Matthew 23:16-22

TEXT: 23:16-22

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 (Matthew 5:22), by what right does He Himself violate that rule here, calling the Pharisees blind fools (Matthew 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 one's 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 Matthew 5:33-37, Vol. I, 288-295. 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. Hebrews 6:16 f.) It is assumed that the truthfulness of the affirmations is guaranteed by the speaker's 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. Jeremiah 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 (Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10:20). This intended to confirm their true fidelity to Jahweh and should have led to their fulfilling Israel's deepest reason for existence (Jeremiah 4:2; cf. Genesis 12:2 f.; Isaiah 65:16).

As evidenced by our paragraph (Matthew 23:16-22), however, Jews of Jesus-' time were not using God's 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 God's Name. However, precisely because God Himself was not formally introduced into men's 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 (Matthew 23:16; Matthew 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 (Expositor's 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

Matthew 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 Law's 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 Matthew 23:13, cf. also Matthew 23:19; Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 God's people and are properly termed: fools and blind. He who has forbidden us to call others a fool (Matthew 5:22), possesses the authority so to order us and to judge the hearts of these fools (John 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 (Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:1 f.; Deuteronomy 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 God's Law must be a monstrously unthinkable thing and a gross transgression of the spirit of the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:7). So, any oath is a binding oath, unless repented of and atoned for (Leviticus 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 (Matthew 23:21 f.), Jesus aimed to re-establish reverent, God-fearing sincerity.

d. You Have Inverted All Values

Matthew 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, Expositor's 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!

Matthew 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 (Exodus 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 God's 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

Matthew 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 (Isaiah 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 man's sincerity. Conversely, to swear by anything, without intending to call God to witness one's 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 God's ownership of everything on which an oath could be based.

Matthew 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 (Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; 1 Kings 8:10 f., 1 Kings 8:27; Psalms 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. 2MMalachi 2:4-8; Josephus, Wars, V, 5, 5; 2 Bar. 6:7; 4 Ezra 10:48; Mishnah, Yoma 21:2; cf. Matthew 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 GOD'S 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 God's 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 Solomon's 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 (Hebrews 11:27)?

Jesus utilized present participles to describe God as dwelling in the Temple and as sitting on His throne (Katoikoûnti, Matthew 23:21; katheméno, Matthew 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 people's 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.

Man's 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 (Revelation 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. Ephesians 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. (Matthew 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 men's attention away from God, or that encourages trifling with truth and weakens men's 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 God's 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?