more careful of the outward ceremonies of the law than to observe the moral duties of justice and mercy; therefore what they did was counted as if they did it not. “They say and do not.”—David Dickson.
Official relation to the law.—I. It is possible to know the law, and not obey it.
II. It is possible to teach, and not obey; hence:
III. Our duty is to be decided by the law, and not by the example of its teachers.
IV. In Jesus alone is perfect harmony between the teacher and the teaching.—J. C. Gray.
Matthew 23:4-7. Dead traditionalism.—
I. Its hardness.
II. Its falsehood. III. Its selfishness.—J. P. Lange, D.D.
Matthew 23:5. Phylacteries.—If the practice of wearing borders with fringes had Scriptural authority, we are well convinced that no such plea could be urged for the so-called “phylacteries.” The observance arose from a literal interpretation of Exodus 13:9, to which even the later injunction in Deuteronomy 6:8 gives no countenance. This appears even from its repetition in Deuteronomy 11:18, where the spiritual meaning and purport of the direction is immediately indicated, and from a comparison with kindred expressions, which evidently could not be taken literally—such as Proverbs 3:3; Proverbs 6:21; Proverbs 7:3; Song of Solomon 8:6; Isaiah 49:16. The very term used by the Rabbis for phylacteries—“tephillin,” prayer-fillets—is of comparatively modern origin, in so far as it does not occur in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Samaritans did not acknowledge them as of Mosaic obligation, any more than do the Karaite Jews, and there is, what seems to us, sufficient evidence, even from Rabbinical writings, that in the time of Christ phylacteries were not universally worn, nor yet by the priests while officiating in the temple. Although the words of our Lord seem only expressly to condemn the making broad of the phylacteries for purposes of religious ostentation, it is difficult to believe that He Himself had worn them. At any rate, while any ordinary Israelite would only put them on at prayer or on solemn occasions, the members of the Pharisaic confraternity wore them all day long. The “tephillin” were worn on the left arm, towards the heart, and on the forehead. They consisted—to describe them roughly—of capsules, containing, on parchment (that for the forehead on four distinct parchments), these four passages of Scripture: Exodus 13:1-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21. The capsules were fastened on by black leather straps, which were wound round the arm and hand (seven times round the former, and three times round the latter), or else fitted to the forehead in a prescribed and mystically significant manner. The wearer of them could not be mistaken. But as for their value and importance in the eyes of the Rabbis, it were impossible to exaggerate it. They were reverenced as highly as the Scriptures, and, like them, might be rescued from the flames on a Sabbath, although not worn, as constituting “a burden!” It was said that Moses had received the law of their observance from God on Mount Sinai; that the “tephillin” were more sacred than the golden plate on the forehead of the high-priest, since its inscription embodied only once the sacred name of Jehovah, while the writing inside the “tephillin” contained it not less than twenty-three times; that the command of wearing them equalled all other commands put together; with many other similar extravagances. How far the profanity of the Rabbis in this respect would go, appears from the circumstance, that they supposed God Himself as wearing phylacteries (Ber., 6 a).—A. Edersheim, D.D.
Matthew 23:8. Christ Lord: Christians brethren.—
I. The Lordship of Christ.—
1. Why is Christ our moral Master? His is no arbitrary pre-eminence, but in harmony with Reason, Conscience, Fact. Recall:
(1) What He is.—His nature is Divine, His character perfect, His teaching complete.
(2) What He has done.—He has ransomed us. He has renewed us.
2. How is Christ our moral Master?
(1) He regulates our conduct.
(2) He enlightens our intellect.
(3) He controls our affections.
II. The brotherhood of Christians.—
1. Why are Christians brethren? Not alone on the ground of mere humanity. Nor merely through acceptance of a common creed. Nor merely through union with a common society. Common relationship to Christ creates, and constant communion with Christ sustains, the brotherhood of Christians.
2. How do Christians show that they are brethren? Among the members of a home there is:
(1) A family interest.
(2) A family likeness.
(3) A family life.—U. R. Thomas, B.A.
True churchmanship.—The principles of church organism, arising from the two facts of the Lordship of Christ and the brotherhood of Christians are:—
I. The church must consist of Christian men.—Membership cannot consist in:—
1. Local residence.—He only is a Christian man who calls Christ “Master,” and who feels a brother to Christ’s disciples.
2. Ceremonial observance.—The passing through any form of church membership fails to unite to the true church.
3. Any money relationship.
II. The church must promote the brotherhood of Christians.—There are three great errors at whose root our Saviour’s words here lay an axe; errors that seem greatly to hinder the brotherhood of Christians.
1. The social error of caste and class feeling.
2. The sectarian error of denominationalism.
3. The ecclesiastical error of hierarchism.
Here is a protest on behalf of Christian brotherhood.
(1) To those who might be tempted to haughtiness. To all such as claim infallibility, or the exclusive right of teaching, or absolute power of discipline, Christ says, “Be not called masters; all ye are brethren.” “None by office or precedence is nearer to God than another, none stands between his brother and God” (Alford).
(2) To those in danger of servility. Lest the spiritual Israel should repeat the error of their great type and cry “Give us a king,” Christ enjoins “Call no man master.” The gospel promotes social freedom, mental independence, spiritual liberty.
III. The church must testify to the supremacy of the living, personal Christ.—To the churches still, in authority, oversight, discipline, this one Master remains; for did He not say, “I am with you alway”? etc.—Ibid.
Christ the Master of life.—On the walls of the chapel in Yale College, America, there is the following inscription about Christ: “Dux, Lux, Lex, Rex”—Leader, Light, Law, King.
Jesus is absolute Master in the sphere of religion, which is a science dealing, not with intellectual conceptions, but with spiritual facts. His ideas are not words, they are laws; they are not thoughts, they are forces. He did not suggest, He asserted what He had seen at first sight. He did not propose, He commanded as one who knew there was no other way. One of His chief discoveries was a new type of character, His greatest achievement its creation. It is now nineteen centuries since He lived on earth, but to-day in every country of the Western world there are men differing from their neighbours as Jesus did from His contemporaries. Jesus was a type by Himself, and they are of the same type. He presented to the world a solitary ideal, and in innumerable lives has made it real.—John Watson, M.A., in “Expositor.”
Matthew 23:8-10. Titles of honour.—Not that deserved honour is to be disesteemed and eschewed. Far from that. We are expressly commanded “to render honour to whom honour is due” (Romans 13:7). We are to honour the king” (1 Peter 2:17). And in whomsoever we find any true kingliness of soul, him assuredly we should honour. We are to “honour all men” (1 Peter 2:17), for when we consider the Godlike make of man (see Psalms 8:5 in the Hebrew), and how God Himself has “crowned him with glory and honour,” we cannot but find, even underneath a mass of most dishonouring wickedness, much to honour. And in the more honourable of men, there will be still more that is worthy of honour. Nevertheless, the mind is bent in a totally wrong direction when it is preponderatingly ambitious of honour. It should be far more ambitious of doing honour, than of getting it. And, as to honorary titles—if a man loves them for their own sake, or for the sake of thereby strutting before his fellow-men, or of uplifting himself above his peers, he is altogether unworthy of them, and will be injured, not benefited, by receiving them. In so far as they are coveted, or sought for, and especially if sought for as means of self-glorification, and very especially if sought for by means that are dishonourable, they are to be utterly deprecated. But if they be modest and truthful in their import, on the one hand, and meted out impartially, on the other, then they will but express facts of inward conviction, which facts must have names of one kind or another. If a man is really worthy of being honoured, not merely as a man, but in some particular outcome or effort of his manhood, and if he is in fact honoured according to his worthiness, then there can be no harm in giving expression to the fact in a name. The name, however, ought to be truthful and modest. And hence there was reason to object to Rabbi, “My great One, “Your Highness,” as it were. No wonder that our Saviour, at the time of which He spoke—when the title was just pushing its way into currency—proscribed its use among His disciples. It should never have been used. But it has now lost, we presume, its original immodesty of import, and is tantamount to a mere designation of office. We must ever bear in mind that there are conventionalisms in words, and that these conventionalisms may change; so that, in a living language, the associations and acceptations of a word may change. Barnes objects to the title “Doctor of Divinity,” and thinks that “the spirit of our Saviour’s command is violated by the reception of it.” But he overlooks the fact that the title is modest in its meaning, “Teacher of Theology”; and he also fails to note that, if it be really deserved, there is no reason why men should not think so, and say so.—J. Morison, D.D.
Matthew 23:9. “Pope” and “Father.”—It would seem to be almost in open defiance of His (the Saviour’s) injunction, that, within the limits of the Roman Catholic Church, this designation is universally given to their chief bishop—the “Pope.” The word “Pope” is our corrupted way of pronouncing what the French call Pape, and the Italians Papa, or Father. How strange the designation, as given to the Roman bishop! Strange, when we look at the subject in the light of our Saviour’s injunction! It is strange, too, that every priest, or parish minister, in the Greek Church, is called Papa, or Pope, or Father (πάπας). There are, besides, in the Roman Catholic Church, many professed or professional Fathers under the one great Papa. In some other churches, likewise, there are too many of these professional Fathers; for, as Bishop Wilkins observes, “Father” is a title which assuming priests of all religions have greatly affected (see Doddridge in loc.). And now, though the designation has in great measure got rubbed down into a mere discriminative appellation, marking out a definite ecclesiastical position or office, still its use is unhappy, and has something to do with a wide-spread confusion of ideas on things moral and spiritual. Already, in our Saviour’s time, an element of popery was stealthily lurking, and vigorously germinating, in the use of the designation; and it was, we doubt not, because of this element that the title was greedily courted on the one hand, and too readily accorded on the other, while at the same time, and in the third place, it was earnestly repudiated by our Saviour. It is our Father in heaven who alone has an absolute paternal authority in all things sacred.—Ibid.
Matthew 23:10. Christ our Master.—
1. There is no need of any other dominion over conscience than Jesus Christ exerciseth.
2. The exercise of this Christian liberty cannot possibly be an injury to other Christians.
3. Free inquiry in religion is essential to the virtue of a character.
4. A Christian, who takes Christ for his only sufficient Governor, in religion, is supported by the examples of all genuine Christians, from the days of Christ.—Anon.
Matthew 23:12. Self-exaltation.—A certain king had a gifted minstrel whom he commanded to play before him; and while the cups were flowing with merry wine, the harp was tuned to its sweetest melodies. But the vain minstrel celebrated his own exploits; and when, at the end of the feast, he asked the king for his reward, the stern answer was, “Thine own praises were thy theme; let these by thy paymaster!” And so, if our good works are done that we ourselves may have praise of men, they will count no more in God’s sight than utter barrenness and neglect.—J. N. Norton.
The humble exalted.—“Whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.” By Me, and by My Father, and, in the end, by the intelligent universe at large. The lowliest will be the loftiest. But he who seeks to be the loftiest will be the lowest. The way up leads down. The way down leads up. Jesus Himself ascended by a descending way.—J. Morison, D.D.