Matthew 23:1-12

 

Jesus Disowns the Jewish Leadership

Matthew would draw to a conclusion the public ministry of Jesus with a long discourse (stretching over three chapters) that in some way touched into the pain in the heart of Jesus at the failure of the majority of the people to respond to the vision and the call of the Kingdom.

So often, the cry of anger expresses a deeper, and sometimes unacknowledged, cry of pain.  Much of the criticism that would follow can serve to give the thoughtful reader a sense of the profound pain that prompted it.

Pharisees would be the main target of criticism.  As has happened so often in the Gospel, Pharisees have served to personify the main source of opposition to Jesus and his ministry.   Their importance reflected more the situation at the time when Matthew wrote his Gospel than that at the time of Jesus.  They would  be implicated in the final rejection of Jesus, but they shared that role with more important players – the politically, religiously and financially powerful chief priests and the elders of the people.

Like Jesus, Matthew and this community had hoped to influence mainstream Judaism to respond to the call to conversion and to open to the offer of God’s Kingdom.  Though many Jews did convert and join the band of disciples of Jesus, most did not.  In the turbulent time preceding and following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (which constituted the focal point of Jewish religious identity), the mainstream chose to close ranks in the hope of preserving their uniqueness and their faith.  Pharisees were prominent in holding the people together and in clamping down on dissidents, chief among whom they classed the members of the emerging Christian movement.

Just as Jesus had felt betrayed by the Jewish leadership of his time, so, too, did Matthew and the members of his community feel betrayed by the Pharisees of their time with whom they engaged.

The forceful language of condemnation put on the lips of Jesus surprises modern readers.  It would not have surprised the members of Matthew’s community.  Such language was commonplace, both with Jewish and with Gentile writers – an accepted rhetorical convention expected in debate and argument (and not unknown, unfortunately, even in current political debate).

It exaggerated the faults of individuals and extended those faults to the whole group, whom it unfairly categorised as single-minded and homogeneous.  It interpreted those faults as evilly as possible, and, where possible, demonised the whole group.  Really, the things that Pharisees and Christians shared in common outnumbered the things that divided them – they both took their faith seriously.  Because of their similarities, they felt the need to exaggerate faults in order to highlight and to affirm their own identity; and their mutual opposition became the more bitter as a result.

In many instances, the criticisms levelled at Pharisees by Christians could equally justly have been levelled at Christians by Pharisees.  Failure to act consistently (hypocrisy) was no monopoly of Pharisees – it is a problem confronting all conscientious believers.  Indeed, Matthew did not include his criticisms of Pharisees in his narrative with the hope that they would be read by them.  More pertinently, his purpose was to discourage the guilty members of his own community from such behaviour, and to call them to conversion.

Warning Christians against Pharisaic Attitudes

Matthew 23:1-36     Jesus Denounces Scribes and Pharisees

(Mk 12:38-40; Lk 20:45-47)
 
1 Jesus then addressed the crowds and his disciples, 

Jesus’ audience was similar in composition to the audience of his first discourse, the Sermon on the Mount – crowds and disciples.

In his Gospel, Matthew did not seek to engage in dialogue with Pharisees.  They were not likely to read his writings.  Matthew was writing for the members of his own community, not to confirm them in their negativity towards Pharisees, but to use the stereotype of Pharisees as foils for the message that he wanted his community to take to heart.

2Scribes and Pharisees takes their seat on the chair of Moses.  
3 So carry out and keep all that they say;
but do not copy their behaviour,
since they talk but do nothing constructive. 

Unswerving as ever, Matthew emphasised the importance of expressing faith by consistent action.  

To sit on Moses’ chair meant, as duly accepted officials, to read and to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures.  Matthew’s problem with the Pharisees was not their proclaiming of the Scriptures, but their interpretation of them.  Elsewhere in the Gospel, Jesus had disagreed clearly with what they taught – in the sense of how they interpreted the Scriptures.  Disciples were indeed to listen to the same Scriptures and to follow them, but they were to interpret them according to the mind of Jesus.


Approaching the Scriptures Thoughtfully

The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are products of their time and culture.  They were written by people endeavouring to express, through the limitations of their own wisdom and insights, the mystery of God.

Careful readers approach the letter of Scripture as the door to exploring the mind and the heart of God – which can never be fully grasped.  They see their task as finding the truth, or the glimmers of truth, contained in the always inadequate human words and thought patterns of the Scriptural authors.  Their own capacity for truth will be always inadequate; their own wisdom limited.  But they can use only what they have, and can make sense of truth only from where they stand.  They recognise that their insight is always a work in progress.

To make sense of ancient documents, they need the assistance of experts who have knowledge of ancient thought patterns and ways of writing.  Experts, too, will be imperfect.  But they have no others.

Some people find the prospect too daunting.  Many settle for a literal reading of the text, believing that their approach shows greater respect for the writings.  Such an attitude courts disaster.  Twenty-first century assumptions cannot be superimposed on ancient writings without distorting the meanings intended by their authors.

Some believers, overwhelmed by what they see as the difficulties, choose to ignore the Scriptures.  They prefer to rely on second hand explanations.  By doing this, they cut themselves off from the primary source of wisdom, and the word of God contained within it (even if not always obviously).  (Over the centuries many Catholics made this option, at times encouraged by Church leaders, but by so doing they suffered real disadvantage.)

Furthermore, there are some who adopt the attitude that, if they cannot take everything literally, they will not believe anything in the Scriptures.  That is a childish and lazy approach.

Mature disciples, following the teaching of Jesus, listen to the Word and take it to heart.  But they recognise their limitations and are open to the wisdom of others.  They learn to discern as they find the truth resonating in their own hearts.  They remain open always to further growth.  As they mature, their understanding of God’s Word can deepen within them.


Matthew proceeded to give a brief overview of how Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah differed from the common interpretations made by many Pharisees.

4 They bind heavy and impossible burdens
and lay them on people’s shoulders,
but are unwilling to lift a finger to lighten them. 

Matthew did not specify what the heavy burdens were.  In the course of his narrative, Jesus had questioned their attitudes to fasting, to Sabbath observance, to “purity” regulations.  In Matthew’s day, with their homeland laid waste, its capital city devastated, the temple destroyed and political institutions dissolved, many Pharisees were concerned lest Jews in the Diaspora became absorbed into the pagan culture surrounding them.  Their strategy was to seek to affirm Jewish identity by public and practical statements of difference.

Matthew had insisted that Jesus, attuned to the mind of God, preferred mercy to sacrifice.  He understood that his mission was to let the oppressed go free; his yoke was easy and his burden was light.  Matthew wished his Christian community to practise Jesus’ lead in showing sensitivity and care to all they encountered.

5 Everything they do, they do for people to see.  
They make their phylacteries wider and their tassels longer

Like all Jews of his day, Jesus would have worn his phylactery and tassels.  Jews saw them as public statements of their respect for the Torah.  Here, Pharisees were accused of making a display of their respect, in order to be accorded honour.  The desire for honour may have been their reason.  It can be difficult to know the inner motivations of people.

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had already referred to the danger of doing things as a way of acquiring honour.  Good deeds were to be expressions of concern and love – ways of serving others, not self.

6 They love the best seats at dinners
and the front rows in the synagogues.  
7 They love people to greet them in the marketplaces
and to call them Teacher.

Most people appreciate being shown respect.  Jesus was criticising the attitude that needed such things.  The attachment expressed a lack of freedom, really, and perhaps an uncertain sense of inner dignity.  It would all be unnecessary if people allowed themselves to believe God’s profound love for them, and for everyone else.

You, however, do not let people call you Teacher,
because you have one teacher and you are all brothers or sisters.  
9 And do call each other father on earth,
for your Father is the heavenly Father.
10 And do let people call you guides, because your guide is the Christ.  

[Literally, the word translated as Teacher was Rabbi.]  Whereas teaching was an accepted charism in the early Christian communities, it was to be regarded on an equal footing with all other charisms, and, in Matthew’s mind, did not warrant a special title.  Matthew was not simply an egalitarian – he wished members of the community to relate closely as family.

Jesus was wary of the danger of patriarchy and of the discrimination and oppression it embodied. In the culture father denoted religious and social authority.  In the Christian community, all disciples were to relate as brothers and sisters; all were to let go of claims to relative honour and to consider themselves on a par with children on the honour scale.  In this community of “little ones”, there was no place for traditional father roles, other than God’s.

Matthew’s distinction between rabbi (teacher) and guide is not clear, nor its connection with his being Christ/Messiah (the only time Jesus used the title of himself in the whole Gospel).  The unexpected use of the title may illustrate the clear editorial activity of Matthew throughout the whole discourse.

11 Let the greatest among you be your servant.  
12 Those who promote themselves will be humbled,
and whoever humble themselves will be exalted.

Matthew’s concern was to use what he saw to be the mistakes of the Pharisees as opportunities to instruct his own community by means of contrast.  Perhaps he detected among disciples incipient signs of the search for honour.  Certainly, with the passage of time, more defined structures were appearing in the communities.  He may have been concerned that certain responsibilities and charisms were tending to be claimed as sources of honour.

Next >> Matthew 23:13-39