Matthew 23:2

‘Saying, “The Scribes and the Pharisees sat (aorist) on Moses seat,” '

This verse raises three questions. Who are indicated by ‘the Scribes and the Pharisees'? Why is the aorist of the verb used? And what is Moses' seat

‘The Scribes and  the  Pharisees.' This phrase is unique in Matthew. Previously ‘the Scribes and Pharisees' have been a combination united by having only one definite article, or alternatively, especially in what follows, as having no definite article. So we have to explain why Matthew made this slight alteration to his usual style. It has been suggested:

1) That we translate as ‘the Scribes, that is, those who are of the Pharisees', for kai often indicates such an explanatory connection.

2) That we translate as ‘both the Scribes and the Pharisees' firmly distinguishing between them, for many Scribes were not Pharisees.

3) That Jesus is citing a well known saying, ‘the Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat' which had been translated into Greek prior to its use by Matthew who retains it as it stands.

4) That the intention is to sum up that section of the people who assiduously follow the Teachings of the Elders, and seek to impress it on others.

In favour of 1) is that it is the Scribes who would be seen as the lawgivers, and not the Pharisees, for the latter were primarily not teachers, but a sect who assiduously followed the Law. In other words a Pharisee was not necessarily a teacher. Against it is that previously, and later in the chapter, Scribes (of the Pharisees) and Pharisees are seen together as one whole.

In favour of 2) is that it represents the most straightforward reading of the grammar, but very much against it is that, as in 1), the Pharisees were not seen as teachers as such.

In favour of 3) is that it explains the unique grammar, for it would simply arise because it was a part of the saying and Matthew would not alter it. Against it is that we know nothing of such a saying. But even if we select this option we still have to decide on the connection of the Scribes with the Pharisees

In favour of 4) is that it ties in with what follows, and it reminds us that the major part of the Scribes, who were Pharisees, together with the Pharisees, were those who dedicated themselves most to the observance of the Law as practised by the Pharisees, at least outwardly. Thus we might paraphrase ‘the Pharisaic Scribes strongly supported by all the Pharisees', in Israel's eyes a strong combination.

On the one hand it might suggest that Jesus is indicating that the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to be haphazardly discarded, and that regard had to be taken to the fact that in general they were a strong and reliable source of knowledge about the Law of Moses. But against this suggestion is the fact that even in this very passage Jesus calls them ‘blind guides', and ‘fools and blind', and ‘blind' (Matthew 23:16; Matthew 23:19). He points out that they lay on people heavy burdens grievous to be borne (Matthew 23:4). All this does not sit well with Jesus recommending the disciples to pay heed to what they say. This possibly indicates that His recommendation is limited to when they sit on ‘the seat of Moses'.

‘Sat on Moses' seat.' It is, however, not certain what Jesus meant by ‘sitting on Moses' seat', for the idea is found nowhere else apart from in one Talmudic reference where ‘the seat of Moses' is seen as a pattern of Solomon's throne. If we take that hint we may see it as indicating the authority of the Law. Compare Exodus 18:13 where Moses officially sat in order to act as lawgiver and judge for the people. Thus it may be saying that they perform the same function.

It has been suggested that ‘Moses' seat' was a chair in the synagogue reserved for the holding of the scrolls of the Law and possibly used by those who in the services read from the Law in Hebrew, and then gave the Aramaic translation/paraphrase. This was a central aspect of the service. Such stone seats have been excavated in ancient synagogues (later than the time of Jesus) which were clearly shaped so as to hold scrolls, and it may well be that the idea was that they held the scrolls of the Law (as ‘Moses' seat') and that the reader of the Law for that day would pick up the scrolls and then reverently sit down on the seat to read them out as though he were Moses, following it up, as the custom was, with an Aramaic paraphrase, thus solemnly ‘sitting in Moses' seat' as the Law promulgator (compare Exodus 18:13). After that he would equally solemnly and reverently replace the scrolls on the seat. Moses had spoken! The reading from the prophets was possibly dealt with differently, being read standing, prior to the reader then sitting down, probably in a different seat (for the first held the scrolls) to expound on the passage read (compare Luke 4:16), the scrolls of the Law having again been previously set down again on ‘Moses' seat'.

If this was the practise in 1st century AD then what ‘they bade men' in Matthew 23:3, which had to be listened to and obeyed, were the direct words of the Law of Moses as read in Hebrew and then paraphrased in Aramaic. That would certainly make sense in the context. And it would explain fully why He could tell them to pay heed to the Scribes and the Pharisees.

One problem with this interpretation is that the Pharisees (as opposed to the Scribes) were not particularly involved with this ministry for participants were selected by the ruler of the synagogue and his elders, and the Pharisees had no special prerogative in this regard. The Pharisees were simply a sect of men dedicated to their own special views, even though they were to a certain extent admired and highly respected by the people. It may, however, be that we are to translate Jesus' words as we saw above as ‘the Scribes, even those of the Pharisees', describing especially those Scribes present in the Temple courtyard with their Pharisee companions. This would explain the unusual double definite article. The Scribes if present in a synagogue would, as trained Teachers of the Law, naturally be chosen for the task of reading the Law.

Highly in favour of this interpretation is that Jesus goes on to speak of the Scribes as blind guides (Matthew 23:16), continually emphasising their blindness (Matthew 23:17; Matthew 23:19), and as 'hypocrites', whilst elsewhere emphasising that 'they make the word of God void through their tradition' (Mark 7:13). It is difficult to see how Jesus could then tell His Apostles to do what they say other than when reading out the Law of Moses.

On the other hand, as we have seen, an alternative suggestion is that the Pharisaic Scribes and the Pharisees were seen as jointly representing the same teaching, the Scribes then seen as ‘occupying Moses' seat' (speaking as his representatives) on behalf of both, and thus also speaking on behalf of all the Pharisees. This would tie in with the way in which Matthew regularly connects them. They would be the main religious arbiters seen in Galilee (Matthew 5:20; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 15:1). (Compare how the Apostles and ‘men of good report' could be seen as leading the church together in Acts 6:1, even if only briefly, although the preaching was initially to be done by the Apostles on behalf of all).

Alternately ‘Moses' seat' might be seen as indicating that the Scribes, as it were, deputised for Moses in the expounding of the Law, and that therefore their teaching, in so far as it actually involved the carefully cited Law, should be accepted. If we take ‘all things literally as meaning ‘everything' this interpretation, fails on the grounds that it is later made quite clear (as it has been previously - e.g. Matthew 15:3; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:12) that Scribal interpretations were not necessarily acceptable, and could indeed be downright wrong (see also Matthew 23:16; Matthew 23:18). How then could Jesus (or even Matthew) possibly have bid His disciples to observe them? No one who had put together the Sermon on the Mount could possibly have suggested this. Furthermore there were disagreement among the Scribes themselves, as we know from the disputes between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. Furthermore the Scribes in Judea did not always see eye to eye with the Scribes in Galilee.

This would then favour the suggestion that the ‘bidding' of the Scribes was limited to the time when they sat and read the Law and paraphrased it from Moses' seat. In other words the disciples and the crowds were to listen to the Law being read and expounded and must obey it in full, not despising it simply because it was read out by a Scribe of the Pharisees. At a time when scrolls of the Law were comparatively rare and expensive, and when not all understood Hebrew, such readings with their accompanying Aramaic paraphrase would be one time when all could learn what the Law did actually say. Thus to use a modern saying, ‘they were not to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water'.

The verb in the aorist may indicate that ‘took their seat on Moses' seat' indiates how the Scribes had in the past, as it were, in all sincerity, sought to take up their position as expounders of Moses. It may, however, simply indicate that they were at the time in a synagogue and that he was referring to the Scribes who had sat on the platform, seen, with the seat of Moses in the centre, as ‘Moses seat, because any one of them could be called on to read. But the fact that He was speaking to the crowds rather suggests the Temple area. On the other hand the aorist may indicate that they constantly did it as a definite act, but this last, although it does occur, is an unusual use of the aorist.

Further Note On Moses' Seat.

There have been attempts to relate ‘Moses' seat' to the description written down in the Halakah (Jewish Law, written down after 400 AD) of the working of the Rabbinic Sanhedrin. We say the Rabbinic Sanhedrin because strictly speaking it indicates the practise that built up after the fall of Jerusalem. In the days prior to the fall of Jerusalem the one who was ‘head over the Sanhedrin' was the High Priest, and the Sanhedrin consisted of three sections, the Chief Priests and their fellow-Sadducees, including Scribes; the lay aristocracy; and the Scribes of the Pharisees and fellow-Pharisees.It is doubtful if the Scribes of the Pharisees at that time thought of the High Priest as the one who had greatest knowledge among them. That was clearly a provision added later and was a new innovation.The High Priest had the oversight because of who he was. And this oversight by the High Priest had indeed been the situation from the original commencement of the Sanhedrin which originally consisted of priests and lay aristocracy.

In the Halakah we read,  First, a supreme court is established in the Temple. This is called the Great Sanhedrin. It is composed of 71 judges. This is derived from Numbers 11:16 which states: "Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel." And Moses presided over them, as the verse continues: "And they shall stand there with you." Thus there are 71.

(Note: the Jewish tradition that the 70 formed a 'court' with Moses is incorrect. The 70 were appointed to act as minor judges for cases which were seen as too trivial for Moses to deal with. We know of no equivalent of the Sanhedrin in Moses' day, nor indeed throughtout the period of Judges and Kings. It came into being a hundred or so years after the Babylonian exile, made up of priests and lay aristocrats and led by the High Priest).

The one who is of greatest knowledge is placed as the head over them. He acts as the Rosh Yeshivah. And he is called the nasi by the Sages in all sources. He assumes the position of Moses our teacher.

The greatest among the remaining 70 is appointed as an assistant to the head. He sits at his right and is called av beit din. The remaining judges from the 70 sit before them and are seated according to their age and according to their stature. Whoever possesses greater wisdom than his colleague is seated closer than his colleagues to the nasi on his left. The members of the Sanhedrin sit in a semi-circle so that the nasi and the av beit din can see all of them.

(Note: This attempt to grade themselves among the Pharisaic Scribes is taken up from their practise of doing the same at feasts (Luke 14:10). Contrary to the teaching of Jesus they were superiority conscious. It would not apply in the same way in the Sanhedrin prior to the destruction of Jerusalem because too many different parties were involved, who no doubt sat in their own groups. Thus the reference to ‘the Temple' is a deliberate attempt to backdate the innovations, which reminds us that what we find in the Mishnah and the Talmud cannot simply be assumed to apply in the time of Jesus).

The Halakah then goes on to speak of other ‘courts of judgment'  In addition, two courts of 23 judges each are appointed. One holds sessions at the entrance to the Temple courtyard. and the other at the entrance to the Temple Mount. In addition, in every city in Israel in which there are 120 or more adult males, we appoint a minor Sanhedrin. They hold court at the entrance to the city, as implied by Amos 5:15 : "And you shall present judgment in your gates." How many judges should be in such a court? 23. The one who possesses the greatest wisdom is the chief justice and the remainder sit in a semi-circle so that the chief justice can see all of them.. Once again we detect the later influence of the Rabbis. As will be noted the reference in Amos simply states the well known fact that in towns and cities the justices met in ‘the gate' in public view. How much of what is written here specifically applies the situation pre-70 AD we cannot now know.

End of Note.