Matthew 23

CHAPTER XXIII

Matthew 23:1

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitude and to his disciples, saying: On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees. All things, therefore, whatever they say to you, do and keep guarding; but according to their works stop doing, for they say and do not do. Besides, they tie together loads heavy and hard to carry and put them upon the shoulders of men; yet they themselves are not willing even with their finger to stir them. Since 21:23 we must imagine the presence of the ὄχλοι or crowds of festival pilgrims as listening to what went on. The Pharisees, whose assembling has been mentioned in both 22:34 and 22:41, are still present. Right before them Jesus warns the pilgrims against them; and, having done that, he turns and hurls his fearful woes into their faces (v. 13–39).

We write all this quite calmly, but the scene was charged with a dramatic tenseness that is hard for us to imagine. Together with the pilgrims Jesus warns his own disciples.

Matthew 23:2

2 The very first words show that Jesus is speaking of the scribes and the Pharisees not to them. The two articles distinguish two classes (R. 758). The scribes were, indeed, also Pharisees, but they were the professional students of the Old Testament and thus a distinct class; the rest of the Pharisees accepted the teaching of their scribes and made a strenuous profession of translating it into life, holding the common people to follow their example. In this way “they sat down on the seat of Moses.” The aorist ἐκάθισαν is historical; R. 866 makes it gnomic and thus timeless, seemingly in an effort to justify the English translation “sit.” With ἐκάθισαν Jesus states merely the fact, which does not in any way admit the right of these men to Moses’ seat. They were not called to this seat as Moses had been. He assumed that seat reluctantly, but these false followers of his assumed his seat of their own accord and were determined to have and to hold it. They were self-appointed usurpers and acted as though their dicta were as binding as the revelations God made to Moses, 15:3–9.

Matthew 23:3

3 The οὖν should not be regarded as admitting the right of these usurpers to Moses’ seat; in John 10:1, etc., Jesus calls them thieves and robbers. “Therefore” means: under the circumstances thus described. In the Orient teachers ordinarily sit, perhaps on a platform, with their legs folded underneath them. In Constantinople and in Damascus the author saw prominent Mohammedan teachers sitting thus on platforms while their hearers sat cross-legged on the floor of the mosque. What course are the people now to follow? They are to recognize the falsity of these self-appointed successors of Moses and are to avoid their falsity.

“All things whatever they say to you” does not refer to all their misinterpretations, all the false traditions they may hand out. Concordia Triglotta, 449, 21. Seated in Moses’ seat, these teachers read the word of Moses and of the prophets, and these are the words, whatever they may be, that Jesus bids the people “do and keep guarding.” The first verb is an effective aorist imperative: ποιήσατε, do, perform, so as to finish the thing. The second is a durative present imperative: τηρεῖτε, always keep guarding, so that no one may mislead you, and you may keep these divine words.

Jesus does not say that the people are to perform and to cherish what the scribes and the Pharisees “teach” (16:12, 13) but only what they “say” (“bid” in our versions is misleading). When these false teachers say the divine words, the people are not to disregard them because they come from teachers of this kind. The blessed power of these words is not derived from those who speak them truly, nor lost when false men do the speaking; it is due to the words themselves because they come from God. Concordia Triglotta, 47 (VIII).

The warning, “but according to their works stop doing,” has μὴποιεῖτε, the present imperative in a prohibition, which so often denotes that an action already begun is to stop and to remain stopped (R. 851, etc.). The scribes and the Pharisees were greatly revered by the common people, and thus their example was constantly followed. Jesus tells the people to stop this. Γάρ states the chief reason: “for they say and do not.” These present tenses are not gnomic nor timeless but durative: “they keep saying, and they keep not doing.” They read the Scriptures even in public and yet do not what the Scriptures say.

This is the first specification of the hypocrisy of these religious leaders, and in a moment (v. 13, etc.) Jesus will call down woe upon them as arrant hypocrites. But this doing should not be restricted to the legal commandments and regulations of Moses and of the prophets. The Old Testament is full of the gospel which requires and works faith in God and in his Messiah (22:41–45). This grand part of the Word the scribes and the Pharisees never saw. So they failed altogether “to do” this part, to believe. And this naturally ruined also the other part, the law in the Word.

They missed its supreme purpose: the knowledge of sin and true contrition; they abused the law by their rank work-righteousness. How often had Jesus held up the true sense of the Torah before them, but, even when they had to admit the validity of this sense, they barred their hearts against its saving effect.

Matthew 23:4

4 With δέ, “besides,” Jesus turns to something else. The “heavy burdens” are often regarded as all the Pharisaic traditions; but the Pharisees did try to carry these. After telling the people to heed the words of Moses although they may be brought to them by false teachers and to do and to treasure up these words by faith in the Messiah and by a new life according to his will, Jesus describes what these false teachers actually do with Moses’ words. They omitted, not from the reading indeed, but from their teaching, all the gospel promises. They turned everything they read from the Old Testament into law only. They take those blessed words and “tie them together as loads heavy and hard to carry,” like heavy sheaves or bundles of faggots.

These loads “they put upon the shoulders of men,” and make them slaves. Blind to the gospel in the Scripture, they knew nothing but law, and this law they perverted for self-righteous purposes.

The δέ is plainly adversative: “yet they themselves are not willing even with their finger to stir them.” “The finger” is placed in opposition to other men’s shoulders, and “to stir” the loads with a finger, an exceedingly slight action, is put in opposition to piling these loads on others. The commentary is given in v. 23: while omitting all the weightier matters of the law such as judgment, mercy, and faith, they were keen on tithing little things such as mint and cummin. They piled nothing but law, law upon others, but themselves did not make the slightest effort even to stir the real law of God by honest obedience, to say nothing of assuming its full burden.

Matthew 23:5

5 Moreover, all their works they do in order to be beheld by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and enlarge the tassels; moreover, they like the chief reclining place at the dinners and the chief seats in the synagogues and the salutations in the markets and to be called by men Rabbi. Whatever works the Pharisees do, they do only to be viewed by men, for men to see, admire, praise, and honor; they forget God who seeth in secret (6:1, etc.). This is again rank hypocrisy. With γάρ the specifications are introduced. They make their phylacteries real broad, thus as prominent as possible, so that everybody may at once see them. The phylacteries, totaphoth or tephillim, were capsules with bands passed through them in order to tie them, the one on the forehead, the other on the left wrist.

These capsules contained a little strip of parchment that had Exod. 13:3–16; Deut. 6:5–9; 11:13–21 inscribed upon it. Thus in the most mechanical, superficially literal fashion they made the law “for a sign upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes.” While they were originally to be worn only during the shema prayer in the morning (the words of Deut. 6:4, 5, which are repeated in Mark 12:29, 30), many Pharisees wore them constantly, even during the night. Various regulations governed their construction, the way to tie and to knot the bands, etc., all in true Pharisaic fashion.

They likewise “enlarge the tassels,” namely of the shimla or large square cloth that was worn as an outward robe, at each of the four corners of which a κράσπεδον, tsitsith, was fastened according to Deut. 22:12. These tassels were attached with blue cords, and the Pharisees made the tassels long so that especially the two that were at the corners thrown over the shoulders should be as prominent as possible (9:20). This show before men was naturally combined with the desire to impress men and to have these prove it by greatly honoring such holy men. So they like to occupy “the chief reclining place at the dinners,” δεῖπνα, the evening meal which would be made a feast by the invitation of guests. Here φιλεῖν is sufficient, and ἀγαπᾶν would say much more (5:44). When they were thus invited, the scribes and the Pharisees dearly liked to have the foremost place on each divan or couch.

This was the place at the extreme left of the couch, and was considered the foremost because the person occupying it could overlook the entire table without throwing back his head or turning around. Each couch had its head place, and these hypocrites wanted these badly. So also they loved the prominent seats in the synagogues beside the rulers of the synagogue, where everybody could see their prominence; they also counted on being called upon during the services to offer their wisdom.

Matthew 23:7

7 “The salutations in the markets” are the greetings they liked so well to receive in such public places. Jesus mentions one of these: “to be called by men Rabbi,” to receive this coveted title, which was like our D. D., from men. Their hypocrisy was shown by their liking and their selfish desire for such human honors. Their falsity lay not only in utterly perverting the Word of God but in adding thereto the most despicable religious vanity and pride.

Matthew 23:8

8 At this point Jesus turns especially to his disciples. But you for your part be not called Rabbi! For one is your Teacher while all you are brethren. And father of yours do not call anyone on the earth. For one is your Father, the heavenly One. Nor be called leaders, for one is your Leader, the Christ. And the greater of you shall be your ministrant. Moreover, whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever shall humble himself shall be exalted. All this applies directly to the disciples, hence the emphatic ὑμεῖς, “you on your part,” which also runs through most of this section. The words are also intended for the rest of the hearers; they are to apply them to themselves.

Two things are to be kept in mind; first, what Jesus has just said concerning the prideful desire for honors and titles on the part of the scribes and the Pharisees and, secondly, the conclusion stated in v. 11, 12 as this explains what precedes in v. 8–10. The use of the name “Rabbi,” “my teacher” is not forbidden by Jesus; for it is evident that he himself gives his church teachers and leaders who have various offices which also have their distinctive titles, Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28. The subordination of one brother to another which is expressed by the term “Rabbi” is not contrary to the Lord’s will, for he himself speaks of “the greater of you,” v. 11. What Jesus forbids is that any disciple of his should arrogate to himself an authority as the scribes and the Pharisees did who usurped the seat of Moses and despised the common people as knowing nothing and as thus being accursed for following Jesus, John 7:49; an authority which would set aside our true Rabbi or Teacher, Jesus, and would destroy the equality which puts us all on the same level as “brethren.”

Therefore the prohibition is illuminated by the explanation that One only is our “Teacher” and that under this One all of us are “brethren.” It should be noted that Jesus does not say, “All of you are disciples or pupils,” for he does not want to bring out our relation to himself but our relation to each other. We all are equally God’s children, and his saving truth belongs equally to all of us, none is thus dependent upon another, all religious autocracy is abolished. Any title that is contrary to this equality of brethren in Christ Jesus, even the desire for such a title and honor, is arrogation as far as the brethren are concerned and wicked usurpation as far as our one real Teacher is concerned. We all sit at his feet, although what one has learned from him he may teach his brother either as a brother or as a duly called pastor.

Matthew 23:9

9 As no one shall lift up himself unduly, so also no one is to be lifted up unduly. No one is to be called “father” by us in a religious sense. The Greek can separate πατέρα and ὑμῶν and thus lend emphasis to both words. The title “father” was accorded only to the most prominent and revered teachers; the question would thus be one less of wanting to be so honored as of disciples bestowing such an honor. Now spiritual fathers are rightly called “father”; in 1 Cor. 4:15 Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthians, and in 1 Tim. 1:1, Timothy’s father, compare Gal. 4:19 and John’s Epistles. Here again the explanatory γάρ helps us by pointing to our one and only Father, the heavenly one.

We are to obey no man, however great he may be or may have been in the church, so as to set aside the one and only real authority in force for us, that of our heavenly Father whose children alone we are in the proper sense of the word. Paul may call Timothy his son and may, like a mother, travail again till Christ be formed in the Galatians; we may call the great old teachers “Church Fathers,” the Reformer, “Father Luther,” the old and revered men in the church “fathers”—all such loving terms are bestowed on the basis of our common brotherhood in Christ only, on the basis of our common childhood through faith only. The moment one of these old teachers errs from our Father’s Word, we would not accept such an error. No man in the church today has authority to make us do anything that is out of harmony with the Word of our heavenly Father. In the last analysis there is only one Father over us all.

We thus challenge the claims of the Roman Catholic catechism: “Quamobrem omnium fidelium et episcoporum … pater ac moderator universalis ecclesiae ut Petri successor Christique verus et legitimus, vicarius in terris praesidet.” We reject the false authority of “the holy father,” “the vicegerent of Christ.” And in the same way we reject all others who come with a similar authority, whether it be in doctrine, in church practice, or in matters of Christian living. Even the state has no authority in these matters.

Matthew 23:10

10 With the word καθηγητής, “leader,” Jesus does not merely repeat “rabbi” and “father,” whether the Hebrew equivalent is rabbon (Mark 10:51) or rabboni, “my leader,” John 20:16. This καθηγητής is a leader who assumes full responsibility for those led and who thus commands and is obeyed. No one can claim a leadership of this kind in the church that is in conflict with our one Leader, the Christ. He, indeed, bears all responsibility and does that with unquestioned and unquestionable results. This does not imply that men may not also lead us, and that great assemblies of the church may also pass resolutions both as regards doctrine and practice. But all these human leaders must ever and only follow Christ’s leadership.

And all of us have the fullest right to test out all their decisions by the standard of Christ’s own decisions and summarily to reject what is contrary to his Word and to accept only what his Word approves. No man may ever curtail this right of ours on the plea that he will assume the responsibility for keeping in agreement with Christ. Since the time of the Reformation and of Luther we know this as the Right of Private Judgment. “One is your Leader, the Christ” means that he is such forever. His leadership is being exercised at this very moment, namely by his living Word. Rebels and traitors are all those who leave that Word and lead God’s people otherwise. That Word condemns them from the great Antichrist down to the little antichrists and all other spurious and false teachers, including those who may lead wrong in only one doctrine or one church practice. “The Christ” is appellative, “the Messiah”; but while this word is strongly objective, Jesus plainly refers to himself.

Matthew 23:11

11 Once more, clearly and distinctly, Jesus states what makes great in his kingdom (20:26, 27). So some shall, indeed, be greater than others; they have greater faith, knowledge, gifts, and results, such as the Twelve, such as Paul, such as brethren of lesser note possessed. We may designate them as we deem best, but all of them are greater than others only as “your ministrant,” διάκονος, one who is eager to render service for the benefit it brings others. Over against Christ we are all δοῦλοι, “slaves,” such as render unquestioning obedience; but over against each other we are διάκονοι, who gladly minister wherever we can. Such “ministrants” are all true teachers, fathers, and leaders in the church, and in the spirit of such ministry they bear the titles accorded them. Their greatness is in proportion to their ministration, the good they do, and the lowliness with which they do that good.

Matthew 23:12

12 All that has thus far been stated has been phrased in the second person and is applicatory because of this form. Now Jesus becomes objective and by use of the third person announces the great principle upon which all the peremptory aorist imperatives since v. 8 rest. Self-exaltation is a mortal offense in the Christian Church. It has produced the great pope, a large number of little popes, and men and women “bosses” in congregations. But all self-exalted men “shall be humbled.” There is no question about it. The agent of the passive is Christ.

When such humbling occurs in this life, however bitter it may be, it may lead to true self-humiliation. The reverse is equally true: true self-humiliation “shall be exalted” by Christ. Self-exaltation is wholly a product of the flesh; Christian self-humiliation is wholly a product of the Spirit and of his grace working in us. “God is above all. Thou exaltest thyself and dost not reach up to him; thou humblest thyself, and he stoops down to thee.” Augustine. “Thus Christian brotherhood does not exclude the thought that because of his office and his gifts one brother may be above another. Not disorderly equality of all does Christ teach, he rather commands that the brethren who are greater than others may in heartfelt humiliation place themselves at the service of the rest and hold themselves in humility.” John Gerhard.

Matthew 23:13

13 Without the least warning Jesus turns from the pilgrim crowds and his own disciples and pours out the most terrific denunciation upon the scribes and the Pharisees. These seven woes are the most awful words that the lips of Jesus ever uttered. They were spoken with all the power of Jesus’ divine personality, without angry passion, without the heat of excitement, with deadly calmness, with absolute truth, with crushing power. Through every οὐαί there rings a tone of sadness, which breaks out in full strength in v. 37: “I would, but you would not.” But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are locking the kingdom of the heavens in front of men; for you yourselves are not going in, neither are you permitting those going in to go in.

Every one of the seven “woes” is an exclamation like the “blessed” in the Beatitudes. It does not state a wish but a fact. It is not a curse that calls down calamity but a calm, true judgment and verdict rendered by the supreme Judge himself. Hence six of these judgments have the evidence attached by means of a causal ὅτι clause which furnishes the full reason for the verdict “woe”; and in the remaining judgment (v. 16) the varied form of expression does the same by means of an apposition. On “scribes” see 2:4; on Pharisees 3:7. The word ὑποκριταί has the sense of show actor, ὑπό suggesting the mask under which he hid his true identity on the stage, for the ancient actors appeared with masks.

The sin because of which the verdict “woe” is pronounced is the fact that by their teaching and their hypocritical practices these Jewish leaders “are locking the kingdom of the heavens in front of men,” yet this does not imply that they have the keys of this kingdom (the true gospel), but that the falsity of their teaching and their life deceives those who follow them, so that the kingdom (see on 3:2) with its heavenly rule of grace is kept from them. They lock it by barring men out of it by their false teaching. They are guilty of double sin. They themselves (emphatic ὑμεῖς) are not going in, which already means “woe” for them; nor are they letting those go in who, if they were not hindered thus, would go in. R. 892 makes the present participle εἰσερχομένους inchoative: “on the point of going in”; but it may be futuristic (R. 891) like the present indicative that indicates expected action: “I am going to town,” i.e., I expect to go soon. To bar others out of the kingdom is truly the devil’s work.

Matthew 23:14

14 The slight textual evidence for this verse rules it out; its substance is found in Mark 12:40, and in Luke 20:47 in the same general connection, but there it is not one of the woes but a part of the warning against the Pharisees spoken to the people. Both Mark and Luke abbreviate. The supposition that Matthew himself compiled the seven woes from various discourses of Jesus, has the historical situation against it.

Matthew 23:15

15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you run around on the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he became one, you go on making him a son of Gehenna twice more than yourself. The fateful repetition of the verdict plus the address sound like the tolling of the bells of doom. These men are great missionaries who try to spread their religion among the pagans. In this they are tireless, scouring sea and land to make one pagan a proselyte. Jesus is not speaking of a proselyte of the gate, one of a large class of pagan converts to Judaism who accepted the faith in the true God, worshipped in the synagogues, but were not circumcised and not incorporated into Judaism; their name is derived from Exod. 20:10. The scribes and the Pharisees were not content with such proselytes but sought to make proselytes of righteousness, converts that accepted all their rules and practices, circumcision, and the entire Levitical and traditional system, becoming complete Jews in every way.

They succeeded in the case of only a few. But, almost as a rule, these converts became more bigoted and fanatic than the scribes and the Pharisees themselves. To this Jesus refers when he says that the moment a man became such a proselyte (γένηται, the aorist to indicate preceding action) the scribes and the Pharisees start a process (ποιεῖτε, durative) which makes that man “a son of Gehanna” (see 5:22; the genitive indicates quality) whose whole character and actions mark him as truly belonging to hell. By adding “twice more than yourselves” Jesus implies that the scribes and the Pharisees are also “sons of Gehenna.” The comparative speaks of degrees of hellishness; and opposition to the divine saving truth has many degrees of both intensity and of extent.

Matthew 23:16

16 Woe to you, blind guides, who say: Whoever swears by the Sanctuary, it means nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Sanctuary, he is morally obligated. Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the Sanctuary which did sanctify the gold? The blindness (ignorance) here charged is wilful; hence these men are morally guilty. Jesus illustrates this by a reference to the casuistic teaching concerning oaths. The Pharisees delighted in taking the binding power out of some oaths.

One could swear such oaths with all solemnity, yet according to Pharisaic casuistry they meant οὐδέν, not a thing. Those who were not acquainted with this, when they heard a Pharisee swear “by the Sanctuary,” that is, the Temple building containing the Holy and the Holy of Holies, imagined that a binding oath had certainly been sworn. For what was there that was more sacred than this “Sanctuary”? But no; unless the Pharisee swore “by the gold of the Sanctuary” he was under no moral obligation.

Matthew 23:17

17 These men were not merely blind (ignorant), they were worse: μωροί, plain senseless “fools.” No more than the most ordinary common sense is needed to see that the gold is not greater than the Sanctuary, but that the Sanctuary is vastly greater, for it sanctifies the gold used in its ornamentation.

Matthew 23:18

18 Another sample of equally senseless swearing. And whoever swears by the altar, it means nothing; but whoever swears by the gift upon it, he is morally obligated. Blind! For which is greater: the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? We must note that the Scriptures maintain a fine distinction when they throughout use θυσιαστήριον as a designation for the altar of the true God and never for that of an idol, and never use the word βωμός with reference to God’s altar but only with reference to the altars of idols. The guidance which lies back of such marked distinctions is more than human, it is divine, a part of what we know as inspiration. Here we have the same folly that was evident in the preceding case.

Matthew 23:19

19 The altar sanctifies the gift placed on it. Any child can see that. To disregard the altar and to place the binding power only in the gift, is to act silly. Another neat distinction is noted in the use of the aorist participle ἁγιάσας in v. 17, and the present participle ἁγιάζον in v. 19. The gold received its sanctification long ago (historical aorist), having long ago become a part of the Sanctuary; but when a gift is placed on the altar, its sanctification is brought about by the act of the priest when he makes the offering.

Matthew 23:20

20 But more must be said. He, therefore, that swears by the altar swears by it and by everything upon it. And he that swears by the Sanctuary swears by it and by him that dwells in it. And he that swears by the heaven swears by the throne of God and by him that sits upon it. We may follow R. 859 and his authorities and regard the aorist participles used in these verses as timless: ὁὀμόσας, “the swearer.” Yet we are not entirely certain in view of the aorists used after ὃςἄν in v. 16 and in v. 18. It may after all be possible that ὁὀμόσας refers to an oath made in the past and is definite and punctiliar for that very reason; and the main verb, the present ὀμνύει, like the present verbs in v. 16 and 18, refers to the present enduring effect of that past oath.

With οὖν Jesus draws the evident conclusion from the Sanctuary’s sanctifying its gold and the altar’s sanctifying the sacrifice upon it that, when swearing, no person can separate gold and Sanctuary, altar and sacrifice, as the scribes and the Pharisees attempted to do. Jesus reverses the order and speaks first of the altar. He also broadens the statement by referring to the altar and everything upon it.

Matthew 23:21

21 In the case of the Sanctuary he goes still farther by omitting the gold and everything in its construction and by making the Sanctuary one with God who dwells in it. In v. 20 the oneness is outward, here it is inward. Yet we see that both the altar and its gift are one because they belong to God. The outward connection of altar and gift is already enough for any man who is not blind and a fool, to say nothing of the inward connection.

Matthew 23:22

22 The same is true with regard to an oath such as “by the heaven.” The heaven is God’s throne, and to swear “by heaven” is to swear by the God who sits on this throne of heaven. It is ridiculous to try to dissociate any sacred object from the God who lends it sacredness, or by mere indirectness to escape contact with God.

Matthew 23:23

23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you go on tithing the mint and the dill and the cumin and did dismiss the heavier parts of the law, the judgment and the mercy and the faith. Yet these it was necessary to do, and those not to dismiss. Blind guides, who filter out the gnat yet swallow down the camel! The scribes and the Pharisees were rigorists when it came to the easy features of the Jewish regulations. They demand that tithes be paid of even the small flavoring herbs of which a family might grow a few such as mint, dill, and cumin (obsolete: cummin), the latter being like anise seed but larger and used to a greater extent. But they dismiss, as needing no attention at all, the real moral, spiritual parts of the law; and here Jesus again mentions three points.

The κρίσις is the act of judging righteously, a κρίνειν that ever defends those who are wronged (Prov. 31:8, 9) and thus is synonymous with δικαιοῦν and parallel with σώζειν, C.-K. 629. Its companion is thus τὸνἔλεον (ἔλεος, R. 261), the act of showing mercy (Col. 3:12, 13). The trio is completed by ἡπίστις, which is understood, not in the active sense of trusting a person, but in the passive sense of ourselves being trustworthy, Treue, Zuverlaessigkeit, C.-K. 885. All three refer to our relation to our fellow-men. All three are both virtues of the heart and acts that grow out of these virtues. All three are achieved by our covenant relation to Yahweh Eloheka (22:37) who by means of his covenant grace plants the law into our inward parts (Jer. 31:33). These parts of the law are weightier, essential, even as they are valid for all men and for the church of all times, compared with the Levitical regulation of tithing which was intended for the Jews alone, especially the tithing of mere flavoring herbs.

One of the outstanding facts is that the Gospels mention tithing only three times, in three condemnations of the Pharisees, all three being scathing in their severity. The three other references are found in Hebrews 7:5–9, and are merely historical. Although all of the apostles were originally Jews, reared in tithing, with not one word did any one of them even intimate that in the new covenant the Christians might find tithing a helpful method of making their contributions to the work of the church. This strong negative is immensely re-enforced by the totally different method suggested by Paul when he called on the churches for a great offering, 1 Cor. 16:1, etc.; 2 Cor. 8:4, etc. Exegetically and thus dogmatically and ethically the New Testament is against tithing as a regulation in the new covenant. Desire for more money also for more money in the church and for the church must not blind our eyes to the ways employed for getting more money. The present tense ἀποδεκατοῦτε and the aorist ἀφήκατε (a κ aorist, R. 347) are used to express a contrast: demanding the tenth goes strenuously on (durative), the real parts of the old Jewish law were dismissed long ago, so long ago that nobody now thinks of them.

Jesus does not want to be misunderstood. The new covenant has not yet been inaugurated, he as well as all his hearers are still under the old covenant, and for that God himself had appointed tithing (Lev. 27:30, etc.; Num. 18:21; Deut. 12:6; 12:22–27). If that tithing be done conscientiously, even in little things, Jesus would not forbid it to a Jew. Jesus safeguards against perversions when he adds: “These it was necessary to do (ποιῆσαι, effective: do completely) and those not to dismiss (ἀθεῖναι, also the effective aorist).” Some texts omit ἔδει which makes the infinitives imperatives (R. 1092), an idiom that we also have in English: “these to do” = “these do.” But when ἔδει is retained, this is neither like the present nor the ordinary imperfect but denotes past necessity, merely that, although in fact the necessity may still continue to exist (R. 919).

Matthew 23:24

24 “Blind guides!” is double-edged: blind men who yet pretend to show others the way; and others who consent to be guided by blind men. And their ridiculous, almost unbelievable blindness is described: “who filter out the gnat” by most carefully straining all drink lest some little insect be swallowed and defile the drinker (Levitically, not hygienically), “yet swallow down the camel,” the biggest, Levitically unclean beast known in Jewish lands (19:29), and this without blinking an eye. Could blindness go any farther? To fail to pay the full tenth of tiny garden herbs—a mortal crime! to disregard the heavenly virtues themselves—not a qualm, not even a thought.

Matthew 23:25

25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are cleaning the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are filled with result of robbery and incontinence. Blind Pharisee, clean first the inside of the cup and the dish so that also the outside of it is clean. The παροψίς was the dish on which dainties were served. The verb γέμειν is followed by the genitive, but here ἐξ with its genitive points, not to what fills the vessels, but from what they are filled: “with results of robbery and incontinence.” Thus cup and dish make the indictment concrete; they refer as well to clothes, houses, all possessions, in fact, to the entire life. These hypocrites were keen for external, physical cleanliness, but moral cleanliness meant nothing to them. They saw to it that the cup from which they drank their costly wine was clean and that the dish from which they had their dainties served was clean, but they altogether disregarded the manner in which they secured the wealth from which they feasted and the extent to which they carried their self-indulgence.

“The outside” refers to the surface of the vessels as vessels, “the inside” to their contents, both as to their origin (“robbery” and all dishonesty) and as to their actual use (“incontinence,” Schlemmerei, ἀκρασία, absence of moral restraint). These two abstract terms plainly indicate that Jesus had in mind the whole Pharisaic mode of living as this was defiled by these and their allied immoralities. Here clean does not mean Levitically, ritually clean, and, of course, does not refer to our modern sanitary cleanness but to the ordinary cleanness to which elegant aristocrats and even common, decent people are accustomed. This indictment of Jesus’ applies to this day to all who secure their living and their luxury in questionable ways and in their living practice excess and extravagance.

Matthew 23:26

26 The dramatic singular makes the indictment personal. With the peremptory aorist Jesus calls for the moral cleanness of what is served inside cup and dish. That is the supreme thing. It will affect also the outside of the cup (now he uses τὸἐκτός in the same sense as the previous τὸἐξωθέν). For ἵνα may here be considered consecutive: “so that also the outside of it is clean,” namely as a result of this cleanness of the contents (read R. 997–999). Jesus wants a better outward cleanness than mere physical polish. These vessels as mere vessels are to be morally clean not purchased with questionable gain, not used for Schlemmerei. They cannot have such cleanness unless the drink and the food they serve are morally clean.

Matthew 23:27

27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you resemble tombs that have been whitewashed, such as outside appear beautiful but inside are filled with bones of dead men and with all uncleanness. Thus you also appear to men as righteous but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. As a basis for this woe Jesus uses a simple but terrible παροιμία (see the word in John 10:6; 16:25, 29), but here he employs the verb. On the 15th of Adar, before the Passover, it was a Jewish custom to whitewash all graves and tombs with lime. We are told that this was done in order to mark them, so that no Jew would touch one unawares and become Levitically defiled. Whatever the reason for this may have been, the point Jesus wishes to make is that the outside of these tombs was thus made beautiful: they looked white, pure, clean.

The inside was unchanged, was full of bones of dead men, full of all uncleanness, rotting flesh and putrid stench. Here and in v. 28 we have two samples of μέν and δέ balancing two contrasting clauses. With abstract nouns πᾶς without an article following need not be stressed to mean “every,” since in connection with such nouns “all” and “every” become quite indistinguishable in thought.

Matthew 23:28

28 When bringing out the likeness Jesus says, “You appear unto men as righteous,” implying, “Of course not unto God.” Men judge by appearance, God never does so. In δίκαιοι, “righteous,” the forensic idea should not be lost sight of: Die in der Furcht Gottes wandeln, auf ihn hoffen und seines Heils warten und als solche vor dem Urteil Gottes bestehen, unter dem Gesichtspunkt des Urteils Gottes als δίκαιοι bezeichnet werden. C.-K. 309. Jesus says that to men, who judged only the appearance, the Pharisees, by their whitewash of legal observances, appear as people who surely had the verdict of the heavenly Judge in their favor. But what was the fact as this divine Judge—and it is he himself who here speaks—saw it? Inside they were literally filled full of hypocrisy (ὑπό in the compound, R. 633; see v. 13) and with ἀνομία, “lawlessness,” opposition to the genuine contents of the divine law.

Among all the sins that Jesus found among men none aroused his fiery indignation more than hypocrisy with its sham of righteousness and holiness. Against no class of men did he hurl invectives that were as severe as those directed against the scribes and the Pharisees: “hypocrites.”

Matthew 23:29

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the grave memorials of the just and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers we would not have been their partners in the blood of the prophets! Wherefore you bear witness to yourselves that you are sons of them that murdered the prophets. Even you—go fill up the measure of your fathers! The final woe naturally rings out as a crushing climax. The scribes and the Pharisees were great in building mausoleums over the bones of the ancient prophets and on decorating these memorials (μνημεῖα, from the verb “to remember”) “of the righteous” (so designating the dead prophets), the term is again used in the forensic sense (see v. 28). They took great pride in and credit for thus treating the dead prophets.

Matthew 23:30

30 They even carried their hypocrisy so far as to declare that, if they had lived in the ancient days when their fathers heard and murdered these prophets, they would never have been their partners in those murderous deeds. They were ever so much better than their fathers, they with their punctilious observance of even the smallest regulations of the law as compared with their fathers who always inclined toward idolatry. To be sure, the prophets would have been pleased with them and would have had a delightful time in their midst! They never dreamed of taking a warning from their fathers; they were blind to the fact that they were following the word of the prophets just as little as their fathers did. The condition εἰἤμεθαοὐκἂνἤμεθα, though it has imperfects, is one of past (not present) unreality, R. 922.

Matthew 23:31

31 But their boast is shattered, “Wherefore.” By the very declaration they thus continue to make, by not showing a single evidence of humble repentance but nothing but impenitent pride they keep bearing witness to themselves and needing no others to testify that they are sons of those that did murder the prophets. The verb φονεύειν is the exact word for “to murder,” and φονεύς is the noun for murderer. “Kill,” so generally used, is not as correct and may denote far less guilt.

Matthew 23:32

32 Because καὶὑμεῖς precedes an imperative it causes some difficulty in translation. Our versions translate καί “then”: “Fill ye up then.” A modern commentator alters the imperative to, “And you will fill up.” A prominent scholar wants to join καὶὑμεῖς to v. 31: “you are sons, etc., even you.” This is the ascensive use of καί (R. 1181), it is a kind of climax, the tone rising like the crescendo in music. All we need in English is to mark the verb as a strong imperative: “Even you—go fill up the measure of your fathers!” The command is one of irony (R. 948), of high scorn (R. 1198). The thing that these men are determined to do, from which no moral power can restrain them, they are told to go and do. We have this kind of command in John 2:19. It is the dreadful voice of judgment, “Do it and take the consequences!”

Judgment is like a measure into which guilt is poured. One wicked Jewish generation after another has already poured in all its black guilt, making the nation’s measure almost full. When these late sons of those murderous Jews now pour in their bloody guilt by murdering not only God’s own Son but also the messengers he will send them after his murder, the vessel will not contain it all, the guilt will overflow, the judgment will descend. Jesus is speaking of one peculiar guilt, the most fatal of all, the bloody rejection of grace, of the Messiah, and of the gospel, not of the guilt of incidental sins. Jesus is speaking of the total and final rejection of the Jewish nation in the judgment of God. It is in effect to this day and is a type of the judgment at the last day.

The Jewish people (no longer a nation but an outcast from the kingdom) still second the deeds of their forefathers by still rejecting Jesus, the divine Messiah, his gospel, and his kingdom of grace. Nothing can stay the continuance of their judgment. Only those escape its doom who turn to Christ in repentance and faith, and they are not many.

Matthew 23:33

33 Serpents, offsprings of vipers, how are you going to escape from the judgment of Gehenna? On this account, lo, I myself am sending to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, in order that there may come upon you all righteous blood poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel, the righteous, to the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the Sanctuary and the altar. Amen, I say to you, there shall come these things all on this generation!

The burning intensity rises to its highest pitch. The flow of thought is uninterrupted to the end. Jesus tells the scribes and the Pharisees to fill up their fathers’ measure of guilt—that will seal their doom. Just how they fill it up is told them with stunning, literal plainness, and with the same cold plainness the guilt and the doom that will thus overwhelm them are stressed. The dramatic intensity of it all is terrific. Criticism has busied itself with this passage.

It points to the scene that occurred in connection with the meal in the Pharisee’s house (in Luke 11:37, etc.) in Galilee at a much earlier time and there finds some of the same indictments that were uttered on this last Tuesday in the Temple court. Criticism then claims that both denunciations could not have occurred as they are recorded by the two evangelists—pray, why not? It contends that a document was in existence from which both writers drew, each shaping his material accordingly. To bolster up this hypothesis the further hypothesis is added that in this document the Twelve are not mentioned. But all these indictments spoken by Jesus would be inexplicable if they had never been voiced before in all the clashes with the Pharisees and were hurled against them only here at the very end. The Twelve were present in the Pharisee’s house as they are now with Jesus in the Temple.

On the characterization “offsprings of vipers” see the exposition of 3:7 (12:34) and note how the end harks back to the beginning. The addition “serpents” is merely more general and recalls more directly than the other designation did the original ancestor of these offsprings, the old Serpent, Satan, Rev. 20:2. The poisonous, deadly hypocrisy thus described must meet its doom. Hence the question of deliberation with the aorist subjunctive, its aorist indicating successful fleeing, namely escape. Jesus naturally uses the second person, but this deliberative question (R. 934) is one the Pharisees would themselves ask: “How can we arrange to escape?” No way is open to them. And that is what Jesus has in mind. “From the judgment of Gehenna” has the objective genitive, “from the verdict that consigns to hell,” see Gehenna in 5:22. Their doom is sealed.

Matthew 23:34

34 It is “on this account” that Jesus himself (strong ἐγώ) will do the startling thing (“lo”) he now announces, and that they will do the outrageous things that Jesus foretells regarding them. Jesus will send his messengers as sheep among wolves (10:16); and they will persecute and slay them. Διὰτοῦτο applies to the entire sentence (v. 34, 35). An untenable view is advocated when this phrase is interpreted to mean that “God must have some valid excuse” for destroying the Pharisees and that he secures it by the sending of these messengers concerning whom he knows beforehand that the Pharisees will kill them. This is thought to be Old Testament theology. Jesus, however, never said such a thing. It is introduced from “a work otherwise unknown, The Wisdom of God.” In Luke 11:49 ἡσοφίατοῦΘεοῦ is not a book but the divine wisdom and foreknowledge. This wisdom has made its prophetic utterances regarding the fate of all the ungodly, most particularly regarding the obdurate Jews who were called to be the chosen nation.

“On this account” means: because the judgment of Gehenna is already yours without hope of escape, therefore Jesus, their Judge, here and now dictates how it shall descend upon them. He himself will so arrange the final work of grace upon the Jewish nation that these sons of their murderous fathers will rush to their great opportunity with all possible speed to fill the cup of their fathers and to plunge their criminal heads into judgment. This is part of the real Old and also the New Testament teaching regarding judgment. Up to a certain time the Lord’s hand restrains with warnings ever more intense; then the restraint ceases, the doom has begun, the gates are thrown open, the sinner is speeded to destruction. The word goes forth, “That thou doest, do quickly!” John 13:27.

“I will send or commission,” says the great Messiah-King himself. He first of all calls his apostles and ministers “prophets,” men who are exactly like those mentioned in the Old Testament upon whom the bloody fathers of these sons of Gehenna (v. 15) laid their hands. Then he calls them “wise men” who are filled with “the wisdom of God” (Luke 11:49) and promulgate that wisdom far and wide. Finally he calls them γραμματεῖς, “scribes,’ but they are the very antithesis of the Pharisaic scribes, they are writers and expounders of the new covenant gospel. Each title is full of peculiar significance. The Jewish nation shall once more ring with the calls of grace far beyond anything that occurred in Old Testament days.

The volitive “I will send” is now followed by a series of similar volitive future tenses. Over against the final will of grace is set the equally final will of wicked unbelief.

Jesus distinguishes two classes, each with partitive ἐκ (R. 599), the one will lose their lives: “some you will kill or crucify”; the other will nearly lose them: “some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.” When Jesus says “crucify” he refers to executions that will be carried out by the Roman authorities but not also to his own crucifixion. Some of the deaths recorded in Acts 22:4 may have been brought about by means of crucifixion. That of Peter in Rome and that of Simeon in Jerusalem in the year 107 (Eusebius 3, 32) may also be mentioned. The non-mention of more specific, known cases is due solely to the lack of records; even of the killings that were directly inflicted by Jewish hands only a few are known such as that of Stephen who was stoned by the Jews.

Paul received five scourgings from the Jews who always used rods instead of the Roman whips, 2 Cor. 11:24. Minor Jewish tribunals met in synagogues, hence scourgings were administered there (10:17; Acts 22:19; 26:11). In the latter passage Paul himself confesses that he also persecuted many unto strange cities. The point of all these Jewish crimes is not their resemblance to those of their ancient fathers but the fact that these were the final answer of the Jews to the Lord’s final offer of grace.

Matthew 23:35

35 “Ὅπως with the subjunctive expresses the divine purpose. When all God’s grace is spurned, his judgment must follow. Moreover, guilt and penalty are also cumulative. While each individual and also each generation receives the due reward of its deeds, when one generation after another duplicates the wickedness, the pent-up wrath of outraged justice breaks forth like a volcano. Divine justice is not as superficial as ours; it demands more than a reckoning for individual and separate crimes. Each crime, when it is re-enacted, involves a guilt that reaches back to the beginning.

The last acts “allow” or sanction all the former that were of the same type, and so the last acts involve guiltiness for all. In this way there came upon the last generation of the Jews “all the righteous blood poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel, the righteous, to the blood of Zachariah,” etc. “Blood, blood, blood,” three times in one verse, “being poured out,” present tense, as though to make us see one red stream poured out after another. “Righteous blood,” “righteous Abel,” righteous in the forensic sense with God’s verdict in their favor, Heb. 11:4. And this points to the crime involved in shedding such blood: it has God’s verdict against it.

The first righteous man that had his blood poured out innocently was Abel. The last notable representative of righteousness who suffered such a fate was Zachariah who is mentioned in the last book of the Hebrew Bible, 2 Chron. 24:20–22. Between the two, what red streams of equally righteous blood flow! Zachariah’s martyrdom is a murder that was so terrible, his blood being shed between the Sanctuary (Holy and Holy of Holies) and the altar of burnt sacrifice, thus in the very presence of God, that even the Talmud deplores it as one of the most heinous of Jewish crimes against God’s servants. When Zachariah died he exclaimed, “The Lord look upon it and require it!” This dying call for just retribution makes Jesus’ reference to Zachariah the more effective. Historically the martyrdom of Urijah (Jer. 26:23) occurs 200 years later, but that of Zachariah stands last on the Old Testament pages and thus is used as a terminal by Jesus.

The apposition “son of Barachiah” has proved troublesome to interpreters. Some regard it as a lapse of memory on the part of Matthew. Others say that Matthew confused two men of the same name, namely the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20) and “the son of Berechiah” (Zech. 1:1). Matthew can scarcely be charged with lapse of memory, for he adds this apposition for the express purpose of identifying this Zachariah.

Luther has offered a satisfactory solution: “Jehoiada with the added name Barachiah.” The giving of new or additional names was a common practice among the Jews. The son of Joash is called both Jerubbaal and Gideon (Judges 8:29, 32; compare 6:32 and 7:1). Another solution is that Jehoiada was really the grandfather and Barachiah the father. This is possible when we remember the great age of Jehoiada, 130 years, and when we recall his great deeds, making it highly creditable to be called his son. So in Chronicles Zachariah would be named after his illustrious grandfather but in Matthew after his father, the name of the father having been preserved by Jewish tradition or in genealogical records. The Jews also frequently called a man a son of a mighty grandsire, especially while the latter was still living.

Both explanations cannot be correct; perhaps someone will discover which must be dropped. Both, however, keep to the canons of exegesis.

Matthew 23:36

36 With the seal of verity and of authority (see 5:18) Jesus assures his hearers that “these things” (ταῦτα) and “all” (τάντα) of them shall come “on this generation.” All these deeds of blood will descend like an avalanche on “this generation,” the one now living. Many who were standing before Jesus would see it all. In only a few years Jerusalem would be in ruins, the Jewish nation would be destroyed.

Matthew 23:37

37 The entire chapter has been one of stern denunciation—calm, measured, irresistible, fortified with absolute proof at every step, final. Now at last the note of tenderness breaks into that stern judgment, and the hope that still continues to the last moment sends forth its ray of light to penetrate the midnight gloom. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent to her, how often did I will to gather thy children together the way a bird gathers together her own young birds under her wings, and you did not will. Lo, there is left to you your house desert! For I say to you: in no way shall you see me from now on until you say, Blessed the One Coming in the Lord’s name!

These words are filled with tenderness; they come from a breaking heart. The Jews are without feeling, cold and hard as stone; Jesus is surcharged with emotion because of their obduracy and their consequent inevitable judgment. There is no “reverberating thunder” in the repetition “Jerusalem, Jerusalem!” These repetitions of address are found elsewhere in the Scriptures, cf. 2 Sam. 18:33, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom!” and again, “O Absalom, my son, my son!” Luke 10:41, “Martha, Martha!” Acts 9:4, “Saul, Saul!” These repetitions are the voice of tender love. Here, as in 2 Sam. 18, the deepest pathos of grief is added. “Jerusalem” stands for the nation whose capital and religious citadel this city was. The view that “Jerusalem” refers to the rulers and “thy children” to the common people is untenable, for the very ones whom Jesus willed to gather refused to be gathered: rulers and people alike.

“Jerusalem” means “city of peace”; but what a city of peace: “killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent (commissioned) to her” by God (the agent in the passive) to bring her his peace. Here all her guilt is summed up. Recall “prophets” used in v. 29–31 and in v. 34: “those having been sent” is wider: the prophets and all other messengers of grace and peace. The present participles “killing,” “stoning” mark conduct that is characteristic and constant and thus include more than aorists would, which would denote only past acts as such. “Unto her” instead of “unto thee” matches the participles which present the subject they modify as the third person. “How often”—not just once but with utmost persistence did Jesus seek to save his nation until it actually stilled his voice by death. John describes Jesus’ ministry in the capital at length, but all of Jesus’ ministry to the Jews is here included: “thy children,” the nation. One of the inexplicable features of divine love is the fact that, in spite of the infallible foreknowledge that all will be in vain, its call and its effort to save never cease until the very end.

Judas is another example. Such knowledge would either stop us at once or make our efforts a mere pretense. So far is God above us in this respect that our minds cannot follow his ways.

The verb ἠθέλησα denotes the gracious, saving will of Jesus. It is the so-called antecedent will which takes into account only our lost condition from which it works to deliver us and not our reaction to this will. The will which deals with this reaction is always the subsequent will, and for the obdurate this will is judgment. Determinism and other confusions result when this distinction is ignored. The gracious antecedent will and its call to grace is equal for all. To make it serious and real only in the case of one class of men and only a pretense in the case of another class, is to attribute duplicity to God, against which all Scripture cries out, Rom. 11:32.

The preaching of the Word is no Spiegelfechten (fencing only before a mirror, hence no real contest), Concordia Triglotta, 1072. Who dares to say that Jesus willed to save even the Sanhedrists less than he willed to save the Twelve; or Judas less than Peter?

The figure of the bird and her brood is not only beautiful in itself but is especially so for Jews whose rabbis spoke of the Shekinah as the gathering place of the proselytes. See the expressions in Deut. 32:11; Ps. 17:8; 61:4; Isa. 31:5. Ὀρνίς is any bird and not only “hen.” The idea of the hen has led to the introduction of the swooping hawk. The idea is rather that the brood, τὰνοσσία, “the young birds,” belongs to the mother bird and that thus she gathers them together under her wings; note ἑαυτῆς, the reflexive, which is far stronger than αὐτῆς, the possessive. So this nation belonged to Jesus, and as his very own he willed to gather it together. This gathering together is itself the essential thing: all these children of Jerusalem are to be attached to Jesus as his very own, wherefore also we have the aorist infinitive: to gather thus once for all. In the simile the present “gathers” is proper, for the customary action of the bird is used as an illustration of the one great act of Jesus.

Nothing is more tragic than the outcome of this gracious will of Jesus: “and you did not will.” As so often, the adversative idea is added with a telling copulative καί. It brings out all the abnormality, the utter unnaturalness, the absolute unreasonableness of the negative. The sentence ought to close: “and you willed”; but now it closed: “and you willed NOT!” Only this, nothing more, is said. No qualification, no modifiers, no explanations, no additions. The one fatal thing is: “you did not will.”

Despite its brevity this expression includes many facts. Grace is not irresistible; every case of resistance proves this, notably this glaring case of the Jews. Damnation results from man’s own will which becomes permanent, obdurate, unaccountable resistance against God’s will of grace. The more God draws the will with the power of grace, the more this will rejects God until grace can do no more. To introduce the omnipotence of God is to confound his attributes and to darken all saving Scripture. Concordia Triglotta, 1077, quoting Matt. 22:3, etc.

Why do some wills resist thus? This asks for a reasonable explanation for an unreasonable act—no such explanation exists. To say that this is due to inborn sin is not an explanation, for men who have the same inborn sin are won, and their wills assent under grace. Moreover, this obdurate resistance is produced only when grace operates with its power. The spring is poisonous and throws out a poisonous stream. The gratia sufficiens is applied to spring and stream with power sufficiens to unpoison both.

Behold, now the spring and the stream are a hundred times more poisonous than before. Explain that! All we know is that the mystery of this resistance lies in the will itself and in no way in God. How could Satan fall? How could Adam sin? How can man resist grace and salvation?

How can a believer whose will is changed turn to unbelief and be damned? It is all one and the same question.

“A master of music has put all the power which his art gave him into this lament of the Messiah, and he into whose ears has once been sung ‘And ye would not!’ will never forget this heart-penetrating music. What? shall the art of music do more than the voice of eternal love speaking from heaven? No; let it penetrate our hearts when Jesus calls to us: ‘How often would I have gathered you even as a hen her nestlings under her wings—and ye would not!’ Then we shall will what he wills, our salvation, and shall flee from the judgment of Jerusalem which scorned the wings of the hen and fell into the talons of the eagle (24:28).” Besser.

Matthew 23:38

38 An exclamation may well introduce the verdict of the subsequent will which Jesus now states: “Lo, there is left to you your house desert!” Some think “your house” is the Temple, but the context is not so specific and points rather to Jerusalem which naturally includes the Temple. Today Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, to say no more. All that ἔρημος (the reading that has this term is textually certain) includes the history of Jerusalem tells all too plainly, and back of this history lies the answer of God’s will to the obdurate will of this nation. According to Luther, “desert” means without Word and Sacrament. “Their soul no one cultivates, and no God dwells among them.” Referring to Isa. 5:5, 6 he adds: “What is this that the clouds shall not rain upon them but that they shall not hear the gospel? They are not to be pruned and digged—what is this but that no one shall rebuke their error and heal their infirmities? Hence their vineyard bears only briars and thorns, that is, workholy people who are without faith, bear no fruit of the Spirit, and grow only to be cast into eternal fire.”

Matthew 23:39

39 “For I say to you” is the voice of divine authority; and γάρ introduces the reason that the “house” shall be left “desert”: Christ will leave, and the Jews shall not see him. Compare John 7:33, 34; 8:21. “In no way shall you see me from now on” (referring to his death) with its strong οὐμή and the futuristic subjunctive announces Jesus’ complete withdrawal from the Jews. The last clause, “until you say (or: shall say), Blessed the One Coming in the Lord’s name!” has ἕωςἄν with the subjunctive and thus the thought of expectancy. In whose case this expectation will be fulfilled we see from Isa. 65:8–10: “that I may not destroy them all”—“a seed,” “an inheritor,” “mine elect”—“that have sought me.” Read the whole of Isa. 63:7–65:10. Paul answers: “a remnant”; read Rom. 10:18–11:5. A remnant of the Jewish nation that shall be made up of all those Jews who, beginning with the days of the apostles and continuing through the many years of history, turn to repentance and faith and greet Jesus with the Palm Sunday cry of Ps. 118: 26, “Blessed the Coming One,” etc.

Εὐλογημένος is the perfect participle with present connotation, “has been and now is blessed”; ὁἐρχόμενος, “the Coming One,” is a standard designation of the promised Messiah; note also the verb “he comes,” used with reference to the Messiah. “In the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) name” means, “in connection with the revelation Jehovah has made”; in all such phrases “name” is the equivalent of revelation (compare 21:9). Both the Psalm and the acclamation on Palm Sunday exclude the idea that these words could be applied in a double sense, namely that would be spoken willingly by believers and unwillingly by the obdurate (at the second coming of Christ). Ps. 118:26 adds as the other half of the greeting, “We have blessed you out of the house of the Lord!”

While the words of Jesus do not directly declare that any, or many, or all Jews at any particular time or era of the future will greet him as the Messiah, they do express the expectation that some will do so. And Jesus says that whenever any, few or many, do so, namely by faith, they shall see him, not indeed with eyes of the flesh—for no Christian sees him in this manner although he is always with us, and we are therefore by no means desolate—but in this world with the eyes of the spirit and in heaven by actual sight.

All chiliasts and a few others refer v. 39 to the final conversion of the Jews as a nation. They also add their elaboration: the Jewish nation will stand at the head of all nations, will constitute the cream of Christendom, will have Jerusalem as the center of the millennial kingdom, the metropolis of the whole earth, and from Jerusalem the heathen living during the millennium (!) will be converted by Jewish missionaries, etc.

But ὑμῖν, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν in v. 38, 39, together with the second person plural of the verbs, are addressed to the Jewish hearers before Jesus: their house is left desert, and those among them who acclaim Jesus as the blessed Messiah shall see him. By implication this can naturally be extended to any Jews of future times who likewise accept Jesus.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

Concordia Triglotta Triglot Concordia. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.