Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 23:16
Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
16. the gold of the temple ] i. e. the offerings made to the Temple, called “Corban,” or “devoted;” the use of that word made an oath binding, see ch. Mat 15:5.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Whosoever shall swear … – See the notes at Mat 5:33-37.
The temple – See the notes at Mat 21:12.
It is nothing – It amounts to nothing – it is not binding.
The gold of the temple – Either the golden vessels in the temple – the candlestick, etc.; or the gold with which the doors and other parts of the temple were covered; or the gold in the treasury. This, it seems, they considered far more sacred than any other part of the temple, but it is not known why.
He is a debtor – He is bound to keep his oath. He is guilty if he violates it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mat 23:16-22
Whosoever shall swear by the Temple, it is nothing.
Thoughtless profanity
Are there any before me who are accustomed to use Gods name as an expletive, and to bandy it as a byword? Who employ it in all kinds of conversation, and throw it about in every place? Perhaps in their hearts they consider this an accomplishment! think it manly and brave to swear! Let me say, then, that profaneness is a brutal vice. He who indulges in it is no gentleman. I care not what his stamp ,nay be in society. I care not what clothes be wears, or what culture he boasts. Despite all his refinement, the light and habitual taking of Gods name betrays a coarse nature and a brutal will. Nay, he tacitly admits that it is ungentlemanly, for he restrains his oaths in the presence of ladies; and he who fears not to rush into the chancery of heaven and swear by the Majesty there, is decently observant in the drawing-room and the parlour. (E. H. Chopin, D. D.)
Ostentatious profanity
If there are hypocrites in religion, there are also, strange as it may appear, hypocrites in impiety-men who make an ostentation of more irreligion than they possess. An ostentation of this nature, the most irrational in the records of human folly, seems to lie at the root of profane swearing. (R. Hall.)
Unreasonable oaths
He that sweareth by any person, or thing, doth two things.
1. He attributeth to the thing, or person, by which he sweareth, a knowledge of the heart and the secret intention.
2. He calleth upon the person, or thing, by which he sweareth, to be his judge, or to take a revenge upon him, in case lie doth not believe in his heart what he affirmeth or denieth with his words to be true or false; otherwise an oath is no security at all. From whence appeareth that it is unreasonable for any to swear by any other than God, who alone can have a knowledge of the truth and security of the heart; and that he who sweareth by any creature committeth idolatry in his heart, and indeed blasphemeth playing Divine homage to a creature, and attributing to the creature what belongs only to the Creator. (M. Pool.)
The altar
The one altar which sanctifieth the gift is the person and merit of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I. Jesus Christ is the antitype of this brazen altar (Exo 27:1-21.).
1. The altar typifies our Lord if we consider the use of it. To sanctify that which was put upon it, and to sustain it while the fire was consuming it. Our Lord lifts up our gifts towards heaven.
2. The place of the altar. You saw it the moment you entered the door of the tabernacle. The most prominent thought of the soul is Jesus as Mediator.
3. The form of the altar. It was foursquare; stability and endurance.
4. The materials of which the altar was made. Shittim wood, overlaid with brass; the former represents the incorruptible human character of Jesus: the latter the endurance of Christ.
II. A question or two.
1. Have you always taken care to keep to the one spiritual altar?
2. Are there not some among you who have been offering to God without an altar at all? You have not respect to the Mediator in your life, and prayers, and acts.
3. Whether we have not often forgotten to attach the importance to the altar which we should have done. We must plead the merit of Christ. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. Whosoever shall swear by the gold] The covetous man, says one, still gives preference to the object of his lust; gold has still the first place in his heart. A man is to be suspected when he recommends those good works most from which he receives most advantage.
Is bound thereby, i.e. to fulfil his oath.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Our Saviour here showeth the false doctrine which the Pharisees, for their own gain, taught the people concerning oaths. God had commanded that they should fear and serve the Lord their God, and swear by his name, Deu 6:13; 10:20. He that sweareth by any person, or thing, doth two things:
1. He attributes to the thing, or person, by which he sweareth, a knowledge of the heart and the secret intention.
2. He calleth upon the person, or thing, by which he sweareth, to be his judge, or to take a revenge upon him, in case he doth not believe in his heart what he affirms or denieth with his words to be true or false; otherwise an oath is no security at all.
From whence appeareth, that it is unreasonable for any to swear by any other than God, who alone can have a knowledge of the truth, and security of the heart; and that he who sweareth by any creature committeth idolatry in his heart, and in his heart doth indeed blaspheme, paying a Divine homage to a creature, and attributing to the creature what only agreeth to the Creator. The Pharisees, as it seemeth, had taught the people, that it was lawful to swear by the creature, but all oaths by creatures did not bind to the performance of the thing promised by such oaths: if a man swear
by the temple, or by the altar, it was nothing, no man was bound by such oaths to perform the thing for which such oaths were given as a security. But if any man swear by
the gold of the temple, or by a gift which he brought to the altar, these oaths did bind him. By the gold of the temple is not to be understood the golden vessels used in the temple, nor the golden plates with which the several parts of the temple shined; but the gold which was brought as an offering into the temple, and put into the treasury there; of which, and of the gifts, the priests and officers about the temple had a considerable share, which made them equalize an oath by these to an oath made by the name of God itself.
1. Our Saviour here showed the unreasonable folly of the tradition, and calleth them for it blind guides; for in reason, the temple sanctifying the gold must itself be more especially holy, that is, separate for a holy use. The temple was holy, so was the altar, before the gold was brought into it, but the gold was not holy till it was brought into the holy place, and there offered.
2. He lets them know, that oaths by the creatures once made did oblige, as much as if they had been made by God himself. They were indeed sinfully made, for men ought not to have sworn by creatures; but being made, those who made them were bound to perform them, if the matter of them were not sinful. For he that swears
by the altar, swears by it, and by all the things thereon; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him that dwelleth therein; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. For none who sware by inanimate things could possibly be imagined to call these things, which he knew had no life, no sense, no knowledge, to be a witness to the truth of his heart, as to what he believed, or what he intended. So as though he that sweareth by the creature be a profane swearer, yet he is bound by his oath, he indeed swearing by the God of those creatures. He hath reason to repent of the profane and unlawful form of his oath, but if the matter be what he may without sin perform, he is bound by his oath to the performance of it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. Woe unto you, ye blindguidesStriking expression this of the ruinous effects oferroneous teaching. Our Lord, here and in some following verses,condemns the subtle distinctions they made as to the sanctity ofoathsdistinctions invented only to promote their own avariciouspurposes.
which say, Whosoever shallswear by the temple, it is nothingHe has incurred no debt.
but whosoever shall swear bythe gold of the templemeaning not the gold that adorned thetemple itself, but the Corban, set apart for sacred uses (seeon Mt 15:5).
he is a debtor!thatis, it is no longer his own, even though the necessities of theparent might require it. We know who the successors of these men are.
but whosoever sweareth by thegift that is upon it, he is guiltyIt should have beenrendered, “he is a debtor,” as in Mt23:16.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Woe unto you, you blind guides,…. Meaning the same persons, the Scribes and Pharisees, as before, though not named, who pretended to be “guides of the blind”, Ro 2:19 but were them selves blind, and so very unfit to be guides of others; they were as they were born, ignorant of divine things, of God in Christ, of the true Messiah, of the true meaning of the Scriptures, of the spirituality of the law, and of the Gospel of Christ; and the way of salvation by him; and their minds were blinded by the God of this world, and with a greedy, and insatiable covetousness after the things of it, of which Christ here gives an instance:
which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; meaning either that it was no sin to use such an oath, or it was not binding upon a man: he might choose whether he would abide by what he swore by the temple he would do; and thus they ignorantly, and wickedly encouraged vain swearing and perjury. It was usual with them to swear by the temple: take an instance or two.
“Says R. Jochanan p, , “by the temple”, it is in our hands; but what shall I do?”
The gloss upon it is;
“it is an oath by the temple of God, that it is in our power to reveal the illegitimacy of the families of the land of Israel.”
“Says R. Zechariah ben Hakatzab q, , “by this habitation” (meaning the temple), her hand was not removed from my hand from the time the Gentiles entered into Jerusalem, to the time they went out.”
Jarchi and Bartenora’s note on it is, this is an oath. Again,
“says R. Simeon ben Gamaliel r, , “by this habitation”; I will not rest this night until they (doves) are sold for pence apiece.”
The gloss on it is, “he swore by the sanctuary.”
But whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is guilty; or is bound, or is a debtor, to make good his oath; he cannot be excused, but must be obliged to fulfil it; or if he does not, he is guilty of perjury. This is to be understood not of the gold that covered any part of the temple; nor of the golden vessels in it; but of the gold, or money, or gifts which were offered for the service of the temple: and the sense is, that whosoever swore by “Korban”, and that this, or that should be as “Korban”, he should not go back from it; he was obliged to give it. This showed the covetous disposition of these men, who made nothing of oaths that were swore by the temple; but those that were made by the “Korban”, or the gifts of it, were binding, because their interest was in it; it was for their gain.
p T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 71. 1. q Misn. Cetubot, c. 2. sect. 9. Juchasin, fol. 56. 1. r T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol 166. 1. Misn. Ceritot, c. 1. sect. 7. Vid. c. 6. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ye blind guides ( ). Note omission of “Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” with this third woe. In 15:14 Jesus had already called the Pharisees “blind guides” (leaders). They split hairs about oaths, as Jesus had explained in 5:33-37, between the temple and the gold of the temple.
He is a debtor (). He owes his oath, is bound by his oath. A.V.,
is guilty , is old English, obsolete sense of guilt as fine or payment.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Mat 23:16
. Woe to you, blind guides, As ambition is almost always connected with hypocrisy, so the superstitions of the people are usually encouraged by the covetousness and rapacity of pastors. The world has, indeed, a natural propensity to errors, and even draws down upon itself, as if on purpose, every kind of deceit and imposture; but improper modes of worship come to gain a footing only when they are confirmed by the rulers (100) themselves. And it generally happens, that those who possess authority not only, by their connivance, fawn upon errors, because they perceive that they are a source of gain to them, but even assist in fanning the flame. Thus we see that the superstitions of Popery were heightened by innumerable expedients, while the priests opened their mouths for the prey; and even now they daily contrive many things by which they delude still more the foolish multitude. And when minds have once fallen under the darkening influence of the enchantments of Satan, nothing is so absurd or monstrous as not to be eagerly swallowed.
It was on this account that the Jews had more reverence for the gold of the temple, and for the sacred offerings, than for the temple and the altar. But the sacredness of the offerings depended on the temple and the altar, and was only something inferior and accessory. It may readily be believed that this dream proceeded from the scribes and priests, because it was a scheme well fitted for collecting prey. And this was not only a foolish but a highly dangerous error, because it led the people into ridiculous fancies. There is nothing to which men are more prone than to fall away from the pure worship of God: and therefore, under the covering of this veil, it was easy for Satan to withdraw from the contemplation of God those who were too strongly inclined to foolish imaginations. This is the reason why Christ so severely chastises that error. And yet the Papists were not ashamed to prostitute the sacred name of God to a mockery still more detestable; for they reckon it of more importance to touch a morsel of a stinking carcass, than to peruse the sacred volume of the Old and New Testaments, or even to raise their hands towards heaven. And in this way arises a carnal worship of God, by which the proper fear of God is gradually obliterated.
It is nothing. By this phrase he does not mean that they entirely took away the honor of the temple, but he speaks comparatively. For when they represented in extravagant terms the sacredness of offerings, the common people were led to entertain such veneration for them, that the majesty of the temple and of the altar was undervalued, and they reckoned it a less heinous crime to violate it by perjuries than to swear by the sacred offerings with too little reverence.
(100) “ Quand les prelates les conferment;” — “when the prelates confirm them.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat. 23:16. Gold of the temple.The exact meaning of this expression is uncertain; but the probability is that it refers to money offered as a gift to God, to which the scribes and Pharisees ascribed peculiar sanctity (Mansel). See R.V., margin.
Mat. 23:18. Guilty.A debtor (R.V.) as in Mat. 23:16.
Mat. 23:23. Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin.The language of Deu. 12:17 seems to recognise only corn, wine, and oil, among the produce of the earth, as subject to the law of tithes. The Pharisee, in his minute scrupulosity (based, it may be, on the more general language of Lev. 27:30), made a point of gathering the tenth sprig of every garden herb, and presenting it to the priest. So far as this was done at the bidding of an imperfectly illumined conscience our Lord does not blame it. It was not, like the teaching as to oaths and the Corban, a direct perversion of the law. What He did censure was the substitution of the lower for the higher (Plumptre). Mint was grown for its pleasant odour; anise, or dill, and cummin for their aromatic flavour. These were cultivated, not for food, but for scents and relishes; and only a small quantity of each would be grown in a private garden for the use of a household (Fraser).
Mat. 23:25. Full of extortion and excess.From (R.V.). The two words point
(1) to the source from which the viands and the wine camethe cup and the platter were filled with, or out of, the proceeds of, extortion;
(2) that to which they tendedthey overflowed with unrestrained self-indulgence (Plumptre).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 23:16-28
The blindness of error.Five times in succession in these verses we find the epithet blind; and every time as a description of those professed guides whom the Saviour is addressing. In justifying this application of the term, the Saviour confines Himself to one general line. These men are thus blind, according to Him, because they begin in their teaching where they ought to conclude; and treat the important, for the sake of the unimportant, as though it did not exist. In three directions especially, He goes on to show that this description holds good. It does so, first, in the way of reverence and worship; secondly, in the way of duty and observance; and, thirdly, in the way of holiness and sanctification.
I. In the way of reverence and worship.The true state of things in regard to this part of the question is manifestly as follows. God Himself is to be reverenced first and most; then that, of courseaccording to its nearnesswhich is nearer to Him. Amongst such nearer things, up above, is heaven itself as His throne (Mat. 23:22). Amongst such nearer things, here below, are His temple and altar. The one of these last having been appointed by Himself as His special dwelling on earth, and the other as a means of enabling men to approach Him in worship, they both, in consequence, had about them a certain derivative glory and awe. Full of the thoughts of God, they were, in their way, full of His majesty also. Even that, also, which appertained to themsuch as the gold, for example, which adorned the one, and the gifts which were placed on the otherhad a certain sacredness in their turn. They also were to be treated with reverence because of the reverence due to that which they touched. First, the Source, in fact; then that which grew out of it; then what grew out of that. This was the reasonablethis, apparently, the onlyway to compute. Yet this, at the same time, was the exact opposite of that adopted by these guides (Mat. 23:16). Anything bound by the stronger, according to them, need not be kept. Anything bound by the weaker must not be loosed. So they said in effect (Mat. 23:16; Mat. 23:18).
II. In the way of observance and duty.Here again the true order of value is not difficult to perceive. The moral, e.g., was before the ceremonial; matters of conscience before those of ritual; and that by a very long way. Also, amongst questions of conscience, some are of greater importance than others. What will make a difference is of more consequence than what will make none. What God expressly requires of us (Mat. 23:23, Mic. 6:8; Psalms 15) than what we devise for ourselves. Discrimination of His will, imitation of His love, belief in His existencein other words, judgment, mercy, and faithcannot be made up for by any amount of scrupulosity as to the dust of the balance. So it is that both wisdom and sincerity teachboth truth of discernment and truth of aim. But so it was, exactly, that these teachers not only did not teach, but denied. As one has quaintly said, they thought more of the condiment than of the dish; they magnified the little and belittled the great; they treated the non-essential as though it were all; they strained out the gnat and left the camel behind (Mat. 23:24). What could be worse than such double blindness as this? Only to see what was insignificant; not to see what was huge?
III. In the way of sanctification and holiness.Who cannot see here, as in the other verses, where this process begins? It begins, of course, where the thoughts begin, and whence they come out. Be clean there; and it will be hardly necessary to clean the outside. Be foul there; and it will not be possible to clean the outside. On the contrary, to pretend to it while leaving the inside impure, will be to be foul throughout, as it were; and to the original foulness of guilt to add that of hypocrisy, which is very much worse. All this is so plain that one wonders that any one should have ever thought the reverse. Yet that these Pharisees did so, is only too plain from what the Saviour says of them here. He describes them here (Mat. 23:25, R.V.) as being full from extortion and excess; that is (apparently), from the results of injury to others, on the one hand, and of indulgence to themselves, on the other. He describes them, again (Mat. 23:27-28), as being like whited sepulchresoutwardly righteous, but inwardly guiltyoutwardly beautiful, but inwardly vileand as being so blind, therefore, as to make this lowest depth of iniquity the highest peak of their aim. To look upon evil as good, in any case, is not to see very well. To regard the worst as being the best is to see nothing at all as it is.
It is important to note, in conclusion, how such blindness as this was produced. These blind leaders were thus blind because they were hypocrites first. This is why the Saviour uses this apparently harsh term so many times over. It is really a very merciful one, because it points to the secret of all. A hypocrite is a man who knowingly blinds himself to some aspect of truth. In some particular he deliberately refuses to see things as they are. So farin other wordsand in that direction, he believes in deceit. Afterwards the instrument employed by him turns, as it were, on himself. Invented originally to hide from him what he did not wish to perceive, afterwardswithout his knowing itit hides from him what he does wish to perceive. Afterwards still, therefore, there is no saying how much it may hide, or how far, consequently, in the way of foolishness and error such a self-deceiver may ultimately go, and yet suppose himself right. There is nothing more perilous, in fact, and nothing more criminal, than trifling with truth. It would ruin the universe, if allowed to prevail.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat. 23:16. Hypocritical teaching as to oath-taking.
1. Corrupt churchmen do corrupt religion and mislead the people fearfully. They become blind guides, whose office requireth that they should be wise and seeing guides; in which case woe to the people, but chiefly woe to the blind guides.
2. Swearing by the creature is no new sin, for these corrupt hypocrites did foster swearing by the creatures, as by the temple, altar, gold, and gifts.
3. Corrupt churchmen make things to be sin or no sin, as it serveth their purpose: as here, they make an oath by the temple to be none, and an oath by the gold of the temple to oblige.
4. To make light of any oath by the creature, as not obligatory, doth open a door to superstition and perjury; for to swear by the temple, they said, it was nothing, and Christ asketh, Whether is greater, the gold or the temple which sanctifieth the gold?David Dickson.
A corrupt casuistry.It is not easy to trace the currents of thought that run through a corrupt casuistry, but probably the line of reasoning that led to this distinction was that the gold of the templenot the gold used in its structural ornamentation, but that which in coin or bullion was part of the Corban, or sacred treasure (Mat. 15:5)had received a more special consecration than the fabric, and involved, therefore, a higher obligation, when used as a formula jurandi, than the temple or the altar. Something of the same feeling is seen in the popular casuistry which makes the binding force of an oath depend on kissing the Book; or that of medival Christendom, which saw in the relics of a saint that which was more sacred than the Gospels. The principle involved in our Lords teaching goes farther than its immediate application, and sweeps away the arbitrary distinction of different degrees of sanctity in the several parts of the same structure. Here the line of reasoning is, as in Mat. 5:33-37, that the temple includes the altar, that the altar includes the gift, that the heaven includes the Throne, and that thus every oath-formula runs up, explicitly or implicitly, into the great thought of God.E. H. Plumptre, D.D.
Mat. 23:23-24. The gnat and the camel.A most effective illustration this of a scrupulousness which is extreme and inconsistent. Ye strain out the gnat and swallow the camel. We are supposed to look at one drinking water or wine from an open vessel. A gnat or small fly has got into the liquora thing that will occur in hot weather among ourselves, and that is sure to occur in the East if a vessel containing any sweet liquor is left uncovered. He who would drink notices the small insect, and passes the sweetened water or wine through a fine cloth in order to strain it out. With gross inconsistency, however, he takes no notice of a far larger object, but gulps down the camel. The mention of this unwieldy creature is of course an instance of hyperbole, as in the other metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle. The Lord implied no censure on the pains taken to strain out the gnat. No person of nice habits could act otherwise. Indeed, a Jew had a special reason for being scrupulous in such a matter, for insects, as flying, swarming things, were unclean under his law. But then, the camel was unclean also. The point of the reproof lay in the incongruity or inconsistency evinced by one who was extremely scrupulous in a small thing, and extremely unscrupulous in a great matter. Such was the charge which Christ brought against the Pharisees; and it must be brought still against those who combine a very punctilious Christian profession with a lax or unprincipled morality. It appears that the Pharisees were very punctilious about paying tithes of seeds which were grown in small quantities, and were of comparatively little value. A parallel case now would be for a Christian in good circumstances to present to the church one-tenth of the value of the parsley, pepper, and mustard used in his household. Now the Pharisees were observing the letter of the law (Lev. 27:30). And the Master recognised this when He said that these minute tithings should not be left undone. But the chief matters of obligation should be placed first. The weightier matters of obligation were, and continue to be, these three:
1. Judgment, including equity in judging and rectitude in performing the duties of life.
2. Mercy in unison with justice, as it is in God Himself. The Pharisees gave alms with a blowing of trumpets, but they did not love mercy.
3. Faith or faithfulness, shown in honest dealing and in adherence to truth. Our Lords treatment of this grave error suggests two points for emphatic consideration in Christian doctrine and morals:
I. Inward qualities count for more than outward observances.Strange to read of those rough-handed Christians in the past who were unjust and rapacious, and yet imagined that by paying tithes, or taking sacraments, or endowing monasteries at death, they could secure the favour of God. But just as delusive the modern assumption that one may be false to his word, unkind in his family, unfair in his dealings, and yet by attention to Christian rites and ceremonies may find his way to heaven.
II. A just sense of proportion is essential to a well-regulated Christian mind.It must be recognised that, even among things which are right, some are greater and some less. Some are to be done first and foremost, and come what will; others are to come behind, and not to be left undone. If the Pharisees had not lacked this sense of proportion, they could never have preferred the tithing of mint to justice, tithing of dill to mercy, and tithing of cummin to faith; nor would they have condemned the righteous and merciful Saviour because He led His disciples along a path through a cornfield or healed poor people on the Sabbath. It is no infrequent thing to find a person who seems to be very religious curiously deficient in the sense of proportion. He cannot quit see what is great or what is small. If he be disposed to obstinacy and bigotry, he simply regards all that is plain to him as great; and all his tenets and regulations as equally great. If he be merely small-minded, by natural affinity he fastens keenly on small points. These are of the proper size for him; and he takes them to be quite large. Or if he be of a self-regarding mind, considering religion simply with reference to his own safety, he lays all the stress on the truths which are near himself, and has but a faint appreciation of those which are much more vast but more remote. It marks the wisdom of Jesus Christ that He saw the just proportion of things, and, when He spoke of duty, distinguished the greater elements of godly obedience from the less. And as He taught so He lived, entering into no competition with the Pharisees regarding the minutiae of ceremonial and tradition, but exhibiting a righteousness far exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees, a mercifulness with which their haughty temper had no sympathy, and a fidelity to God and to His own Divine mission from which no temptation could beguile or threat deter Him.D. Fraser, D.D.
Mat. 23:25-26. Sanctified meat.
1. Such as get their meat by extortion, and use it intemperately unto excess, can never sanctify their table, whatsoever ceremonies they use; for the saying grace at meat by such men is no better than if a man should wash the outside of the cup and platter, and eat of the filthiness of the inside.
2. The way to eat our bread with Gods blessing is to sanctify our hands in our conquering, and our hearts in a wise and moderate using the creatures, for the right end, and so our feeding shall be sanctified.David Dickson.
Mat. 23:27-28. Whitewashed tombs.Graves lie thick about Jerusalem. In the valleys and on the hilly slopes about the modern city they everywhere meet the eye. Jews have always buried their dead without, however, lavishing on their tombs such signs of honour and affection as are increasingly conspicuous in Christian cemeteries. But it was an old custom with them to wash sepulchral stones once a year. A day was fixed for the purpose in the month Adar; and at the time when our Lord used this metaphor to characterise the scribes and Pharisees, the tombs about Jerusalem had been recently whitewashed, and so were beautified for a season. As He spoke in the open air, the white stones must have been conspicuous on every side. The object of this whitewashing, however, was not to embellish, but to point out the gravestone to the passer-by, that he might not tread on it or touch it. The law which pronounced unclean him who touched a dead body, or even a dead bone, unwittingly, was extended by the later casuistry so as to count one ceremonially defiled who even stepped unintentionally over a grave or touched a tombstone. The object of Jesus was to mark with emphatic censure the contrast between the outward religious profession of those hypocrites and their inward wickedness. For this end the illustration was most apposite. The Pharisees, like the newly-washed tombs around the city, were fair and white on the surface, but unclean and corrupt within.D. Fraser, D.D.
Mat. 23:27. Moral whitewash.Nothing is gained by whitewash or varnish. God is not mocked, and even man is not long imposed on by a vain show of devotion. We once heard Father Taylor, a noted preacher to sailors in America, pray that men who thought themselves good, and were not, might be undeceived; and he cried, Lord, take off the whitewash!Ibid.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
TEXT: 23:1622
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is debtor. 17 Ye fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, he is a debtor. 19 Ye blind: for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that sweareth by the heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
What is the peculiar irony involved in Jesus epithet addressed to the Pharisees: blind guides? If a person cannot see, then on what basis would he accept the task of being a guide?
b.
If Jesus Himself told men not to call others fool (Mat. 5:22), by what right does He Himself violate that rule here, calling the Pharisees blind fools (Mat. 23:17)?
c.
What is the reason men give and receive oaths? What is an oath supposed to accomplish?
d.
What is the basis of the Pharisean distinctions pictured in this text?
e.
How did the Pharisean distinctions actually encourage perjury? Did they lend themselves to an evasion of responsibility for ones words? Do you think the Pharisees deliberately aimed to evade responsibility for certain promises or guarantees?
f.
Do you think Jesus really cares whether a person swore by the temple or the gold or the altar or the gift thereon, etc.? If you think not, then why did He go into such detail? By giving these detailed examples, is our Lord out-Phariseeing the Pharisees or is there some vital principle involved that requires that He use all these illustrations? If so, what is it?
g.
In light of Jesus strong statements against swearing, given in the Sermon on the Mount, do you think He intends to encourage people to swear properly and responsibly in this text? Is there any contradiction between His two statements?
h.
Jesus used such epithets in this section, blind guides and blind fools and blind men, that one is almost led to think He is underlining another sin beyond mistakes about oaths. Do you feel this? If so, what sin(s) or failure is Jesus uncovering by using these descriptive terms to address the Pharisees?
i.
The Pharisees invented subtle distinctions whereby it was possible for some to evade their moral responsibility to tell the truth. What words or expressions have you noticed that people today are using to avoid telling the truth?
PARAPHRASE
How terrible for you who would guide others, but are blind yourselves! You teach that if someone swears by the temple, his oath is not binding. But if someone mentions the gold of the temple in his oath, he is then obligated to keep his word. What stupidity not to comprehend! Which is of greater worth: the gold, or the very temple that gives the gold its sanctity as the basis of an oath? You also say that if someone swears by the altar, the oath does not count. But if he swears by the sacrifice that is there on the altar, he is duty-bound to keep his word. You lack moral comprehension! Which is more important: the sacrifice or the altar that gives the offering the only holiness it possesses? Therefore, the person who swears by the altar is, in reality, swearing both by it and by everything on it. Similarly, if a person swears by the temple, he is really swearing by it and by God who dwells therein as well. The person who swears by heaven is really swearing by the very throne of God and by Him who is enthroned there!
SUMMARY
Using special wording to avoid responsibility for our promises and for the sanctity and truth of all else that we say, evidences our insensibility to God who really owns and controls everything by which we could possibly swear, and who will bring us to an accounting for all our words before His tribunal.
NOTES
NO SENSE OF AWE BEFORE GOD
1. The Problem Stated
For fuller comments on oaths and swearing in general, see notes on Mat. 5:33-37, Vol. I, 288295. The live issue that called for solutions and to which both Jesus and the Pharisees addressed themselves was reverence toward God. In general, both shared this fundamental vision, but the point at issue here is how it is to be expressed in the specific question of oaths. Both agreed that the point of giving and receiving oaths is to confirm to the hearer the credibility of some statement of the speaker, which could not otherwise be checked. This is done by adding a confirmatory declaration whereby the speaker calls upon God to witness the oath. (Cf. Heb. 6:16 f.) It is assumed that the truthfulness of the affirmations is guaranteed by the speakers respect for the greatness, power, justice and high holiness of God. Further, if the statements thus confirmed are not true, then the swearer has thereby insulted the Almighty and must suffer the consequences. The value of an oath, then, depends on the true extent to which everyone involved holds God in awe. (Cf. Jer. 5:1 f.)
Other peoples followed this same philosophy of oaths with the exception that they also swore by sacred objects to which they attributed a sanctity and authority which, if offended, could punish the perjurers. Hebrews, by contrast, were to swear only in the holy, terrible Name of the Lord (Deu. 6:13; Deu. 10:20). This intended to confirm their true fidelity to Jahweh and should have led to their fulfilling Israels deepest reason for existence (Jer. 4:2; cf. Gen. 12:2 f.; Isa. 65:16).
As evidenced by our paragraph (Mat. 23:16-22), however, Jews of Jesus time were not using Gods Name in oaths, but were avoiding it by substituting more or less stereotyped circumlocutions that served as paraphrases for the Divine Name, even in common speech. (Cf. Kingdom of Heaven as a practical synonym for Kingdom of God reflects this Jewish cultural attitude of veiling their reference to God without using His Name outright.) On the part of those who began this customary substitution, it was a supposedly pious, but really superstitious, device to avoid misusing Gods Name. However, precisely because God Himself was not formally introduced into mens transactions by specific appeal to Him and His Name, reckless swearing by all manner of supposedly sacred objects abounded, corrupting public morality,
2. The Pharisean Scribes Reaction to the Problem
Rather than attempt a radical correction of mistaken speech patterns sanctioned by deeply-rooted popular custom, rather than create hearts too honest to need an oath, these theologians limited themselves to the expedient of establishing artificial rules that governed the seriousness of an oath, arbitrarily deciding which of the paraphrases used in giving oaths really showed greater sincerity and seriousness, hence were binding, and which formulations were merely profane speech. So, even if ironical in light of their real results, it is completely credible that they were moved by good intentions. They concluded (Mat. 23:16; Mat. 23:18) typically:
1.
by the temple, it is nothing; by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor;
2.
by the altar, it is nothing; by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor.
Bruce (Expositors Greek Testament, 281f.) appears to have recovered the logic behind their distinctions: The special form is more binding than the general. . . . Specializing indicated greater earnestness. That is, to swear by the very gold of the temple or by the very sacrifice on the altar supposedly shows greater attention to the sacred object than a loose, general reference, like to the temple or altar. This type of argumentation may not convince us, but apparently, in the ambient of the first century, it seemed quite persuasive to the Pharisean Jews.
3. Jesus Critique of Their Solution
a. Your Distinctions Reveal Your Lack of Comprehension
Mat. 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides. Of the Pharisean technicalities two views may be taken:
1.
Born of good intentions, they were used deceptively. Undoubtedly some may have made use of these subtle distinctions to cover falsehood. In fact, if everyone knew about these hair-splitting definitions that separated binding from non-binding oaths, there could be no deception or evasion. But, if evasion of responsibility be the use made of these rules, then not everyone would have been in a position to learn these distinctions. In this case the users are exposed as hypocrites whose lofty pretensions do not hide their cunning readiness to utilize evasive techniques to break their obligation to the Law to keep their word where it interfered with their own plans or personal convenience. They were manipulating the Laws regulations to suit their own caprice.
2.
Born of ignorance, they were nonetheless wicked. Because Jesus termed the framers of these distinctions blind guides, He implied that many could not discern the true, logical, but deadly, conclusions to which their subtleties led and that they were blind to the soul-destroying effects of their refinements. (See notes on Mat. 23:13, cf. also Mat. 23:19; Mat. 23:26.) Although properly motivated by a zeal for righteousness, they who offered their conclusions as guidance for the ignorant, were themselves unseeing. They did not recognize that their principles were perverse, leading to more serious abuses of truth and greater dishonesty than the errors they supposedly eliminated. In practice, anyone who took their refinements seriously could lie and then make the most awe-inspiring vow, or make a most difficult promise under oath, without ever intending to keep it, all without any sense of wrong. Nonetheless the Pharisees appeared to be generally unaware of the unquestionably immoral conclusion to which their specious reasoning led. Later (Mat. 23:17), He called them blind fools, because they lacked ordinary common sense to discern what should have been obvious to all.
Because the rationale behind their distinctions is empty of all logic and because their rules are deceptive, if not in intent at least in result, these so-called scholars, who could not fathom this, are doubly unqualified to teach Gods people and are properly termed: fools and blind. He who has forbidden us to call others a fool (Mat. 5:22), possesses the authority so to order us and to judge the hearts of these fools (Joh. 5:22), and we would be blind fools not to discern the difference between His royal judgeship and our position as disciples.
b. An Oath Is An Oath
(You) say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing, but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. Barclay (Matthew, II, 211, emphasis his) is right to affirm that to the Jew an oath was absolutely binding, so long as it was a binding oath. But this very limitation is its own condemnation. Regardless of which formula is used, the glaring admission on the surface of this Pharisean definition is that the person was actually swearing. Either way, whether by the temple or its gold, by the altar or its sacrifice, by heaven or by God Himself, THE MAN HAS SWORN, and he is bound by God to keep his oath (Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:1 f.; Deu. 23:21 ff.). Nevertheless, they had the effrontery to declare: it is nothing. In Jesus view, it was bad enough that anyone should be led to suppose that truth may be divided into two categories: truth which counts if supported by an oath, and truth that is less significant and may legitimately be manipulated at will, if it lacks this support. This categorizing encourages people to suppose that no blame is to be attached to their telling falsehoods, if no oath is involved. But that this should continue with the connivance and active support of the representatives of Gods Law must be a monstrously unthinkable thing and a gross transgression of the spirit of the Second Commandment (Exo. 20:7). So, any oath is a binding oath, unless repented of and atoned for (Lev. 5:4-13).
c. God Is Omitted From Your System
By the temple . . . by the gold . . . by the altar . . . by the gift . . . by heaven . . . by the throne. Rather than believe, with Barclay (Matthew, II, 323), that our Lord is here merely caricaturing Jewish legalistic methods by reducing them to the absurd, we may hold that He begins with a literal description of some of their conclusions in order to show the theological and logical fallacy involved in all the rest. Who can affirm that Jesus contemporaries did not swear precisely as He affirms? They ignored the basic principle that an oath must be, as Matthew Henry (V, 336) put it, an appeal to God, to His omniscience and justice; and to make this appeal to any creature is to put that creature in place of God! By what justification, except moral blindness or unconfessed antagonism toward God, can man swear by anything but His Name?! Yet their every distinction had the effect of cutting God out of their sworn testimony and of blinding themselves to the interest God has in everything man says. In His place, they called upon unliving things to be witness to their oaths, which could guarantee no truth and punish no perjury. But if any holiness belong to any of these mere things, it was only because of their association with God who is the final Cause of that holiness.
By multiplying the number of objects by which oaths were thought to be binding, the rabbis tended to make it more and more difficult to determine which oaths were valid, especially for the common man accustomed to the older, general oaths. The resultant tendency of the rabbinical decisions was to increase the possibilities for hypocritical, unintended affirmations without meaning and consequently the occasions for more deception. By driving men back to swearing by God alone (Mat. 23:21 f.), Jesus aimed to re-establish reverent, God-fearing sincerity.
d. You Have Inverted All Values
Mat. 23:17 Which is greater, the gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the gold? If the rabbis supposed that particular oaths are more binding than those sworn by the general category that includes the particular, Jesus rhetorical question leads all to see that the general includes and is more important than the particular (Bruce, Expositors Greek Testament, 281f.). As a guarantee of an oath, the gold is meaningless, except as it covers that temple dedicated to the holy Name of God who dwells there. Only this connection gives the gold significance. Without connection with God, nothing is holy!
Mat. 23:18 The altar in question is the only place of sacrifice in Judaism, located in the Jerusalem temple, and the gift that is upon it, then, is the sacrifice itself. Moses himself had already established the greater importance of the altar: . . . the altar will be most holy, and whatever touches it will be holy (Exo. 29:37). Although the altar was pre-eminently holy and the gift only secondarily so, yet both had meaning only as concrete expressions of respect for the God who ordered both. Thus, there was no way to remove from oaths serious awareness of and awe for Gods omniscience and justice. Only God makes things holy.
This concept of the sacredness of associations the Pharisees, however, had turned upside down by overturning the comparative value of each item. Not only were these Pharisean refinements mistaken per se, but they were actually a diabolical distortion of the theory of oathtaking, since they asserted that the lesser was somehow more sacred than the greater which gave the lesser its meaning.
4. Jesus Concluding Evaluation
Mat. 23:20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all the things thereon. 21 And he that sweareth by the temple, sweareth by it and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 and he that sweareth by the heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Notice how simple it is to move from saying, by heaven as a veiled, but reverent, reference to God without using His Name, to saying, by heaven as a sinful evasion. Anyone who uses this expression to avoid responsibility to God for his words obviously intends no reverence at all by his reluctance to name God. This explains why Jesus must show what is really involved in using this dodge. Verse 22 affects all the others retrospectively: if heaven is the throne of God (Isa. 66:1), whence He reigns over everything else in His universe, then nothing exists that does not come under the authority of that throne, and nothing exists, therefore, by which man may swear that does not ultimately bring God its Creator and Owner into the question! In the final analysis, therefore, whether one swears by one created object or another is actually immaterial, since everything was created by God and belongs to Him. There is no way to exclude Him or His witness to mans sincerity. Conversely, to swear by anything, without intending to call God to witness ones integrity, is doubly wicked, because it misrepresents the meaning of oaths (a conscious appeal to deity to confirm our words and punish us if false) and because it ignores Gods ownership of everything on which an oath could be based.
Mat. 23:21 the temple and him that dwelleth therein. To refer to God in this way is not to deny that the very heavens cannot contain God, but to affirm that, so long as the Old Testament institutions were in force, God manifested His glory in a cloud between the cherubim above the ark of the covenant (Exo. 25:22; Num. 7:89; 1Ki. 8:10 f., 1Ki. 8:27; Psa. 80:1).
On what basis does Aflord (230) assert: God did not then dwell in the Temple, nor had He done so since the Captivity? On the basis of Jewish tradition that the presence of the visible glory of God (the Shekinah) was one of the items not restored in the Second Temple? (Cf. 2Ma. 2:4-8; Josephus, Wars, V, 5, 5; 2 Bar. 6:7; 4 Ezra 10:48; Mishnah, Yoma 21:2; cf. Mat. 5:2.) But even if the ark of the covenant were thought irreplaceable and the Glory enthroned thereon did not return, what would that prove about GODS REAL PRESENCE in the Temple or in Jerusalem? Again, to affirm that the Shekinah departed from the Temple is not absolutely identical to saying that God Himself departed. That He should withhold the VISIBLE evidence of His presence is neither impossible nor unthinkable, but, without Gods express declaration of His absence, who can affirm that He withheld His divine presence altogether? Was He somehow absent from Israel BEFORE the Glory came down, either at Sinai or at the dedication of Solomons Temple? And was this not merely a visible pledge of His presence, granted to a nation in its spiritual childhood until it could learn to live like Moses, as seeing Him who is invisible (Heb. 11:27)?
Jesus utilized present participles to describe God as dwelling in the Temple and as sitting on His throne (Katoikonti, Mat. 23:21; kathemno, Mat. 23:22). Now, if God was truly reigning in heaven when Jesus uttered these words, why should He be thought to have permanently abandoned the Temple centuries before? In fact, Jesus expressed both acts of God in identical language, i.e. with present participles.
Honesty and Integrity
Besides reverence toward God, Jesus is strengthening peoples sense of honor and love of truthfulness. He is not concerned with merely unmasking Pharisean trick language and definitions that disguise lies nor is He interested in which formula they use to cheat their neighbors. Our Lord is much more concerned by the devastation wrought by dishonesty both on the liar himself and on the fabric of relations in the human family.
1.
The pious lie, couched in the language of a solemn oath, ruins the liar himself, because it undermines his own faith in the word of everyone else with whom he comes into contact. He cannot trust them, because he must suspect them of using untrustworthy language as does he.
2.
The fabric of social relationships is based on trust, but the lie ruins it, since the discovery of the deception sows doubt and distrust, nurtures suspicion, weakens public confidence, incites to fear and encourages people to deceive others to free themselves from deception.
3.
Mans responsibility always to be truthful is undermined by the mistaken belief that any of his words do not count, unless supported by oaths, or by the belief that any oath, not stated in the special formula, might legitimately be broken.
So, Jesus would save all these liars from the practical, evil consequences of their own vicious, self-damaging system, by revealing the deep, theological significance of all their oaths whatever their specific formulation. Further, He would save them from their certain destiny (Rev. 21:8). Most of all, Jesus would create in His hearers a sense of belonging to the entire family and, especially, to the family of God. (Cf. Eph. 4:25.) Only a deep sense of respect for the high holiness of God and for the preciousness of every human being can keep a person from deceiving another by specious oaths and empty words that only seem to be meant. Although Jesus preached an unadorned sincerity too honest to need oaths for confirmation, should an oath become necessary and be given, there can be no caviling or equivocation. (Mat. 5:33-37 on which see notes.)
Criterion of False Religion
Any religion that encourages men on some technicality to side-step God-ordained duty to tell the truth, or permits them to cite the precise letter of the law to keep from obeying what the spirit of that law obviously requires, is a false religion. Any faith that by meaningless quibbles takes mens attention away from God, or that encourages trifling with truth and weakens mens sense of truthfulness and their fear of the Lord, is false.
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
What is an oath? How does it work?
2.
What had Jesus already taught about oaths and swearing? How does Jesus teaching on oaths in this section compare with that given in the Sermon on the Mount on this subject?
3.
What is the sin of which Jesus accuses the Pharisees in this section? Or is there more than one sin indicated?
4.
What is the meaning of the Pharisean judgments: he is debtor and it is nothing? What were they meaning to accomplish by pronouncing these judgments?
5.
What, according to Jesus, is the major principle that people must remember when swearing by the altar, by its sacrifices, by the temple, by heaven and by the throne?
6.
What was the Pharisean doctrine on swearing by the temple, the altar, heaven and Gods throne? How did Jesus expose the absurdity of their views?
7.
Jesus called the Pharisees blind guides. In what way were they (1) blind and (2) guides?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(16) Whosoever shall swear by the temple.On the general teaching of the Pharisees as to oaths, see Notes on Mat. 5:33-37. It is not easy to trace the currents of thought that run through a corrupt casuistry, but probably the line of reasoning that led to this distinction was that the gold of the Templenot the gold used in its structural ornamentation, but that which in coin or bullion was part of the Corban, or sacred treasure (Mat. 15:5)had received a more special consecration than the fabric, and involved, therefore, a higher obligation, when used as a formula jurandi, than the Temple or the altar. Something of the same feeling is seen in the popular casuistry which makes the binding force of an oath depend on kissing the Book; or that of medival Christendom, which saw in the relics of a saint that which was more sacred than the Gospels. The principle involved in our Lords teaching goes further than its immediate application, and sweeps away the arbitrary distinction of different degrees of sanctity in the several parts of the same structure. Here the line of reasoning is, as in Mat. 5:33-37, that the Temple includes the altar, that the altar includes the gift, that the heaven includes the Throne, and that thus every oath-formula runs up, explicitly or implicitly, into the great thought of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Blind guides, which say The next, or FOURTH WOE, is pronounced upon their false dogmas in regard to oaths. See on Mat 5:34-35. Swear by the gold of the temple The gold here mentioned is not the gilding of the edifice, but the offerings of gold in its treasury.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Woe/alas to you, you blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing, but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.’ You fools and blind, for which is greater, the gold, or the temple which has sanctified the gold?”
Jesus is so moved by the idea of how they are turning both Jews and Gentiles from the truth that He changes His description from ‘hypocrites’ to ‘blind guides’, and He gives an example of the way in which they take men’s minds off the essentials and fix them on what is marginal. By what they advise men to swear on they treat the gold in the Temple as more important than the Temple itself. Their eyes are not fixed on the great King himself, to Whom the Temple points, but on the great treasury which contains their gold. In other words they are not on God but on Mammon, even if it is ‘sanctified’ Mammon (Mat 6:24). But if they had only thought about it honestly they would have recognised that the Temple as the symbol of God’s presence, and as such being the very reason for the gold being offered, was far, far more important than the gold within it. The One to Whom the offerings are made is more important than the offerings. On the other hand their concentration is on their offerings. They have made the creature more important than the Creator. (They have failed to recognise that God is Spirit and that those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth – Joh 4:24). Thus they are ‘fools and blind’.
The use of ‘fools’ had been forbidden in Mat 5:22 in private conversations. But it was different for the One Who was the Judge of all men when giving His official indictment. These people, who easily called others ‘fools’, had proved to be ‘fools’ themselves in the most important thing of all, their attitude towards God. The use of the term here confirms how carefully the actual words of Jesus were preserved. No one would have put what seems to be such a contradiction onto His lips by accident.
‘Whoever shall swear — he is a debtor.’ They considered that to swear by the Temple did not make a man liable to perform his oath, but that to swear by the gold of the Temple did. What could more indicate where their hearts were set? It was set on aspects of their own ‘worship’ rather than on the One Whom they claimed to worship. Part of the reason might well have been because these were physical things that the ordinary people participated in, and might therefore be seen as more connected with them, but that was only because their spiritual vision was blurred. Had their hearts been right that would not have been so. Some suggest that the idea was in order to prevent people from swearing on something so sacred as the Temple, but that was probably an idea that grew up later when the Temple was no more. Jesus seems to be suggesting that their attitude towards the Temple here was rather somewhat casual in comparison with their views about their way of worship, possibly because they did not see themselves as closely connected with it (in their view it had been built by an impostor). And the Temple, we should remember, was outside Pharisaic control. We can therefore understand why their concentration was on the Law and the people’s contributions. So it might well have been that they concentrated more on things with which the people were directly involved, and wanted others to do so as well. (We can compare how, as Christianity became more ‘formal’, concentration for many turned on things like ‘relics’ instead of being fixed on God Himself. God became far off. In their formalism they had lost the significance of His words in Joh 4:24).
‘You blind guides.’ The alteration in address from ‘Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites’ is an indication that we have here Jesus’ own words. Somebody just giving the gist of His words would have used the same formula as on the other woes. But we can see perfectly how Jesus, deeply moved at how they are keeping people out of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, might switch to this description.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Their Failure To Discern What Is Truly Holy (23:16-22).
Their next condemnation lies in the fact that they lay greater emphasis on their own gifts and offerings than they do on the God-provided and thus ‘holy’ means of approach to Himself. They emphasise their own works rather than God’s provision. Thus instead of ‘seeing God’ their eyes are filled with their own religious activity.
Analysis.
a
b “And, ‘Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing, but whoever shall swear by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor’ ” (Mat 23:18).
c “You blind ones, for which is greater, the gift, or the altar which sanctifies the gift?” (Mat 23:19).
b “He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by all things that are on it” (Mat 23:20).
a “And he who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who dwells in it. And he who swears by the heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it” (Mat 23:21-22).
Note that in ‘a’ the emphasis is on the greatness and holiness of the Temple as the earthly ‘dwellingplace’ of God, and in the parallel that is emphasised. In ‘b’ reference is made to the altar, and in the parallel the supremity of the altar over against what is offered on it is brought out. Centrally in ‘c’ emphasis is laid on the fact that what sanctifies is greater than what is sanctified.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The fourth woe:
v. 16. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the Temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the Temple, he is a debtor!
v. 17. Ye fools and blind! For whether is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifieth the gold?
v. 18. And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
v. 19. Ye fools and blind! For whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
v. 20. Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar sweareth by it and by all things thereon.
v. 21. And whoso shall swear by the Temple sweareth by it, and by Him that dwelleth therein.
v. 22. And he that shall swear by heaven sweareth by the throne of God, and by Him that sitteth thereon. A typical example of the senseless distinctions that were allowed, because tradition had so spoken. Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees blind guides, such as undertook to lead other people, while they themselves lacked proper knowledge and understanding, Rom 2:17-24. He that swore an oath by the gold of the Holy Place or by the sacrifice upon the altar, things that were sanctified to God, was considered a flagrant transgressor, if he did not consider his oath as fully binding. But to swear by the Holy of Holies itself or by the altar of sacrifice, that was nothing, signified nothing, and was not binding. Small, insignificant details were bolstered up in the interest of human precepts and for the purpose of holding men’s souls by fear, but the fundamental matters were ignored. Stupid, blind fools the Lord calls them, that have no understanding of true values. It is the altar that hallows, that gives value to the sacrifice; it is the Holy Place that imparts its sanctity to the ornamentation; it is God, the King of the heavens, that gives to the throne above dignity and worth. For the Jews, therefore, it was time for the readjustment of values. All oaths are sacred and valid, and it will never do to cloud the issue by man-made distinctions.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 23:16. Ye blind guides 4. The fourth woe is denounced for their false doctrine. Our Saviour had before stiled them hypocrites from their personal character; now he gives them another title, blind guides, respecting their influence upon others. Both these appellations are severely put together in Mat 23:23-25 and this holy severity rises to the height in the 33rd verse. Our Saviour mentions particularly their doctrine concerning oaths, and declares, in contradiction to their execrable tenets, that every oath is obligatory, the matter of which is lawful; because when men swear by the creature, if their oath has any meaning, it is an appeal to the Creator himself: in any other light, an oath by the creature is absolutely ridiculous, because the creature neither has knowledge with respect to the matter of the oath, nor power to punish the perjury. See on ch. Mat 5:33., &c. It is nothing, means, “it constitutes no obligation to tell the truth, or, to perform one’s vow,” He is a debtor, means, “he is bound to speak the truth, or, to perform his vow.” And in like manner he is guilty, Mat 23:18 means, he is bound by his oath. The Pharisees taught, that oaths by the creature might be used on trifling occasions, and violated without any great guilt; but they excepted oaths by the corban, and by sacrifices: in which it is plain, that, without any regard to common sense or decency, they were influenced merely by a view to their own interest, and therefore represented these to the people, as things of more eminent sanctity than even the temple or altar itself. The gold of the temple means the treasure kept in the temple, otherwise called corban. See ch. Mat 27:6.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 23:16 . A new point, and one so peculiarly heinous that a somewhat larger portion of the denunciatory address is devoted to it.
] as in the Mischna we frequently meet with such expressions as: per habitaculum hoc , . See Wetstein and Lightfoot.
] by the gold which belongs to the temple, the ornaments, the vessels, perhaps also the gold in the sacred treasury (to which latter Jerome, Maldonatus, refer). We nowhere meet with any example of such swearing, and the subject of Corban (Mat 15:5 ) is foreign to our passage (Lightfoot), inasmuch as there is no question of vows in the present instance. For with , comp. on Mat 5:34 .
] it (the oath) is nothing, is of no consequence. It is not the person swearing who is the subject, but , . . ., form an absolute nominative, as in Mat 7:24 , Mat 10:14 , Mat 13:12 .
] is indebted, bound to keep the oath.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Ver. 16. Ye blind guides which say ] His watchmen are blind, was an old complaint, Isa 56:10 . Which that it is a foul fault, the Rabbis have there noted from one letter (in the original) a of the word rendered watchmen, bigger than his fellows. How many are there that thrust into the ministry, wanting both heart and art to teach the people? These lead their flocks to the pit’s brink, wherein if they perish, themselves lie lowermost.
Whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple ] So by the gift on the altar, Mat 23:18 , these, they taught, were tied; the other might for a sum be dispensed with, that swore by the temple or the altar. Not so those that swore by the gold of the temple, that is, dedicated to the temple, or by the gift on the altar; for these oaths brought these blind guides in commodity, which the swearer was forced presently to pay down. The people also were hereby made more free and forward to offer gold for the temple, sacrifices for the altar; because they were made to believe that those presents were more precious than either temple or altar. Pretty devices these were to get money; and are they not still practised by Papists? Philip Brasier was abjured in Henry VIII’s time for saying, that when any cure is done the priests do anoint the images, and make men believe the images do sweat in labouring for them. The rood (falaciousness) of grace and blood of Hales is notorious. Our Lady of Loretto hath her churches so stuffed with vowed presents and memories, that they are fain to hang their cloisters and churchyards with them. They teach the people that as they may sooner go to Christ by St Dominick than by St Paul, so to swear by holy relics, and in swearing, to lay hand on them, is a more binding oath than to swear by God, laying hand on the Bible.
a Ubi Tsaddi est maiusculum. Buxtorf. Tiber.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16 22. ] The Lord forbade all swearing to His own disciples, ch. Mat 5:34 ; and by the very same reasoning because every oath is really and eventually an oath by God shews these Pharisees the validity and solemnity of every oath. “This subterfuge became notorious at Rome. ‘Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis; Non credo: jura, verpe, per Anchialum,’ = am chai aloh (as God liveth). Martial xi. 94” (F. M.). The gold here is probably not the ornamental gold, but the Corban the sacred treasure. (This Meyer doubts, because the question here is not of vows . But in the absence of any examples of an oath by the gold of the temple , it is just as likely as the other interpretation.) They were fools and blind, not to know and see, that no inanimate thing can witness an oath , but that all these things are called in to do so because of sanctity belonging to them, of which God is the primary source the order likewise of the things hallowed , being, in their foolish estimate of them, reversed : for, the gold must be less than the temple which hallows it , and the gift than the altar not as if this were of any real consequence, except to shew their folly for, Mat 23:20-22 , every oath is really an oath by God . But these men were servants only of the temple ( , Mat 23:38 ) and the altar, and had forgotten God.
, is bound (see Exo 29:37 ).
(not is remarkable: God did not then dwell in the Temple, nor had He done so since the Captivity. (This may perhaps be so: but grammatically it is hardly probable. Rather should I say now, with Meyer, that the aor. refers to the one definite act by which God took possession of the temple as His dwelling-place on its dedication by Solomon; without any allusion to present circumstances.)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 23:16-22 . The third woe refers to the Jesuitry of the scribes in the matter of oaths; the point emphasised, however, is their stupidity in this part of their teaching ( cf. Mat 5:33 f.), where Christ’s teaching is directed against the use of oaths at all.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 23:16 . . , blind guides, not only deceivers but deceived themselves, lacking spiritual insight even in the simplest matters. Three instances of their blindness in reference to oaths are directly or indirectly indicated: oaths by the temple and the gold of the temple, by the altar and the offerings on it, by heaven and the throne of God therein. The principle underlying Rabbinical judgments as to the relative value of oaths seems to have been: the special form more binding than the general; therefore gold of the temple more than the temple, sacrifice on altar more than altar, throne of God in heaven more than heaven. Specialising indicated greater earnestness. Whether these forms of oath were actually used or current, and what precisely they meant, e.g. , gold of the temple: was it ornament, utensil, or treasure? is immaterial. They may have been only hypothetical forms devised to illustrate an argument in the schools. , : the formulae for non-binding and binding oaths; it is nothing (the oath, viz. ); he is indebted, bound to performance = .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 23:16-22
16″Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’17You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’19You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.”
Mat 23:16 “blind guides” This was a sarcastic metaphor for the religious leaders (cf. Mat 15:14; Mat 23:16; Mat 23:24).
Mat 23:16-22 “swears by” The Jews had developed an extensive system of valid and invalid oaths, using God’s name (cf. Mat 5:33-37; Jas 5:12). It was a way to allow lying while appearing religious (cf. Lev 19:12; Deu 23:21).
“You fools” See Special Topic at Mat 5:22.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the Temple = the Sanctuary: i.e. the Naos, or actual Temple building, consisting of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Spelled in The Companion Bible with a capital “T”, to distinguish it from hieron, the whole of the Temple courts, but translated temple also; this is spelled with a small “t” in The Companion Bible.
debtor = is bound [to fulfill the oath]. In Mat 23:18 rendered “guilty”; whereby there is (in Eng.) the Figure of speech Parechesis = guilty [and must pay the geld, i.e. the penalty]. See App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16-22.] The Lord forbade all swearing to His own disciples, ch. Mat 5:34; and by the very same reasoning-because every oath is really and eventually an oath by God-shews these Pharisees the validity and solemnity of every oath. This subterfuge became notorious at Rome. Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis; Non credo: jura, verpe, per Anchialum, = am chai aloh (as God liveth). Martial xi. 94 (F. M.). The gold here is probably not the ornamental gold, but the Corban-the sacred treasure. (This Meyer doubts, because the question here is not of vows. But in the absence of any examples of an oath by the gold of the temple, it is just as likely as the other interpretation.) They were fools and blind, not to know and see, that no inanimate thing can witness an oath, but that all these things are called in to do so because of sanctity belonging to them, of which God is the primary source-the order likewise of the things hallowed, being, in their foolish estimate of them, reversed: for, the gold must be less than the temple which hallows it, and the gift than the altar-not as if this were of any real consequence, except to shew their folly-for, Mat 23:20-22, every oath is really an oath by God. But these men were servants only of the temple ( , Mat 23:38) and the altar, and had forgotten God.
, is bound (see Exo 29:37).
(not is remarkable: God did not then dwell in the Temple, nor had He done so since the Captivity. (This may perhaps be so: but grammatically it is hardly probable. Rather should I say now, with Meyer, that the aor. refers to the one definite act by which God took possession of the temple as His dwelling-place on its dedication by Solomon; without any allusion to present circumstances.)
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 23:16. , blind guides) Previously they were styled hypocrites, and that again and again; now the appellation is changed according to the subject in hand. The two appellations are combined in Mat 23:23-24, and Mat 23:25-26. The denunciation reaches its climax in Mat 23:33.- , he is nothing)[1002] sc. , owing, i.e. he owes nothing.- , by the gold) with which the temple was adorned.
[1002] E. V. It is nothing.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
debtor
Or, bound; also Mat 23:18. “guilty:”
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
ye blind: Mat 23:17, Mat 23:19, Mat 23:24, Mat 23:26, Mat 15:14, Isa 56:10, Isa 56:11, Joh 9:39-41
Whosoever shall swear by the temple: Mat 5:33, Mat 5:34, Jam 5:12
it is: Mat 15:5, Mat 15:6, Mar 7:10-13
he is: Gal 5:3
Reciprocal: Gen 42:15 – By the life Exo 20:7 – take Lev 21:18 – a blind man Num 30:2 – to bind Pro 16:22 – the instruction Isa 5:13 – because Isa 5:20 – them Isa 9:16 – the leaders Isa 42:19 – Who is blind Jer 4:22 – For my Eze 13:3 – foolish Hos 4:6 – because Zec 5:3 – sweareth Zec 11:17 – Woe Mal 2:9 – but Mat 5:19 – shall teach Mat 5:36 – shalt Mat 6:23 – If Mat 21:27 – We cannot tell Mar 1:22 – as the Mar 11:33 – We Luk 6:39 – Can Joh 9:40 – Are Joh 10:1 – He Rom 2:19 – art confident 1Ti 1:7 – understanding
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3:16
The point in this verse is their inconsistency of making a technical distinction between things where there was no difference in principle. It was a usual practice of these pretenders to make a show of importance by performing oaths, yet they evaded their self-assumed obligation by naming the temple in their oaths and
claiming it was not binding. But they Verse 26. The activities necessary insisted that if others made their vows for cleansing the inside would also
in the name of the gold attached to affect the outside if the process should the temple they would not dare break be carried out completely and sincerely. it since the gold was holy.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple; he is a debtor!
[Whosoever shall swear by the gold of the Temple, he is a debtor.] These words agree in the same sense with those of the Corban; Mat 15:5. We must not understand the gold of the Temple here, of that gold which shined all about in the walls and ceilings; but the gold here meant is that which was offered up in the Corban. It was a common thing with them, and esteemed as nothing, to swear by the Temple; and by the altar; which we have observed at the 31st verse of the fifth chapter Mat 5:31; and therefore they thought themselves not much obliged by it; but if they swore Corban; they supposed they were bound by an indispensable tie. For example: if any one should swear thus, ‘By the Temple, or, By the altar, my money, my cattle, my goods shall not profit you’; it was lawful, nevertheless, for the swearer, if he pleased, to suffer them to be profited by these: but if he should swear thus, ‘Corban; my gold is for the Temple, Corban; my cattle are for the altar,’ this could noways be dispensed with.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 23:16. Ye blind guides. Wilfully blind, self-deluded (fools and blind, Mat 23:17), they persisted in leading others astray. The method here spoken of is that of arbitrary distinctions in regard to oaths, perverting religion and morality.
Who say. Thus they taught.
By the temple. A common oath, comp. chap. Mat 5:34-37, where kindred oaths are referred to, and all swearing forbidden.
It is nothing, i.e., not binding; like the mental reservation allowed and taught by the Jesuits.
By the gold of the temple. Either the gold which adorned it, or the gold in its treasury.
He is a debtor. This they regarded as a binding oath. Whatever their reason may have been, the Pharisees thus put the gold above the temple. A sign of covetousness, and of a tendency to exalt church ornaments above the house of God itself.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The fourth woe which our Saviour denounceth against Pharisees is for the false and erroneous doctrine concerning oaths.
1. They taught men to swear by the creatures.
2. They taught that some oaths made by the creatures were obligatory and binding, others not; particularly they affirmed, that if a man swear by the temple, or the altar, it was nothing; that is, he was not bound by such an oath: but if a man swear by the gold of the temple and the altar; that is, by the gifts offered to the corban, or treasury of the temple, and by the sacrifices and oblations on the altar; such an oath they affirmed was binding, because it was for their profit that the gifts on the altar, and the gold brought into the treasury, should be accounted most holy, seeing that would encourage the people to be more ready to contribute and offer.
This horrid hypocrisy and covetousness our blessed Saviour here sharply reproves, and shews, that oaths made by the creatures, though unlawful, yet being once made, did oblige, as if the parties had sworn by God himself. For he that swears by the temple, swears by it and him that dwelleth therein.
Learn, 1. That swearing by the creatures is no new sin, but as old as the Pharisees.
2. That swearing by the creatures is a great profanation of the name of God, and a mighty provocation to him.
3. That is notwithstanding, if the matter of such oaths be not sinful, they are obligatory and binding. He that sweareth by the creatures, sweareth indeed by the God of the creatures: for, says our Saviour, he that sweareth by the heavens, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 23:16-22. Wo unto you, ye blind guides Before he had styled them hypocrites, from their personal character; now he gives them another title respecting their false doctrine and influence upon others. Both these appellations are severely put together in Mat 23:23-25 : and this severity rises to the height in Mat 23:33. Here we have the fourth reason of the woes denounced. Which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing It constitutes no obligation to tell the truth or to perform ones oath. But whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple That is, by the treasure kept there, he is a debtor Gr. , he oweth, that is, is obliged to perform his oath. It seems, says Dr. Doddridge, the Pharisees taught, that oaths by the creatures might be used on trifling occasions, and violated without any great guilt. But they excepted oaths by the corban,
(the gift,) and by sacrifices; in which it is plain that, without any regard to common sense or decency, they were influenced merely by a view to their own interest; and therefore represented these to the people as things of more eminent sanctity than even the temple or altar itself. Whoso shall swear by the altar, sweareth by all things thereon Not only by the altar, but by the holy fire and the sacrifices, and above all by that God to whom they belonged; inasmuch as every oath by a creature, if it has any meaning, is an implicit appeal to the Creator himself. Whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by him that dwelleth therein Consequently, the oath is a solemn wishing that he, who dwells in the temple, may hinder him from ever worshipping there, if he be telling a falsehood or neglect his vow. He that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, &c. And therefore his oath is a solemn wishing that God, who dwells in heaven, may exclude him out of that blessed place for ever, if he falsify his oath. For a further explanation of the subject of oaths, see the note on Mat 5:33-37.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
23:16 Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he {q} is a debtor!
(q) Is a debtor. In the Syrian language, sins are called “Debts”, and it is certain that Christ spoke in Syrian.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The third woe 23:16-22
Jesus had dealt with the subject of taking oaths in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:33-37). He had called His critics blind guides before too (Mat 15:14). Here is a specific example of what Jesus condemned in the second woe (Mat 23:15). By differentiating between what was binding in their oaths and what was not, the Pharisees and teachers of the law were encouraging evasive oaths that amounted to lying. Jesus’ point was that people should tell the truth. Jesus condemned His critics for mishandling the Scriptures that they claimed to defend and expound.
Mat 23:20-22 provide the rationale for Mat 5:33-37. Whenever a Jew took an oath he connected it in some way with God. All their oaths were therefore binding. Jesus disallowed all evasive oaths and viewed them as untruthful speech.