Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 23

Matthew 23:3. τηρεῖν] after ὑμῖν is deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following Mill. It is wanting in very important authorities. A gloss, for which certain authorities have ποιεῖν.

τηρεῖτε κ. ποιεῖτε] Lachm.: ποιήσατε κ. τηρεῖτε. So also Tisch. This is the original reading (B L Z א** 124, Hilar.); for the sake of uniformity, ποιήσατε was changed into ποιεῖτε (D, 1, 209, Eus. Dam.); but the transposed order τηρ. κ. π. is an ancient logical correction (as old as Syr. Vulg. It.).

Matthew 23:4. For γάρ Lachm. and Tisch. read δέ, following weighty attestation. Correctly; γάρ was meant to be more precise.

χαὶ δυσβαστ.] deleted by Tisch. 8, following L א, vss. Ir. But the evidence in favour of the words is too strong, and their omission on account of the two καί’s might so readily occur that they must not be regarded as an interpolation from Luke 11:46.

τῷ δέ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ, following B D L א, and two min. vss. and Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luke 11:46.

Matthew 23:5. For δέ after πλατύν Lachm. Tisch. 8 have γάρ, in accordance with B D L א, min. vss. Chrys. Damasc. See on Matthew 23:4.

τῶν ἱματ. αὐτ.] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D א, 1, 22, vss. Correctly; an explanatory addition.

Matthew 23:6. For φιλ. τε we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read φιλ. δέ, in accordance with decisive evidence.

Matthew 23:7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ῥαββί only once, following B L Δ א, min. vss. and Fathers. But how easily may the reduplication have been overlooked, both on its own account and in consequence of its not occurring in the instance immediately following! Comp. on Mark 14:45.

Matthew 23:8. καθηγητής] Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read διδάσκαλος, which Rinck also approves. No doubt καθηγητ. has a very decided preponderance of evidence in its favour (of the uncials only B U א**? read διδάσκ.); but, owing to Matthew 23:10, it is so utterly inappropriate in the present instance, that it must be regarded as an old and clumsy gloss inserted from Matthew 23:10 (namely, καθηγητὴς ὁ Χριστός, according to the reading of Elz. Scholz). By this it was merely intended to intimate that it is Christ that is referred to here as well as in Matthew 23:10 below.

Matthew 23:10. εἷς γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ καθηγ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστὶν εἷς. The latter is the best attested reading; that of the Received text is to conform with Matthew 23:8 f.

In the Textus receptus the two verses, 13 and 14, stand in the following order: (1) οὐαὶ … εἰσελθεῖν; (2) οὐαὶ … κρῖμα, in opposition to E F G H K M S U V Γ Δ Π, vss. and Fathers. On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche have adopted the transposed order. But οὐαὶ … κρῖμα (in Elz. Matthew 23:14) is wanting in B D L Z א, min. vss. and Fathers (Origen as well), and is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., although defended by Rinck and Keim. An interpolation from Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47.

Ver: 17. τίς γὰρ μείζων] Lachm.: τί γὰρ μεῖζον, but, undoubtedly, on the evidence of Z only. The vss. (Vulg. It.) can have no weight here.

ἁγιάζων] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἁγιάσας, following B D Z א, Cant.; Vulg. has sanctificat. The present participle is from Matthew 23:19, where there is no difference in the reading.

Matthew 23:19. μωροὶ καί] is wanting in D L Z א, 1, 209, and several vss., also Vulg. It. Bracketed by Lachm., condemned by Rinck, deleted by Tisch.; and justly so, because there was no motive for omitting the words, while their insertion would be readily suggested by Matthew 23:17.

Matthew 23:21. For κατοικήσαντι Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have κατοικοῦντι, following B H S א, min., the force of the aorist not being apprehended.

Matthew 23:23. Elz.: ταῦτα ἔδει; but Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. 7 have adopted ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει. In both cases the evidence is considerable; but how readily might δέ be omitted before ἔδει through oversight on the part of the transcriber!

Matthew 23:25. ἐξ] is wanting in C D, min. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. It had been omitted as unnecessary.

Elz. Lachm. Tisch. read ἀκρασίας, instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have ἀδικίας. The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides; ἀκρασίας is to be preferred. This word, the only other instance of which in the N. T. is at 1 Corinthians 7:5, appeared to be inappropriate, and came to be represented by a variety of glosses (ἀκαθαρσίας, πλεονεξίας, ἀδικίας, πονηρίας).

Matthew 23:26. αὐτῶν] Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.: αὐτοῦ, following B* D E* min. Aeth. Verc. This αὐτοῦ is bound up with the omission of καὶ τῆς παροψ. in D, min. Cant. Verc. Clem. Chrys. Ir. (deleted by Tisch.). Those words, however, are evidently an insertion from Matthew 23:25, an insertion, moreover, which is inconsistent with αὐτοῦ, so that the words ought to be deleted and αὐτοῦ preferred to αὐτῶν.

Matthew 23:27. παρομοιάζετε] Lachm.: ὁμοιάζετε, only on the evidence of B, 1. The preposition has been left out, probably because the compound form is not found elsewhere in the N. T.

Matthew 23:30. ἤμεθα, instead of ἦμεν of the Received text, is supported by decisive evidence.

Matthew 23:34. καὶ ἐξ αὐτ.] in the first case καί is wanting in B M Δ Π א, min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. Or. (once). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may this καί have been omitted since the next clause opens with καί!

Matthew 23:36. Before ἥξει, Griesb., followed by Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, inserted ὅτι, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted again, ὅτι has important evidence both for and against. A common interpolation.

ταῦτα πάντα] The order πάντα ταῦτα (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is well attested, though there is a preponderance of evidence (C D א, etc., Vulg. It.) for the reading of the Received text.

Matthew 23:37. νοσσία ἑαυτῆς] Lachm. has deleted ἐαυτ., but only on the evidence of B, vss. Clem.(once) Or.(once) Cypr. Hil., and notwithstanding the probable omission of the pronoun as apparently superfluous. Had it been inserted from Luke 13:34, it would have been placed between τά and νοσσία. For ἑαυτῆς Tisch. reads αὐτῆς, following B** D, marg. M Δ א* 33, Clem. (once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be easily overlooked, as was often the case.

Matthew 23:38. ἔρημος is wanting in B L Copt.* Corb. 2, Or. Deleted by Lachm.; to be maintained on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, though in the case of Luke 13:35 it is inserted as a gloss from Matthew.

Matthew 23:1. After the Pharisees have been thus silenced, there now follows the decisive and direct attack upon the hierarchs, in a series of overwhelming denunciations extending to Matthew 23:39, and which, uttered as they are on the eve of His death, form a kind of Messianic σημεῖον through which Jesus seeks to testify against them. Luke has inserted at ch. 11 portions of this discourse in an order different from the original; but he has given in the present connection, like Mark 12, only a few fragments, so that, keeping in view that a collection of our Lord’s sayings was made by Matthew, and considering the originality in respect of matter and arrangement which characterizes the grand utterances now before us, the preference must be accorded to the report furnished by this apostle (in answer to Schleiermacher, Schulz, Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Volkmar). The entire discourse has so much the character of a living whole, that, although much that was spoken on other occasions may perhaps be mixed up with it, it is scarcely possible to disjoin such passages from those that are essentially original. Ewald thinks that the discourse is made up of passages that were probably original, though uttered on very different occasions; Holtzmann has recourse to the hypothesis that the evangelist has derived his account from a supposed special source, the same as that on which ch. 5 is based; in answer to the latter, see Weiss, 1864, p. 114. Observe that the ὄχλοι are mentioned first, because the first part of the discourse on to Matthew 23:7 is directed to them, then the μαθηταί are addressed in Matthew 23:8-12, whereupon in Matthew 23:13 ff. we have the withering apostrophe to the Pharisees who were present, and that for the purpose of warning the ὄχλοι and the μαθηταί to beware of them; and finally, the concluding passage, Matthew 23:37 ff., containing the pathetic exclamation over Jerusalem. The glance, the gesture, the attitude, the matter and the language, were such that there could be no doubt who were immediately aimed at in the various sections of the discourse. We may imagine the scene in the temple to have been as follows: in the foreground, Jesus with His disciples; a little farther off, the ὄχλοι; more in the background, the Pharisees, who in Matthew 22:46 are spoken of as having withdrawn.

Matthew 23:2. The phrase: “to sit in Moses’ seat” (in the seat which Moses had occupied as lawgiver), is borrowed not from Exodus 18:13, but refers to the later practice of having chairs for teachers (comp. Acts 22:3), and is intended as a figurative mode of describing the functions of one who “acts as a public teacher of the Mosaic law,” in discharging which functions the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor of Moses. Accordingly, in Rabbinical writers, one who succeeds a Rabbi as the representative of his school is described as יוֹשֵׁב עַל־כִסְאוֹ. See Vitringa, Synag. p. 165 f.

ἐκάθισαν] have seated themselves, have assumed to themselves the duties of this office. In the whole of this phraseology one cannot fail to detect an allusion to the pretensions and self-seeking character of the Pharisees. Comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Matthew 23:3. Οὖν] inasmuch as they speak as teachers and interpreters of the Mosaic law.

πάντα … ὅσα] Limitations of the sense, which lie outside the point of view marked out by the expression “Moses’ seat,”—as though Jesus had in view only the moral part of the law (Chrysostom), or contemplated merely what had reference to the theocratic polity (Lange), or meant simply to speak comparatively (Bleek),—are in opposition to the text, and are of an arbitrary character, all the more so that the multitude was assumed to possess sufficient capacity for judging as to how much of the teaching was binding upon them, and how much was not. The words are addressed to the ὄχλοι, whom Jesus had neither the power nor the wish to release from their obligations in respect to the manifest teachings of the law. But having a regard to the glaring inconsistency between the teaching and the conduct of their pharisaic instructors, and considering His own fundamental principle with regard to the obligatory character of the law, Matthew 23:18 f., He could not have spoken otherwise than He did when He inculcated upon the people the duty of complying with the words while refusing to imitate the conduct of those instructors. This utterance was conservative, as befitted the needs of the people, and unsparingly outspoken, as the conduct of the Pharisees deserved; but, in opposition to both Pharisees and people, it guarded the holiness of the law. Observe that He is here speaking of the Pharisees in their special capacity as teachers of the Mosaic law (Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel), so that His language is at variance neither with Matthew 16:6 nor with the axiom given in Matthew 15:13; Acts 5:29.

ποιήσατε κ. τηρεῖτε (see critical notes): aorist and present: do it, and observe it constantly. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 158 f.

Matthew 23:4. Comp. Luke 11:46.

In δεσμεύουσι δέ (see critical notes), the δέ introduces an instance of their λέγουσι καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσι of a peculiarly oppressive character.

The binding (tying up into a bundle portions from the various elements, comp. Jdt 8:3) of heavy burdens is an expression intended to represent the connecting together of a number of requirements and precepts, so that, from their accumulation, they become difficult to fulfil.

τῷ δὲ δακτύλῳ αὐτῶν, κ.τ.λ.] but are themselves indisposed to move them even with their finger, in the direction, that is, of their fulfilment. The emphasis rests on τῷ δακτύλῳ; they will not move the burdens with their finger, far less would they bear them upon their shoulders.

Matthew 23:5-7. Comp. Luke 11:43 f.

φυλακτήρια, amulets, were the תְּפִּלִּיו, the strips of parchment with passages of Scripture, viz. Deuteronomy 11:13-22; Deuteronomy 6:4-10, Exodus 13:11-17; Exodus 13:1-11, written upon them. They were enclosed in small boxes, and, in accordance with Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16, Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18, worn during prayer, some on the forehead, some on the left arm next the heart. They were intended to remind the wearer that it was his duty to fulfil the law with head and heart, and, at the same time, to serve the purpose of protecting him from the influence of evil spirits. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 13; Lund, Jüd. Heiligith., ed. Wolf, p. 898 ff.; Keil, Arch. I. p. 342 f.

πλατύνουσι] they broaden their φυλακτήρια, i.e. they make them broader than those of others, in order that they may thereby become duly conspicuous. Corresponding to this is: μεγαλύνουσι, they enlarge. On the κράσπεδα, see on Matthew 9:20.

τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν] the foremost couch at table, i.e. according to Luke 14:8 ff. (Joseph. Antt. xv. 2. 4), the uppermost place on the divan, which the Greeks also regarded as the place of honour (Plut. Symp. p. 619 B). The Persians and Romans, on the other hand, looked upon the place in the middle as the most distinguished. The term is met with only in the synoptical Gospels and the Fathers. Suidas: πρωτοκλισία· ἡ πρώτη καθέδρα.

ῥαββὶ, ῥαββί] רַבִּי, רַבִּי (διδάσκαλε, John 1:39; with yod paragogic). The reduplication serves to show how profound the reverence is. Comp. Mark 14:15; Matthew 7:21 f. For the view that Rabbi (like our “Dr.”) was the title used in addressing learned teachers as early as the time of Jesus (especially since Hillel’s time), see Lightfoot, also Pressel in Herzog’s Encykl. XII. p. 471; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 305.

Matthew 23:8-12. Ὑμεῖς] with which the discourse is suddenly turned to the disciples, is placed first[9] for sake of emphasis, and forms a contrast to the Pharisees and scribes.

μὴ κληθῆτε] neither wish nor allow it.

πάντες δέ] so that no one may violate the fraternal tie on the ground of his supposed superiority as a teacher.

καὶ πατέρα, κ.τ.λ.] The word πατέρα, by being placed at the beginning, becomes emphatic, and so also ὑμῶν, by being separated from πατέρα to which it belongs: And you must not call any one father of you upon earth, i.e. you must not apply the teacher’s title “our father” (אָב, see Buxtorf, p. 10, 2175; Ewald as above) to any mere man. Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 738].

Matthew 23:10. Neither are you to allow yourselves to be called leaders (in the scholastic sense), for the leader of you is One (see critical notes), the Messiah. For examples of the way in which Greek philosophers were addressed by their disciples, see Wetstein.

Ὁ ΔῈ ΜΕΊΖΩΝ ὙΜῶΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ.] But among you greatness is to be indicated quite otherwise than by high-sounding titles: the greater among you, i.e. he among you who would surpass the others in true dignity, will be your servant. Comp. Matthew 23:12. This is a saying of which Jesus makes very frequent use (Luke 14:11; Luke 18:14). Comp. Matthew 20:26 f.; also the example of Jesus in the washing of the disciples’ feet, and Php 2:6 f.

ταπεινωθ.… ὑψωθ.] that is, on the occasion of the setting up of my kingdom.

[9] In consequence of this address to the disciples, Holtzmann, p. 200, regards the whole discourse, in the form in which it has come down to us, as an historical impossibility. Observe, however, the impassioned and lively way in which the topics are varied so as to suit exactly the different groups of which the audience was composed (see on ver. 1).

REMARK.

The prohibitions, Matthew 23:8 ff., have reference to the hierarchical meaning and usage which were at that time associated with the titles in question. The teacher’s titles in themselves are as legitimate and necessary as his functions; but the hierarchy, in the form which it assumed in the Catholic church with the “holy father” at its head, was contrary to the spirit and mind of Jesus. Apropos of Matthew 23:11, Calvin appropriately observes: “Hac clausula ostendit, se non sophistice litigasse de vocibus, sed rem potius spectasse.”

Matthew 23:13. Here begins the direct and withering apostrophe of Jesus to His adversaries themselves who are still present, this part of the address consisting of seven woes, and extending to Matthew 23:36. For the spurious Matthew 23:14, Elz., concerning the devouring of widows’ houses, see the critical remarks. The characteristic feature in this torrent of woes is its intense righteous indignation, such as we meet with in the prophets of old (comp. Isaiah 5:8; Isaiah 10:1; Habakkuk 2:6 ff.),—an indignation which abandons the objects of it as past all hope of amendment, and cuts down every bridge behind them. To Celsus (in Origen, ii. 76) all this sounded as mere empty threat and scolding.

ὅτι] assigns the reason of this οὐαί.

κλείετε, κ.τ.λ.] The approaching kingdom of the Messiah is conceived of under the figure of a palace, the doors of which have been thrown open in order that men may enter. But such is the effect of the opposition offered to Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, that men withhold their belief from the Messiah who has appeared among them, and show themselves indifferent to the δικαιοσύνη, necessary in order to admission into the kingdom from which they are consequently excluded. Comp. Luke 11:52. They thus shut the door of the kingdom in men’s faces.

ὑμεῖς γὰρ, κ.τ.λ.] explanatory reason.

τοὺς εἰσερχομ.] who are trying, who are endeavouring to obtain admission. See Bernhardy, p. 370 f.