Matthew 23

The Pharisees—good teaching, bad examples (vs. 1-12)—The battle between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders reaches its climax in this chapter with the Lord’s severe denunciation of the hypocrisy of those leaders. He is speaking here “to the multitudes and to His disciples,” (v. 1), so these words are not just for the scribes and Pharisees. Not all that the Pharisees did was wrong: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do” (vs. 2-3); the problem was “they say, and do not do” (v. 4). If they teach the Law as it is written, listen to them. Just don’t follow their example. “All their works they do to be seen by men” (v. 5); “they love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues” (v. 6). Phariseeism is a self-aggrandizing religion. It cares nothing for others. They loved “to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’” (v. 8). Then Jesus makes an interesting point about religious titles: “But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (vs. 8-9). Notice: “you are all brethren,” and thus no one should exalt himself above others with a special title. I don’t know how the Lord could have been clearer on the subject, especially the use of “father” as a religious title (He obviously doesn’t mean our physical fathers). In verse 11, He concludes with a point He’s made many times before: “He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.” That is the exact opposite of Pharisaic doctrine, which taught that they, as the leaders, should be served by others. A more contrary conception of God’s true religion could not be found. It was never that way, even under the Old Testament. The Jews were given the wonderful privilege of serving mankind by having the Scriptures and being the people through whom the Savior of the world would come. It wasn’t enough. And it isn’t to this day. And Jesus will let them know the penalty in chapter 24.

The “woes” (vs. 13-36)—Here in a series of scathing denunciations Jesus exposes scribal/Pharisaic hypocrisy. There are eight “woes” here: they “shut up the kingdom of heaven against men,” and aren’t going in themselves (v. 13). They “devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers” (v. 14). They do everything they can to convert others, but when they do, “you make him twice as much as son of hell as yourselves” (v. 15). They actually believed that the “gold” in the temple was more valuable than the temple itself (v. 16). They were scrupulous in their tithing, even going so far as to donate one of every 10 leaves of their mint, anise, and cummin bushes, but ignored “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (v. 23); Jesus adds a rather humorous analogy, though I don’t think He was laughing and I’m sure the Pharisees weren’t: “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel” (v. 24). The Pharisees made sure the “outward” man was clean, but did nothing for the inward (v. 25). Does this sound familiar, as in “blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God”? (Matt. 5:8). “You are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness” (v. 27). The final “woe” is perhaps the worst of all: they claim to honor and laud the prophets, “and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets” (v. 30). And yet, they were about to kill God’s Son: “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt” (vs. 31-32), which again they would do by crucifying the One Whom the prophets spoke of. And then we have what is probably the strongest condemnation by Jesus anywhere recorded: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (v. 33). Folks, this is what got Jesus crucified, not “love one another.” Not only would they kill Jesus, but His messengers as well (vs. 34-36).

“Behold, YOUR house is left unto you desolate” (vs. 37-39)—In verse 37, Jesus expresses a tender lament over the city: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” The Jews had had their chance. God had been so merciful to them for 1,500 years and they rebelled against Him constantly; remember the parable of the vinedressers in Matthew 21:33-44 about the servants being beaten and the son killed. And indeed, now they were about to do the latter. What else could He have done that He did not do? Their condemnation is just: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (v. 38). The temple. And notice, it’s not God’s house any more. The Lord is coming (and it’s a temporal judgment), but it will be too late then (v. 39).

All of this sets the stage for one of the most misunderstood chapters in the Bible, Matthew 24.

Matthew 22, Part Two

The Sadducees and the resurrection (vs. 23-33)—Next, it was the Sadducees turn to try Jesus: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother” (v. 24). This is true. In fact, it was culturally true even before the Law of Moses. God killed a man named Onan in Genesis 38:10 because he wouldn’t do it. But then the Sadducees came up with an absurd example. A man marries a woman, but dies with no children. His brother marries her, but then he dies with no children. There are seven brothers. They all marry her, in turn, but none of them have any children. So, “in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her” (v. 28). Interesting question.

To understand their question, we must know that the Sadducees were the “modernists” of their time. They did not believe in angels, a spirit world, or in a resurrection after death. Hence, the conundrum they propose to Jesus. If there is a resurrection, since all seven brothers were married to this woman, who’s she going to be married to in the next life?

Jesus responded, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (v. 29). There were two things wrong with the Sadducees’ position. Number one, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (v. 30), so there will be no problem about whose wife that woman would be. But the real point Jesus wanted to make was in opposition to the Sadducees’ doctrine of “no resurrection,” and it’s a very remarkable argument Christ makes: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (vs. 31-32). Who did Jehovah say that to? He said it to Moses in Exodus 3:6, at least 300 years after Jacob was dead. And yet, “I am the God of Abraham,” etc., not “I was.” In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in Moses’ day—though they were, of course, dead to this earth. Jesus’ argument is based on the tense of a verb. No wonder, “when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching” (v. 33).

The greatest commandment (vs. 34-40)—A lawyer, i.e., one who was knowledgeable in the Law of Moses, not an attorney, then asked Jesus a question, “testing Him” (v. 35). We get an indication from Mark’s account of this conversation (Mark 12:28-34), that maybe the “test” was simply to discern Jesus’ understanding of the Law; the lawyer seems to have a good turn of mind and Jesus commends him. The question was, “Which is the great commandment in the law?" (v. 36), to which Jesus answers, “'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (vs. 37-40). Read Mark 12:32-34 for the rest of the conversation. In brief, the lawyer (or “scribe,” Mark calls him) agrees with Jesus and acknowledges Christ’s wisdom. Jesus responded, “You are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34). It’s a great conversation.

Jesus asks the Pharisees a question (vs. 41-45)—Christ had answered all of their queries, now He throws one at them: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" (v. 42). “The Son of David" (v. 43). Jesus then poses a perplexing problem: "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying: The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool? "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" (vs. 43-45). Nobody knew the answer, which is found in the dual nature of the Messiah. In His human nature, He was descended from David, which the Jews well knew. But in His divine nature, He is obviously David’s Lord. What this whole chapter demonstrates, as Jesus takes on all comers and puts them to flight, is Christ’s superior understanding and wisdom. None of His opponents could match Him. The multitudes saw it. The Pharisees couldn’t handle it. They had two options: join Him or kill Him. And we know which choice they made. Especially after chapter 23...

Matthew 22, Part One

The parable of the wedding feast (vs. 1-14)—The battle between Jesus and His opponents continues throughout this chapter. In these verses, we see another parable aimed at the Jewish rejection of Christ. A king prepares a marriage feast for his son. He sent out some servants to tell those who had been invited that everything was ready, but “they were not willing to come” (v. 2; they wouldn't come to a feast prepared by the king??  What kind of person would turn down such an invitation?). So “he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding’” (v. 4). But the invitees still refused to come. We should recognize that the “king” is God, the “servants” were His prophets, the “son” is Christ, and those first invited were the Jews. In the parable, some of his servants were seized, “treated spitefully, and killed” (v. 6). This is a reference to the Jewish treatment of God’s prophets. And so, “when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (v. 8); this may be a veiled allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but I’m not going to press that interpretation. More than likely, it’s just a general, well-deserved punishment against the Jews being pictured. “Those who were invited were not worthy,” so the king sent his servants “into the highways, and as many as you can find, invite to the wedding” (v. 9). The Gentiles are meant here. A large gathering was brought in, “and the wedding hall was filled with guests” (v. 10). But there was a man among them “who did not have on a wedding garment” (v. 11). Among the Orientals, a special white robe was to be worn by each guest on such occasions, and not to wear it was a sign of disrespect; such a one was worthy of punishment. And that is what happens here. The king asks the man why he did not have on the appropriate clothing; when he received no answer, he commanded “Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 13). Just being invited to the feast is not enough; if we do not clothe ourselves properly, we will be ejected and punished. “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14). We must be clothed with His humility and righteousness if we wish to partake of the great feast God has prepared for us.

What a marvelous thing it is to be invited, by the great God of heaven and earth, to such a feast. Get the point here: He—the great God of heaven and earth—invites us--wicked, miserable sinners against Him, we who are so unworthy. It is a privilege beyond human words to be invited by God into His feast, i.e., kingdom. So yes, punishment is well decreed for those who mock the invitation or refuse to show proper reverence once allowed in.

“Render unto Caesar…” (vs. 15-22)—The Pharisees sent some Herodians to Christ “that they might entangle Him in His talk” (v. 16). The “Herodians” were a political party following the Herods, who were Roman lackeys governing parts of Judea. The question they ask, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (v. 17), was a trap—the Jews didn’t believe they should pay taxes to a foreign power. They got this from Deuteronomy 17:14-15, which says, "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” Some of the Jews deduced from the last sentence that they should never pay tribute to another nation, which, of course, they had been required to do, frequently, in their history, and were under the same compulsion in Jesus’ time because of the Romans. Still, the question was ingenious. If Jesus took the common Jewish view that “no, you shouldn’t pay taxes to Caesar,” then He would be in trouble with the Romans. If He said, “yes, do pay,” then He could lose influence with the masses who hated the Romans. So, frankly, the Pharisees/Herodians didn’t care how He answered. Except they got the one answer they didn’t expect: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (v. 21). How could anybody argue with that answer? Incidentally, Jesus knew it was a trap and exposed it as so: “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?” (v. 18). He wanted others who were listening to understand what was going on.

One last thought here on this section: Jesus did not come as a political agitator or a “community organizer.” He came "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10), and “to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Politicians and political empires come and go, rise and fall, wax and wane, and Jesus knew it. But there is only one chance at eternal salvation, and that’s what Jesus died for. If Christ were in America today, He would not be stirring up support for Obamacare or marching in “tea parties”; He would be doing the same thing He did in the first century—preaching the gospel, trying to save the lost. Because 100 years from now, there aren’t very many of us alive today who are going to care if Obama’s health care plan gets passed or not. But we will care about the location of our eternal spirit.