Matthew 23:16

Woe unto you, ye blind guides--Striking expression this of the ruinous effects of erroneous teaching. Our Lord, here and in some following verses, condemns the subtle distinctions they made as to the sanctity of oaths--distinctions invented only to promote their own avaricious purposes.

which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing--He has incurred no debt.

but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple--meaning not the gold that adorned the temple itself, but the Corban, set apart for sacred uses (see on Mat 15:5).

he is a debtor!--that is, it is no longer his own, even though the necessities of the parent might require it. We know who the successors of these men are.

but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty--It should have been rendered, "he is a debtor," as in Mat 23:16.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat_23:16-22

Whosoever shall swear by the Temple, it is nothing.

Thoughtless profanity

Are there any before me who are accustomed to use Gods name as an expletive, and to bandy it as a byword? Who employ it in all kinds of conversation, and throw it about in every place? Perhaps in their hearts they consider this an accomplishment! think it manly and brave to swear! Let me say, then, that profaneness is a brutal vice. He who indulges in it is no gentleman. I care not what his stamp ,nay be in society. I care not what clothes be wears, or what culture he boasts. Despite all his refinement, the light and habitual taking of Gods name betrays a coarse nature and a brutal will. Nay, he tacitly admits that it is ungentlemanly, for he restrains his oaths in the presence of ladies; and he who fears not to rush into the chancery of heaven and swear by the Majesty there, is decently observant in the drawing-room and the parlour. (E. H. Chopin, D. D.)

Ostentatious profanity

If there are hypocrites in religion, there are also, strange as it may appear, hypocrites in impiety-men who make an ostentation of more irreligion than they possess. An ostentation of this nature, the most irrational in the records of human folly, seems to lie at the root of profane swearing. (R. Hall.)

Unreasonable oaths

He that sweareth by any person, or thing, doth two things.

1. He attributeth to the thing, or person, by which he sweareth, a knowledge of the heart and the secret intention.

2. He calleth upon the person, or thing, by which he sweareth, to be his judge, or to take a revenge upon him, in case lie doth not believe in his heart what he affirmeth or denieth with his words to be true or false; otherwise an oath is no security at all. From whence appeareth that it is unreasonable for any to swear by any other than God, who alone can have a knowledge of the truth and security of the heart; and that he who sweareth by any creature committeth idolatry in his heart, and indeed blasphemeth playing Divine homage to a creature, and attributing to the creature what belongs only to the Creator. (M. Pool.)

The altar

The one altar which sanctifieth the gift is the person and merit of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I. Jesus Christ is the antitype of this brazen altar (Exo_27:1-21.).

1. The altar typifies our Lord if we consider the use of it. To sanctify that which was put upon it, and to sustain it while the fire was consuming it. Our Lord lifts up our gifts towards heaven.

2. The place of the altar. You saw it the moment you entered the door of the tabernacle. The most prominent thought of the soul is Jesus as Mediator.

3. The form of the altar. It was foursquare; stability and endurance.

4. The materials of which the altar was made. Shittim wood, overlaid with brass; the former represents the incorruptible human character of Jesus: the latter the endurance of Christ.

II. A question or two.

1. Have you always taken care to keep to the one spiritual altar?

2. Are there not some among you who have been offering to God without an altar at all? You have not respect to the Mediator in your life, and prayers, and acts.

3. Whether we have not often forgotten to attach the importance to the altar which we should have done. We must plead the merit of Christ. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 23:16-22. Wo unto you, ye blind guides — Before he had styled them hypocrites, from their personal character; now he gives them another title respecting their false doctrine and influence upon others. Both these appellations are severely put together in Mat 23:23-25 : and this severity rises to the height in Mat 23:33. Here we have the fourth reason of the woes denounced. Which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing — It constitutes no obligation to tell the truth or to perform one’s oath. But whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple — That is, by the treasure kept there, he is a debtor — Gr. οφειλει, he oweth, that is, is obliged to perform his oath. “It seems,” says Dr. Doddridge, “the Pharisees taught, that oaths by the creatures might be used on trifling occasions, and violated without any great guilt. But they excepted oaths by the corban,

(the gift,) and by sacrifices; in which it is plain that, without any regard to common sense or decency, they were influenced merely by a view to their own interest; and therefore represented these to the people as things of more eminent sanctity than even the temple or altar itself.” Whoso shall swear by the altar, sweareth by all things thereon — Not only by the altar, but by the holy fire and the sacrifices, and above all by that God to whom they belonged; inasmuch as every oath by a creature, if it has any meaning, is an implicit appeal to the Creator himself. Whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by him that dwelleth therein — Consequently, the oath is a solemn wishing that he, who dwells in the temple, may hinder him from ever worshipping there, if he be telling a falsehood or neglect his vow. He that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, &c. — And therefore his oath is a solemn wishing that God, who dwells in heaven, may exclude him out of that blessed place for ever, if he falsify his oath. For a further explanation of the subject of oaths, see the note on Mat 5:33-37.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_23:16. Gold of the temple.—The exact meaning of this expression is uncertain; but the probability is that it refers to money offered as a gift to God, to which the scribes and Pharisees ascribed peculiar sanctity (Mansel). See R.V., margin.

Mat_23:18. Guilty.—A debtor (R.V.) as in Mat_23:16.

Mat_23:23. Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin.—The language of Deu_12:17 seems to recognise only corn, wine, and oil, among the produce of the earth, as subject to the law of tithes. The Pharisee, in his minute scrupulosity (based, it may be, on the more general language of Lev_27:30), made a point of gathering the tenth sprig of every garden herb, and presenting it to the priest. So far as this was done at the bidding of an imperfectly illumined conscience our Lord does not blame it. It was not, like the teaching as to oaths and the Corban, a direct perversion of the law. What He did censure was the substitution of the lower for the higher (Plumptre). Mint was grown for its pleasant odour; anise, or dill, and cummin for their aromatic flavour. These were cultivated, not for food, but for scents and relishes; and only a small quantity of each would be grown in a private garden for the use of a household (Fraser).

Mat_23:25. Full of extortion and excess.—From (R.V.). The two words point

(1) to the source from which the viands and the wine came—the cup and the platter were filled with, or out of, the proceeds of, extortion;

(2) that to which they tended—they overflowed with unrestrained self-indulgence (Plumptre).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_23:16-28

The blindness of error.—Five times in succession in these verses we find the epithet “blind”; and every time as a description of those professed “guides” whom the Saviour is addressing. In justifying this application of the term, the Saviour confines Himself to one general line. These men are thus “blind,” according to Him, because they begin in their teaching where they ought to conclude; and treat the important, for the sake of the unimportant, as though it did not exist. In three directions especially, He goes on to show that this description holds good. It does so, first, in the way of reverence and worship; secondly, in the way of duty and observance; and, thirdly, in the way of holiness and sanctification.

I. In the way of reverence and worship.—The true state of things in regard to this part of the question is manifestly as follows. God Himself is to be reverenced first and most; then that, of course—according to its nearness—which is nearer to Him. Amongst such “nearer” things, up above, is heaven itself as His throne (Mat_23:22). Amongst such “nearer” things, here below, are His temple and altar. The one of these last having been appointed by Himself as His special “dwelling” on earth, and the other as a means of enabling men to approach Him in worship, they both, in consequence, had about them a certain derivative glory and awe. Full of the thoughts of God, they were, in their way, full of His majesty also. Even that, also, which appertained to them—such as the “gold,” for example, which adorned the one, and the “gifts” which were placed on the other—had a certain sacredness in their turn. They also were to be treated with reverence because of the reverence due to that which they touched. First, the Source, in fact; then that which grew out of it; then what grew out of that. This was the reasonable—this, apparently, the only—way to compute. Yet this, at the same time, was the exact opposite of that adopted by these guides (Mat_23:16). Anything bound by the stronger, according to them, need not be kept. Anything bound by the weaker must not be loosed. So they said in effect (Mat_23:16; Mat_23:18).

II. In the way of observance and duty.—Here again the true order of value is not difficult to perceive. The moral, e.g., was before the ceremonial; matters of conscience before those of ritual; and that by a very long way. Also, amongst questions of conscience, some are of greater importance than others. What will make a difference is of more consequence than what will make none. What God expressly requires of us (Mat_23:23, Mic_6:8; Psalms 15) than what we devise for ourselves. Discrimination of His will, imitation of His love, belief in His existence—in other words, “judgment, mercy, and faith”—cannot be made up for by any amount of scrupulosity as to “the dust of the balance.” So it is that both wisdom and sincerity teach—both truth of discernment and truth of aim. But so it was, exactly, that these teachers not only did not teach, but denied. As one has quaintly said, they thought more of the “condiment than of the dish”; they “magnified the little and belittled the great”; they treated the non-essential as though it were all; they “strained out” the “gnat” and left the “camel” behind (Mat_23:24). What could be worse than such double blindness as this? Only to see what was insignificant; not to see what was huge?

III. In the way of sanctification and holiness.—Who cannot see here, as in the other verses, where this process begins? It begins, of course, where the thoughts begin, and whence they come out. Be clean there; and it will be hardly necessary to clean the outside. Be foul there; and it will not be possible to clean the outside. On the contrary, to pretend to it while leaving the inside impure, will be to be foul throughout, as it were; and to the original foulness of guilt to add that of hypocrisy, which is very much worse. All this is so plain that one wonders that any one should have ever thought the reverse. Yet that these Pharisees did so, is only too plain from what the Saviour says of them here. He describes them here (Mat_23:25, R.V.) as being “full from extortion and excess”; that is (apparently), “from” the results of injury to others, on the one hand, and of indulgence to themselves, on the other. He describes them, again (Mat_23:27-28), as being like “whited sepulchres”—outwardly righteous, but inwardly guilty—outwardly “beautiful,” but inwardly vile—and as being so “blind,” therefore, as to make this lowest depth of iniquity the highest peak of their aim. To look upon evil as good, in any case, is not to see very well. To regard the worst as being the best is to see nothing at all as it is.

It is important to note, in conclusion, how such blindness as this was produced. These blind leaders were thus blind because they were hypocrites first. This is why the Saviour uses this apparently harsh term so many times over. It is really a very merciful one, because it points to the secret of all. A hypocrite is a man who knowingly blinds himself to some aspect of truth. In some particular he deliberately refuses to see things as they are. So far—in other words—and in that direction, he believes in deceit. Afterwards the instrument employed by him turns, as it were, on himself. Invented originally to hide from him what he did not wish to perceive, afterwards—without his knowing it—it hides from him what he does wish to perceive. Afterwards still, therefore, there is no saying how much it may hide, or how far, consequently, in the way of foolishness and error such a self-deceiver may ultimately go, and yet suppose himself right. There is nothing more perilous, in fact, and nothing more criminal, than trifling with truth. It would ruin the universe, if allowed to prevail.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_23:16. Hypocritical teaching as to oath-taking.—

1. Corrupt churchmen do corrupt religion and mislead the people fearfully. They become blind guides, whose office requireth that they should be wise and seeing guides; in which case woe to the people, but chiefly woe to the blind guides.

2. Swearing by the creature is no new sin, for these corrupt hypocrites did foster swearing by the creatures, as by the temple, altar, gold, and gifts.

3. Corrupt churchmen make things to be sin or no sin, as it serveth their purpose: as here, they make an oath by the temple to be none, and an oath by the gold of the temple to oblige.

4. To make light of any oath by the creature, as not obligatory, doth open a door to superstition and perjury; for to swear by the temple, they said, it was nothing, and Christ asketh, “Whether is greater, the gold or the temple which sanctifieth the gold?”—David Dickson.

A corrupt casuistry.—It is not easy to trace the currents of thought that run through a corrupt casuistry, but probably the line of reasoning that led to this distinction was that the “gold of the temple”—not the gold used in its structural ornamentation, but that which in coin or bullion was part of the Corban, or sacred treasure (Mat_15:5)—had received a more special consecration than the fabric, and involved, therefore, a higher obligation, when used as a formula jurandi, than the temple or the altar. Something of the same feeling is seen in the popular casuistry which makes the binding force of an oath depend on “kissing the Book”; or that of mediæval Christendom, which saw in the relics of a saint that which was more sacred than the Gospels. The principle involved in our Lord’s teaching goes farther than its immediate application, and sweeps away the arbitrary distinction of different degrees of sanctity in the several parts of the same structure. Here the line of reasoning is, as in Mat_5:33-37, that the temple includes the altar, that the altar includes the gift, that the heaven includes the Throne, and that thus every oath-formula runs up, explicitly or implicitly, into the great thought of God.—E. H. Plumptre, D.D.

Mat_23:23-24. The gnat and the camel.—A most effective illustration this of a scrupulousness which is extreme and inconsistent. “Ye strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.” We are supposed to look at one drinking water or wine from an open vessel. A gnat or small fly has got into the liquor—a thing that will occur in hot weather among ourselves, and that is sure to occur in the East if a vessel containing any sweet liquor is left uncovered. He who would drink notices the small insect, and passes the sweetened water or wine through a fine cloth in order to strain it out. With gross inconsistency, however, he takes no notice of a far larger object, but gulps down the camel. The mention of this unwieldy creature is of course an instance of hyperbole, as in the other metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle. The Lord implied no censure on the pains taken to strain out the gnat. No person of nice habits could act otherwise. Indeed, a Jew had a special reason for being scrupulous in such a matter, for insects, as “flying, swarming things,” were unclean under his law. But then, the camel was unclean also. The point of the reproof lay in the incongruity or inconsistency evinced by one who was extremely scrupulous in a small thing, and extremely unscrupulous in a great matter. Such was the charge which Christ brought against the Pharisees; and it must be brought still against those who combine a very punctilious Christian profession with a lax or unprincipled morality. It appears that the Pharisees were very punctilious about paying tithes of seeds which were grown in small quantities, and were of comparatively little value. A parallel case now would be for a Christian in good circumstances to present to the church one-tenth of the value of the parsley, pepper, and mustard used in his household. Now the Pharisees were observing the letter of the law (Lev_27:30). And the Master recognised this when He said that these minute tithings should not be left undone. But the chief matters of obligation should be placed first. The weightier matters of obligation were, and continue to be, these three:—

1. Judgment, including equity in judging and rectitude in performing the duties of life.

2. Mercy in unison with justice, as it is in God Himself. The Pharisees gave alms with a blowing of trumpets, but they did not love mercy.

3. Faith or faithfulness, shown in honest dealing and in adherence to truth. Our Lord’s treatment of this grave error suggests two points for emphatic consideration in Christian doctrine and morals:—

I. Inward qualities count for more than outward observances.—Strange to read of those rough-handed Christians in the past who were unjust and rapacious, and yet imagined that by paying tithes, or taking sacraments, or endowing monasteries at death, they could secure the favour of God. But just as delusive the modern assumption that one may be false to his word, unkind in his family, unfair in his dealings, and yet by attention to Christian rites and ceremonies may find his way to heaven.

II. A just sense of proportion is essential to a well-regulated Christian mind.—It must be recognised that, even among things which are right, some are greater and some less. Some are to be done first and foremost, and come what will; others are to come behind, and not to be left undone. If the Pharisees had not lacked this sense of proportion, they could never have preferred the tithing of mint to justice, tithing of dill to mercy, and tithing of cummin to faith; nor would they have condemned the righteous and merciful Saviour because He led His disciples along a path through a cornfield or healed poor people on the Sabbath. It is no infrequent thing to find a person who seems to be very religious curiously deficient in the sense of proportion. He cannot quité see what is great or what is small. If he be disposed to obstinacy and bigotry, he simply regards all that is plain to him as great; and all his tenets and regulations as equally great. If he be merely small-minded, by natural affinity he fastens keenly on small points. These are of the proper size for him; and he takes them to be quite large. Or if he be of a self-regarding mind, considering religion simply with reference to his own safety, he lays all the stress on the truths which are near himself, and has but a faint appreciation of those which are much more vast but more remote. It marks the wisdom of Jesus Christ that He saw the just proportion of things, and, when He spoke of duty, distinguished the greater elements of godly obedience from the less. And as He taught so He lived, entering into no competition with the Pharisees regarding the minutiae of ceremonial and tradition, but exhibiting a righteousness far exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees, a mercifulness with which their haughty temper had no sympathy, and a fidelity to God and to His own Divine mission from which no temptation could beguile or threat deter Him.—D. Fraser, D.D.

Mat_23:25-26. Sanctified meat.—

1. Such as get their meat by extortion, and use it intemperately unto excess, can never sanctify their table, whatsoever ceremonies they use; for the saying grace at meat by such men is no better than if a man should wash the outside of the cup and platter, and eat of the filthiness of the inside.

2. The way to eat our bread with God’s blessing is to sanctify our hands in our conquering, and our hearts in a wise and moderate using the creatures, for the right end, and so our feeding shall be sanctified.—David Dickson.

Mat_23:27-28. Whitewashed tombs.—Graves lie thick about Jerusalem. In the valleys and on the hilly slopes about the modern city they everywhere meet the eye. Jews have always buried their dead without, however, lavishing on their tombs such signs of honour and affection as are increasingly conspicuous in Christian cemeteries. But it was an old custom with them to wash sepulchral stones once a year. A day was fixed for the purpose in the month Adar; and at the time when our Lord used this metaphor to characterise the scribes and Pharisees, the tombs about Jerusalem had been recently whitewashed, and so were beautified for a season. As He spoke in the open air, the white stones must have been conspicuous on every side. The object of this whitewashing, however, was not to embellish, but to point out the gravestone to the passer-by, that he might not tread on it or touch it. The law which pronounced unclean him who touched a dead body, or even a dead bone, unwittingly, was extended by the later casuistry so as to count one ceremonially defiled who even stepped unintentionally over a grave or touched a tombstone. The object of Jesus was to mark with emphatic censure the contrast between the outward religious profession of those hypocrites and their inward wickedness. For this end the illustration was most apposite. The Pharisees, like the newly-washed tombs around the city, were fair and white on the surface, but unclean and corrupt within.—D. Fraser, D.D.

Mat_23:27. Moral whitewash.—Nothing is gained by whitewash or varnish. God is not mocked, and even man is not long imposed on by a vain show of devotion. We once heard Father Taylor, a noted preacher to sailors in America, pray that men who thought themselves good, and were not, might be undeceived; and he cried, “Lord, take off the whitewash!”—Ibid.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

23:16-22 The religious leaders declared certain oaths less binding in order to commit fraud. Jesus calls for honest fulfillment of commitments (see 5:33-37).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 23:16. Ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ, blind guides) Previously they were styled hypocrites, and that again and again; now the appellation is changed according to the subject in hand. The two appellations are combined in Mat 23:23-24, and Mat 23:25-26. The denunciation reaches its climax in Mat 23:33.—οὐδέν ἐστιν, he is nothing)[1002] sc. ὠφείλων, owing, i.e. he owes nothing.—ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ, by the gold) with which the temple was adorned.

[1002] E. V. “It is nothing.”—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_23:16. A new point, and one so peculiarly heinous that a somewhat larger portion of the denunciatory address is devoted to it.

ἐν τῷ ναῷ] as in the Mischna we frequently meet with such expressions as: per habitaculum hoc, דמעון הוה. See Wetstein and Lightfoot.

ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ] by the gold which belongs to the temple, the ornaments, the vessels, perhaps also the gold in the sacred treasury (to which latter Jerome, Maldonatus, refer). We nowhere meet with any example of such swearing, and the subject of Corban (Mat_15:5) is foreign to our passage (Lightfoot), inasmuch as there is no question of vows in the present instance. For ἐν with ὀμνύειν, comp. on Mat_5:34.

οὐδέν ἐστιν] it (the oath) is nothing, is of no consequence. It is not the person swearing who is the subject, but ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ, κ.τ.λ., form an absolute nominative, as in Mat_7:24, Mat_10:14, Mat_13:12.

ὀφείλει] is indebted, bound to keep the oath.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 23:16-22 . The third woe refers to the Jesuitry of the scribes in the matter of oaths; the point emphasised, however, is their stupidity in this part of their teaching ( cf. Mat 5:33 f.), where Christ’s teaching is directed against the use of oaths at all.

Mat 23:16 . ὁδηγ . τυφλοί , blind guides, not only deceivers but deceived themselves, lacking spiritual insight even in the simplest matters. Three instances of their blindness in reference to oaths are directly or indirectly indicated: oaths by the temple and the gold of the temple, by the altar and the offerings on it, by heaven and the throne of God therein. The principle underlying Rabbinical judgments as to the relative value of oaths seems to have been: the special form more binding than the general; therefore gold of the temple more than the temple, sacrifice on altar more than altar, throne of God in heaven more than heaven. Specialising indicated greater earnestness. Whether these forms of oath were actually used or current, and what precisely they meant, e.g. , gold of the temple: was it ornament, utensil, or treasure? is immaterial. They may have been only hypothetical forms devised to illustrate an argument in the schools. οὐδέν ἐστι , ὀφείλει : the formulae for non-binding and binding oaths; it is nothing (the oath, viz. ); he is indebted, bound to performance = חיוב .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Is a debtor. Sins are called in the Syrian tongue, Debts, and it is certain that Christ spake in the Syrian tongue.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 16. Whosoever shall swear by the gold] The covetous man, says one, still gives preference to the object of his lust; gold has still the first place in his heart. A man is to be suspected when he recommends those good works most from which he receives most advantage.

Is bound thereby, i.e. to fulfil his oath.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(16) Whosoever shall swear by the temple.—On the general teaching of the Pharisees as to oaths, see Notes on Mat_5:33-37. It is not easy to trace the currents of thought that run through a corrupt casuistry, but probably the line of reasoning that led to this distinction was that the “gold of the Temple”—not the gold used in its structural ornamentation, but that which in coin or bullion was part of the Corban, or sacred treasure (Mat_15:5)—had received a more special consecration than the fabric, and involved, therefore, a higher obligation, when used as a formula jurandi, than the Temple or the altar. Something of the same feeling is seen in the popular casuistry which makes the binding force of an oath depend on “kissing the Book;” or that of mediæval Christendom, which saw in the relics of a saint that which was more sacred than the Gospels. The principle involved in our Lord’s teaching goes further than its immediate application, and sweeps away the arbitrary distinction of different degrees of sanctity in the several parts of the same structure. Here the line of reasoning is, as in Mat_5:33-37, that the Temple includes the altar, that the altar includes the gift, that the heaven includes the Throne, and that thus every oath-formula runs up, explicitly or implicitly, into the great thought of God.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. the gold of the temple] i. e. the offerings made to the Temple, called “Corban,” or “devoted;” the use of that word made an oath binding, see ch. Mat_15:5.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye fools, and blind,.... That argue after so ridiculous a manner, that make use of such thin sophistry, that everybody may see through it; who must be stupid and sottish to the last degree, and their minds foolishly blinded with avarice; as to please and satisfy themselves: with so poor a distinction; that would by no means serve them, but make against them:

for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? The temple, to be sure: for that was the seat of the divine majesty; built for him to dwell in, and in which he took up his residence; and was dedicated to his service, and in it was divine worship performed unto him. The temple was sanctified by the presence of God in it; and the gold sanctified by the temple, being devoted to the service of it: whatever holiness it had, it had it from the temple, and therefore the temple must be greater than that; and consequently it must be most extravagantly ridiculous and foolish in them, to make oaths by the gold of the temple, and gifts dedicated to its service, and on that score sanctified by it, more binding and sacred than such as were by the temple itself.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Ver. 16. Ye blind guides which say] His watchmen are blind, was an old complaint, Isa 56:10. Which that it is a foul fault, the Rabbis have there noted from one letter (in the original) {a} of the word rendered watchmen, bigger than his fellows. How many are there that thrust into the ministry, wanting both heart and art to teach the people? These lead their flocks to the pit’s brink, wherein if they perish, themselves lie lowermost.

Whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple] So by the gift on the altar, Mat 23:18, these, they taught, were tied; the other might for a sum be dispensed with, that swore by the temple or the altar. Not so those that swore by the gold of the temple, that is, dedicated to the temple, or by the gift on the altar; for these oaths brought these blind guides in commodity, which the swearer was forced presently to pay down. The people also were hereby made more free and forward to offer gold for the temple, sacrifices for the altar; because they were made to believe that those presents were more precious than either temple or altar. Pretty devices these were to get money; and are they not still practised by Papists? Philip Brasier was abjured in Henry VIII’s time for saying, that when any cure is done the priests do anoint the images, and make men believe the images do sweat in labouring for them. The rood (falaciousness) of grace and blood of Hales is notorious. Our Lady of Loretto hath her churches so stuffed with vowed presents and memories, that they are fain to hang their cloisters and churchyards with them. They teach the people that as they may sooner go to Christ by St Dominick than by St Paul, so to swear by holy relics, and in swearing, to lay hand on them, is a more binding oath than to swear by God, laying hand on the Bible.

{a} צפיו Ubi Tsaddi est maiusculum. Buxtorf. Tiber.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whosoever shall swear ... - See the notes at Mat 5:33-37.

The temple - See the notes at Mat 21:12.

It is nothing - It amounts to nothing - it is not binding.

The gold of the temple - Either the golden vessels in the temple - the candlestick, etc.; or the gold with which the doors and other parts of the temple were covered; or the gold in the treasury. This, it seems, they considered far more sacred than any other part of the temple, but it is not known why.

He is a debtor - He is bound to keep his oath. He is guilty if he violates it.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Wo to you blind guides. Avarice seems to have been the chief motive of the Pharisees in teaching this doctrine, since they taught that those who swore by the temple were guilty of no sin, nor under any obligation at all; whereas they who swore by the gold of the temple, were bound to pay a certain sum of money to the priests, by which they themselves were enriched. (Nicholas de Lyra.) --- Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing, &c. To understand this obscure place, we may take notice, that a good part of what was offered on the altar, and given to the treasury of the temple, fell to the share of the Jewish priests; and therefore it was not their interest to have such promises or oaths dispensed with. This made them teach the people, that if any one had made a promissory oath or vow to give their money or goods to the temple, or to the altar itself, as it is said ver. 18, such oaths or promises were not obligatory, or might easily be dispensed with. But if any one had sworn or vowed to give any thing to the treasury of the temple, or join it to the offerings to be made on the altar, then such oaths and promises which turned to their profit were by all means to be kept. St. Jerome expounds it of oaths in common discourse; as if the taught the people, that when any one swore by the temple, or by the altar, it was not so considerable as to swear by the gold in the temple, or by the offerings there made: for in the latter cases, they were to make satisfaction according to the judgment of the Jewish priests. And to correct their covetous proceedings, Christ tells them that the temple and the altar were greater than the gold and the offerings. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Our Saviour here showeth the false doctrine which the Pharisees, for their own gain, taught the people concerning oaths. God had commanded that they should fear and serve the Lord their God, and swear by his name, Deu 6:13; 10:20. He that sweareth by any person, or thing, doth two things:

1. He attributes to the thing, or person, by which he sweareth, a knowledge of the heart and the secret intention.

2. He calleth upon the person, or thing, by which he sweareth, to be his judge, or to take a revenge upon him, in case he doth not believe in his heart what he affirms or denieth with his words to be true or false; otherwise an oath is no security at all.

From whence appeareth, that it is unreasonable for any to swear by any other than God, who alone can have a knowledge of the truth, and security of the heart; and that he who sweareth by any creature committeth idolatry in his heart, and in his heart doth indeed blaspheme, paying a Divine homage to a creature, and attributing to the creature what only agreeth to the Creator. The Pharisees, as it seemeth, had taught the people, that it was lawful to swear by the creature, but all oaths by creatures did not bind to the performance of the thing promised by such oaths: if a man swear

by the temple, or by the altar, it was nothing, no man was bound by such oaths to perform the thing for which such oaths were given as a security. But if any man swear by

the gold of the temple, or by a gift which he brought to the altar, these oaths did bind him. By the gold of the temple is not to be understood the golden vessels used in the temple, nor the golden plates with which the several parts of the temple shined; but the gold which was brought as an offering into the temple, and put into the treasury there; of which, and of the gifts, the priests and officers about the temple had a considerable share, which made them equalize an oath by these to an oath made by the name of God itself.

1. Our Saviour here showed the unreasonable folly of the tradition, and calleth them for it blind guides; for in reason, the temple sanctifying the gold must itself be more especially holy, that is, separate for a holy use. The temple was holy, so was the altar, before the gold was brought into it, but the gold was not holy till it was brought into the holy place, and there offered.

2. He lets them know, that oaths by the creatures once made did oblige, as much as if they had been made by God himself. They were indeed sinfully made, for men ought not to have sworn by creatures; but being made, those who made them were bound to perform them, if the matter of them were not sinful. For he that swears

by the altar, swears by it, and by all the things thereon; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him that dwelleth therein; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. For none who sware by inanimate things could possibly be imagined to call these things, which he knew had no life, no sense, no knowledge, to be a witness to the truth of his heart, as to what he believed, or what he intended. So as though he that sweareth by the creature be a profane swearer, yet he is bound by his oath, he indeed swearing by the God of those creatures. He hath reason to repent of the profane and unlawful form of his oath, but if the matter be what he may without sin perform, he is bound by his oath to the performance of it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Blind guides, which say — The next, or FOURTH WOE, is pronounced upon their false dogmas in regard to oaths. See on Mat_5:34-35. Swear by the gold of the temple — The gold here mentioned is not the gilding of the edifice, but the offerings of gold in its treasury.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Fourth woe against evasive distinctions in oaths. Ye blind guides. They were by profession leaders and guides, and yet by their literalism and externalism they lost the true significance of the Scriptures which they taught, and the ritual of which they were the exponents. The Lord repeats the epithet "blind" (vers. 17, 19, 24). Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing. Our Lord seems to refer more especially to oaths connected with vows, of which he had already spoken. (Mat_15:5, Mat_15:6) The arbitrary distinction between oaths was indeed an instance of moral blindness. An oath by the temple was not binding; it might be broken or evaded with impunity. By the gold of the temple i.e. by the sacred treasure and ornaments thereinhe is a debtor (ofeilei); he is bound by his oath. The casuistry employed by the Jews in this matter was well known, and had become proverbial among the heathen. F.M. quotes Martial, 11:94"Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis, "Non credo: jura, verpe, per Anchialum. "Anchialum" is equivalent to am chai aloh, "as God liveth," the Jew (verpus, "circumcised") being bound by no oath but one that contained some letters of the Divine name or some attribute of God.

Vers. 16-22. Swearing.

From the doings of the scribes and Pharisees the Lord passes to their teaching; and he commences with their refinement in respect to oaths. There is no reference here to judicial swearing, or deposing upon oath before a magistrate in the interests of public justice. The whole argument goes to show that the swearing here referred to is the voluntary and gratuitous.

I SWEARING ORIGINATES IN FALSEHOOD.

1. Simple assertion, is the sufficient bond of a true man.

(1) By volunteering more, a man reflects upon his own honour, tie that will not trifle with his word has no need to swear.

(2) By requiring more, he reflects upon the character of his neighbour.

(3) An oath is no increased guarantee for truth. He that can trifle with his word will trifle with an oath.

2. More than affirmation is from an evil source.

(1) It comes from the spirit of falsehood. This is the spirit of the devil. He is the father of lies.

(2) The spirit of falsehood will make lies as black as possible by calling in sacred things to witness them.

II IT TENDS TO EQUIVOCATION.

1. The Pharisees invented evasive distinctions.

(1) "An oath for confirmation is the end of all strife," because it is an appeal to God as witness to the truth.

(2) But the Pharisees made it "nothing, i.e. the oath has no force, or may be violated with impunity, to swear by the temple, provided the gold of the temple was left out of the question. So they made it "nothing" to swear by the altar, provided the gift upon the altar was excepted. Thus their swearing tended to lying.

2. These distinctions were false in fact.

(1) They inverted the order of importance. They preferred the gifts to the altar, and the gold to the temple. They preferred their own righteousness to the righteousness of God, in holding their gifts to be of greater consequence than God"s appointment.

(2) The altar which sanctifies the gift is greater than the gift; so for the same reason is the temple greater than the gold. Note: Gold that touches the altar is more than gold, for it is consecrated to the Divine service. Things are great in proportion to their sacredness. Therefore seek first the kingdom of God.

(3) The value of material things is determined by their uses. A fortune coming to a sot is but a death warrant to him.

3. They are demoralizing.

(1) The object of attaching superior sanctity to the gifts of the altar and gold of the temple treasury was to heighten the idea of meritoriousness in presenting them.

(2) The scribes and Pharisees also probably derived pecuniary advantage from those gifts.

III IT INJURES REVERENCE.

1. It is a breach of the commandments.

(1) It offends against the first and second. An oath is an appeal to God; to make this appeal to a creature is to put that creature in his place. (see Deu_6:13) To swear by anything lower than God is to set aside the Author of truth and faith in favour of a creature.

(2) It offends against the third. It vulgarizes the most sacred things. Too much familiarity with them brings them into contempt. This is an offence which God will not lightly pass over. (see Exo_20:7)

2. It is a violation of the gospel law.

(1) Our Lord is most emphatic in his inhibition of swearing. (see Mat_5:33-37)

(2) Swearing is now, therefore, no longer a thing sacred, but, on the contrary, most profane.

IV IT DECEIVES AND ENSNARES.

1. The guides are blind.

(1) It is bad when the leaders of the people cause them to err. (see Isa_9:16 Isa_56:10) It is bad for the people. When the conscience, by casuistry, is made the ally of vice, the condition of the dupe is hopeless.

(2) If it is bad for the people, it is worse for the guides. Their blindness is worse than ignorance. It is the blindness of a wilful, perverting casuistry.

(3) However keen sighted a man may be about his temporal interests, he is blind indeed if he be unable to discern what concerns his eternal welfare.

2. But God is not deceived.

(1) He will be no party to the fictitious distinctions of men by which they would fain release themselves from the obligation of their oaths. He holds the swearer by the temple to swear by the God of the temple.

(2) "By him that dwetleth," perhaps dwelt, in allusion to the Shechinah, which was the chief glory of the temple once, but was then wanting in the second temple. Taken in the present, the temple with the Shechinah was the body of Christ. (see Joh_2:21) This is the greatest and most durable of temples the "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." Note: Every Christian is a living temple; so common things are sanctified. to him. (cf. 1Co_7:14 Tit_1:15)

(3) "By all things thereon." The substitution of this phrase here for the gold suggests a reference to the sacred fire, and to the ministration of the priests. Appurtenances pass with the principal. (cf. Psa_26:6 Psa_43:4)

(4) All forms of oaths are by God reduced to the true intent of an oath. A man should never take advantage of his own fault. God will be his own witness, and will make the swearer answerable for his oaths. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Woe to you, ye blind guides - Before he had styled them hypocrites, from their personal character: now he gives them another title, respecting their influence upon others. Both these appellations are severely put together in the 23rd and 25th verses; and this severity rises to the height in the 33rd verse. The gold of the temple - The treasure kept there. He is bound - To keep his oath.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

debtor

Or, bound; also Mat 23:18. "guilty:"

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The fourth woe:

v. 16. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the Temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the Temple, he is a debtor!

v. 17. Ye fools and blind! For whether is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifieth the gold?

v. 18. And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

v. 19. Ye fools and blind! For whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

v. 20. Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar sweareth by it and by all things thereon.

v. 21. And whoso shall swear by the Temple sweareth by it, and by Him that dwelleth therein.

v. 22. And he that shall swear by heaven sweareth by the throne of God, and by Him that sitteth thereon.

A typical example of the senseless distinctions that were allowed, because tradition had so spoken. Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees blind guides, such as undertook to lead other people, while they themselves lacked proper knowledge and understanding, Rom 2:17-24. He that swore an oath by the gold of the Holy Place or by the sacrifice upon the altar, things that were sanctified to God, was considered a flagrant transgressor, if he did not consider his oath as fully binding. But to swear by the Holy of Holies itself or by the altar of sacrifice, that was nothing, signified nothing, and was not binding. Small, insignificant details were bolstered up in the interest of human precepts and for the purpose of holding men’s souls by fear, but the fundamental matters were ignored. Stupid, blind fools the Lord calls them, that have no understanding of true values. It is the altar that hallows, that gives value to the sacrifice; it is the Holy Place that imparts its sanctity to the ornamentation; it is God, the King of the heavens, that gives to the throne above dignity and worth. For the Jews, therefore, it was time for the readjustment of values. All oaths are sacred and valid, and it will never do to cloud the issue by man-made distinctions.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The fourth woe which our Saviour denounceth against Pharisees is for the false and erroneous doctrine concerning oaths.

1. They taught men to swear by the creatures.

2. They taught that some oaths made by the creatures were obligatory and binding, others not; particularly they affirmed, that if a man swear by the temple, or the altar, it was nothing; that is, he was not bound by such an oath: but if a man swear by the gold of the temple and the altar; that is, by the gifts offered to the corban, or treasury of the temple, and by the sacrifices and oblations on the altar; such an oath they affirmed was binding, because it was for their profit that the gifts on the altar, and the gold brought into the treasury, should be accounted most holy, seeing that would encourage the people to be more ready to contribute and offer.

This horrid hypocrisy and covetousness our blessed Saviour here sharply reproves, and shews, that oaths made by the creatures, though unlawful, yet being once made, did oblige, as if the parties had sworn by God himself. For he that swears by the temple, swears by it and him that dwelleth therein.

Learn, 1. That swearing by the creatures is no new sin, but as old as the Pharisees.

2. That swearing by the creatures is a great profanation of the name of God, and a mighty provocation to him.

3. That is notwithstanding, if the matter of such oaths be not sinful, they are obligatory and binding. He that sweareth by the creatures, sweareth indeed by the God of the creatures: for, says our Saviour, he that sweareth by the heavens, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16, 17. Ye blind guides. Blind, because they closed their eyes, yet professing to be leaders. By the temple. A common oath among the Jews. By the gold of the temple. In their foolish distinctions they regarded this as a binding oath. If the gold had any sacredness it was because the temple, God's house, made it so.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

blind guides ... blind fools

The Jewish leaders were spiritually blind. Although they thought of themselves as teachers, they were unable to understand God's truth. See how you translated "blind guides" in Matthew 15:14. (See: Metaphor)

by the temple, it is nothing

"by the temple does not have to keep his oath"

is bound to his oath

"is tied to his oath." The phrase "bound to his oath" is a metaphor for being required to do what one has said he would do in an oath. AT: "must do what he promised to do" (See: Metaphor)

Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold holy?

Jesus uses this question to rebuke the Pharisees because they treated the gold as if it were more important than the temple. AT: "The temple that has dedicated the gold to God is more important than the gold!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

the temple that makes the gold holy

"the temple that makes the gold belong to God alone"

translationWords

woe

oath

temple

gold

holy

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

16. ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ. In classical Greek the thing on which the oath is taken is in the accusative or genitive with κατά. (τι or κατά τινος.) ναός, the ‘holy place,’ not as in A.V. the temple.

ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ, i.e. the offerings made to the Temple, called ‘Corban,’ or ‘devoted;’ the use of that word made an oath binding, see ch. Mat 15:5. Tacitus (Hist. Mat 23:8) says of the Temple at Jerusalem: ‘illic immensæ opulentiæ templum.’

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16-22.] The Lord forbade all swearing to His own disciples, ch. 5:34; and by the very same reasoning—because every oath is really and eventually an oath by God—shews these Pharisees the validity and solemnity of every oath. “This subterfuge became notorious at Rome. ‘Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis; Non credo: jura, verpe, per Anchialum,’ = am chai aloh (as God liveth). Martial xi. 94” (F. M.). The gold here is probably not the ornamental gold, but the Corban—the sacred treasure. (This Meyer doubts, because the question here is not of vows. But in the absence of any examples of an oath by the gold of the temple, it is just as likely as the other interpretation.) They were fools and blind, not to know and see, that no inanimate thing can witness an oath, but that all these things are called in to do so because of sanctity belonging to them, of which God is the primary source—the order likewise of the things hallowed, being, in their foolish estimate of them, reversed: for, the gold must be less than the temple which hallows it, and the gift than the altar—not as if this were of any real consequence, except to shew their folly—for, vv. 20-22, every oath is really an oath by God. But these men were servants only of the temple (ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν, ver. 38) and the altar, and had forgotten God.

ὀφείλει, is bound (see Exo 29:37).

κατοικήσαντι (not κατοικοῦντι is remarkable: God did not then dwell in the Temple, nor had He done so since the Captivity. (This may perhaps be so: but grammatically it is hardly probable. Rather should I say now, with Meyer, that the aor. refers to the one definite act by which God took possession of the temple as His dwelling-place on its dedication by Solomon; without any allusion to present circumstances.)

23,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is not valid; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, is bound by his oath.] Cf. 5:33-37. As in that section, the reference is not to legal oaths but to the unnecessary reference to divine things in common life, Kiddushin 71a “by the temple,” Taanith 24a “by the temple worship.”

(L)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.