Delegitimation of Leaders in Matthew 23

Author(s): ANTHONY J. SALDARINI

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly , October, 1992, Vol. 54, No. 4 (October, 1992),
pp. 659-680
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720975

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Delegitimation of Leaders
in Matthew 23

ANTHONY J. SALDARINI
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02167

I. Introduction

Matthew 23, with its seven woe oracles and its charges of hypocrisy
and blindness against the scribes and Pharisees, strikes the liberal Westerner
or ecumenically minded Christian as malevolent and offensive. Because of
the history of Christian antisemitism and because of our proximity to the
Holocaust, accusations of blindness and hypocrisy, corruption and murder,
are not the rhetoric of polite and rational religious discourse in the twentieth
century.
To the historian of religion, verbal and physical conflict between reli-
gious communities, with attendant schisms and persecutions, is normal.
Matthew 23, therefore, is one of many robust and respectable examples of
the less than admirable genre of religious polemic. From a sociological point
of view, vilification and misrepresentation of the opposition can serve to
establish the identity and boundaries of the polemicist's group and weaken
the power and attraction of the opposing group.1 Inevitably, groups which

1 See S. Freyne, "Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew's and John's Anti-
Jewish Polemic in Focus," "To See Ourselves As Others See Us": Christians , Jews, "Others" in
Late Antiquity (ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs; Chico: Scholars, 1985) 1 17-43, and
Luke T. Johnson, "The New Testament's Anti- Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient
Polemic," JBL 108 (1989) 419-41. Freyne understands Matthew's polemic as mainly directed
against Gentile Christians who follow Jewish practices. Johnson contextualizes the polemics
within the stereotyped and accepted literary attacks found in Greco-Roman philosophers and

659

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 660 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

are different from one another have an imperfect understanding of each

other, see each other as strange and judge themselves better (in some sense).
Beyond these generalizations, the Gospel of Matthew presents partic-
ular problems of interpretation. The Matthean author constructed the ser-
mon on the mount in which Jesus instructs the crowd to "rejoice and be glad
when people persecute you" (5:12) and to "love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you" (5:44). He described Jesus, using a passage from
Isaiah (42:2-3), as one who "will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone
hear his voice in the streets; he will not break a bruised reed or quench a
smoldering wick . . ." (12:19-20). Yet this same Jesus is made to denounce
the Pharisees and scribes through a series of parables and disputes in
chaps. 21-22 and then hammer them with seven woe oracles (chap. 23)
which rival (and structurally balance) the eight beatitudes in the sermon
on the mount near the beginning of the Gospel. The sermon on the mount
is an admirable exhortation to a life of love and justice appropriate to
first-century society, while the address to the crowd in chap. 23, which
summarizes and climaxes Jesus' disputes with his opponents, rivals any
polemic in its vitriolic tone and detailed, extreme accusations. Why the
two faces of Matthew? What stimulus and what purpose have produced
this vicious and contorted text?2
Previous interpretations of the attack on the scribes and Pharisees in
chap. 23 have adopted several strategies. Much of the Christian tradition
took the charges to be literally true and justified. Theological interpretations
which addressed the rancor of the passage tried to reconcile the harshness of
chap. 23 with the love commandments, using a variety of rationalizations.3
More recent interpretations have stressed the composite nature of the chap-
ter and Matthew's fidelity to early tradition in order to conclude that Mat-
thew is merely preserving past polemics and not himself attacking Israel.
Such exegesis presumes that Judaism and Christianity are separate commu-
nities, each with its own clearly defined and separate identity. It then treats

Hellenistic Jewish writers. For a more literary approach to polemic, see Harry Boonstra, "Satire
in Matthew," Christianity and Literature 29 (1980) 32-45. For the mechanisms associated with
prejudice and violence, see the classic study of Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954) and the recent study of Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil: The
Psychological and Cultural Origin of Genocide and Other Forms of Group Violence (New York:
Oxford University, 1989).
2 For a different approach to this problem see Daniel Patte, "Anti-Semitism in the New
Testament: Confronting the Dark Side of Paul's and Matthew's Teaching," Chicago Theological
Seminary Register 78 (1988) 31-52.
3 Johnson, "Slander," 421-22 summarizes some of them.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 661

this passage as part of the Christian community's explanation of Is

rejection of Jesus and of the destruction of the temple.4
Our thesis is that the author of Matthew seeks specifically to dele
mate rival Jewish leaders and legitimate himself and his group as th
leaders of Israel, accurate interpreters of the Bible and the authentic
sengers of God's will. The warrant for their claim is, of course, through
life and teaching of Jesus whom Matthew acknowledges as the son of
Thus Matthew writes as a member of the late first-century Jewish comm
who is a follower of Jesus and who is seeking influence and power in or
to establish Jesus' way of life. Since we have no direct evidence indicatin
place in which Matthew was written and only incomplete evidence conce
ing the political and social leadership of the Jewish communities between
and 100, a brief discussion of each problem is necessary. Because the
is written in Greek, the author must have been in a city large enough to
a Greek-speaking population and a substantial Jewish community,
members of which were followers of Jesus. Though Antioch on the Oron
is the location most often defended, it is not supported with a weal
evidence.5 It is just as likely that this city was in Galilee (Sepphori
Tiberias would do well) or in an area contiguous with Galilee (Trans
dan, a coastal city, a city in southern Syria).6 A city within or close to I

4 The most recent full study of this type is David E. Garland, The Intention of Mat
23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979). Garland also holds that the scribes and Pharisee
as a negative example of leadership for Matthew's community. The chapter does accompl
purpose, but it is secondary to the attack on the Jewish leadership. For another attempt to
this chapter to Christian leaders, see M. Limbeck, "Die nichts bewegen wollen! Zum Ges
verständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus," TQ 168 (1988) 299-320. On chap. 23, besi
commentaries, see H. Frankemölle, 44 Tharisäismus' in Judentum und Kirche: Zur Tradit
Redaktion in Matthäus 23," Gottesverächter und Menschenfeinde? Juden zwischen Jesu
frühchristicher Kirche (ed. H. Goldstein; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1979) 123-89; E. Hae
"Matthäus 23," ZTK 48 (1951) 38-63 (also in Gott und Mensch [Tübingen: Mohr, 1965]
W. Pesch, "Theologische Aussagen der Redaktion von Matthäus 23," Orientierung an Jes
Theologie der Synoptiker (Festschrift J. Schmid; ed. P. Hoffmann et al.; Freiberg: Herde
286-99.
5 For a recent defense of Antioch and rebuttal of other positions, see Meier in Ray
E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome (New York: Paulist, 1983) 18-27. Ulr
{Matthew 1-7: A Commentary [Minneapolis: Augsburg/ Fortress, 1989] 91-92) cautiou
cepts the hypothesis of Antioch or a large Syrian city.
6 For a review of positions, see Graham Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of Matt
Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945-1980," ANRW 11.25.3 (ed. H. Temporini
Hasse; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965) 1941, and W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The
According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988- ) 1. 138-47.
is supported by J. Andrew Overman ( Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: Th
World of the Matthean Community [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990] 159) and Eduard Sc

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 662 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

is also supported by the nature of Matthew's opponents, a subject to be

addessed below.
After the destruction of the temple and the death, enslavement, or disen-
franchisement of most of the high priestly and wealthy families in Jerusalem,
the leadership of the Jewish community in Judea was left in disarray. Only
gradually did traditional and new groups form coalitions to gain influence
and power in Judea. In the north, King Agrippa II, who had remained loyal
to Rome during the revolt, continued to rule parts of Galilee, the provinces
east of the Sea of Galilee and areas to the north.7 Local rule probably
remained relatively unchanged. Jewish villages and urban communities
would have continued to be led by their traditional leaders, wealthy land-
owning families, upper-class priests who had not been caught up in the
destruction of Jerusalem, and learned officials and educators employed by
the wealthy.8 A number of groups competed for the highest levels of power
and influence within the Jewish communities in Judea, Galilee, and be-
yond, among whom the most prominent were the surviving priests, the mem-
bers of the Herodian family, and the Pharisees.9
Matthew testifies to the postdestruction ferment in the Jewish commu-
nity. The scribes, Pharisees, priests, and elders in the narrative symbolize
Matthew's late first-century opponents.10 But the precise identity of these
community leaders is hard to establish. The specific agenda of Jesus' disputes
with the scribes and Pharisees suggest that they represent the emerging rab-
binic leadership which gradually gained power over the Jewish community

("Matthew's Church," The Interpretation of Matthew [Issues in Religion and Theology 4; ed.
Graham Stanton; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 129-30).
7 E. Schürer, G. Vermes, and F. Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135)0 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87) 1. 472-73; 477-78.
The extent of Agrippa's domains and the additions made to them after 70 are not precisely
known. He may have ruled lands well to the north of Galilee.
8 For local administration in villages and cities in Galilee at a slightly later date, see
Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212 (Totowa, NJ: Rowman
and Allanheld, 1983) 119-34. These traditional modes of social organization endured with
variation for centuries in the Middle East.
9 Seth Schwartz {Josephus andJudean Politics [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradi-
tion 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990]) argues that changes in Josephus' attitudes reflect the struggle for
political power in Palestine and Roman attitudes toward various social groups among the
Jewish leadership in the latter third of the first century.
10 For the Jewish leaders as a corporate character in Matthew's plot, see Jack Dean
Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 17-23. For Matthew's melding
together of leadership groups, see Garland, Intention, 44; S. Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders
in Matthe w (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 1-6; R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und
Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (BEvT 33; Munich: Kaiser, 1963) 31; Overman, Matthew's
Gospel, 141-42.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 663

during the next few centuries.1 1 The contents and development

Mishna, compiled at the end of the second century, suggest that immed
after 70 c.e. the rabbis were a small group interested in preservin
reinterpreting the practice of Judaism without the temple, not the lead
control of the community, as traditionally held.12 They were most prob
not a sect, as the Pharisees had been before 70 c.e. Rather, they w
coalition of scribes, Pharisees, priests, and landowners seeking to
Judaism in new circumstances.13 The group of teachers and leaders
gathered at Jamnia were not in charge of the Jewish community, as is
claimed in traditional treatments of rabbinic Judaism. The rabbis g
control of community life and the synagogue only gradually from the
to seventh centuries in Palestine.14 It is possible that Gamaliel II, as par
the old Jerusalem aristocracy, and as son of Simeon ben Gamaliel
opposed the revolt, was appointed by the Romans as community lead
because of the patronage of Agrippa II.16 Even if Gamaliel had pow
should not be overestimated.17 In the late first century the very early ra

11 This is the thesis of Overman, Matthew's Gospel.

12 This is the thesis of Jacob Neusner, which has won increasing acceptance.
Neusner's many writings, the following are especially useful for this topic: Judaism: T
dence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1981); "The Formation of R
Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D. 70-100," ANRW 1 1.19.2 (ed. H. Tcmporini and W.
Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1979) 3-42; "Judaism After the Destruction of the Tem
Overview," Formative Judaism: Religious, Historical and Literary Studies. Third Series:
Pharisees, and Rabbis (Brown Judaic Studies 46; Chico: Scholars, 1983) 83-98; "The Fo
of Rabbinic Judaism: Methodological and Substantive Theses, w Formative Judaism, 99
13 See Neusner, Judaism, 230-56 for the contributions of the scribes, priests, and
holders to Mishna. Schwartz ( Josephus , 200-208) suggests that an initial gathering of
judges, and teachers by Johanan ben Zakkai failed to establish itself as did an attempt
surviving high priestly families to reassert their power. In the late first century Gamaliel
descendant of an aristocratic, Pharisaic, Jerusalem family, who was not among Johana
ciples, successfully gathered a coalition of some of Johanan's followers, some upper an
priests, and others of varied background.
14 Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (LEC; Philadelphia:
minster, 1987) 221-24; Schwartz, Josephus, 28 n. 129.
15 David Goodblatt, "The Origins of the Roman Recognition of the Palestinian
archate, M Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 4 (1978)
[Hebrew]. Goodblatt's interpretation is consistent with the portrait of Gamaliel in later
texts, but they do not prove that he was appointed. Even if he was, the range of his pow
responsibilities is not clear.
16 Schwartz, Josephus, 205-8. In chap. 4 Schwartz chronicles the continuing influen
the Herodian house in the postdestruction period.
17 After the Bar Kosiba revolt (132-135), the patriarchal house's power was wea
Only late in the first century did Judah the Prince become the wealthy patron of the rabb
a dominant influence in the Galilean community and the diaspora, probably with some
backing.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 664 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

coalition was, like Matthew's group, a reform movement within the larger
Jewish community. They and Matthew were rivals for influence and access
to power in the assemblies and other institutions of the Jewish community.
Each sought not to form a new sect, but to gather the disparate groups and
forms of Judaism into one fold.18 At this stage of Judaism's development,
neither group was dominant in the Jewish community as a whole, but in
Matthew's city or area the rabbinic group's program was more influential
than Matthew's Jesus-centered Judaism. Matthew's rancor against the leader-
ship indicates that they, not he, had been successful in attracting most of the
people of the Jewish community.
The existence of many groups within the larger Jewish community is
easy to understand. The precise customs and understandings of God, the
Bible, and Israel varied greatly among groups which survived the destruction
of the temple. In addition, local differences continued to exist throughout
Syria and Palestine. Matthew's group was one of these. They were probably
a minority within a larger Jewish community in a Galilean or Syrian city.
They believed that Jesus was the son of God and Messiah, that he had
risen from the dead, and that this teaching was necessary for the well-being
and salvation of the whole Jewish community ("the lost sheep of the house
of Israel" [10:6]).19 The origin, structure, and tone of the attack on the

18 For the synthetic thrust of the rabbinic movement, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Signi-
ficance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism," H UCA 55 (1984)
27-53. The loss of the temple leadership against which sects often reacted and the constant need
to guard the community's integrity probably encouraged unity. Even so, the emergence of a
relatively united rabbinic Judaism as a dominant community influence took several centuries.
19 Matthew's community should not be simply called Christian from a historical point of
view, even though they may be identified as such with theological hindsight. The expression
"Christian Jews" is perhaps most adequate because Matthew's community members probably
identified themselves as Jews, i.e., as Israel. These Jews who believed in Jesus did not yet
consider themselves the members of a separate religion. In this they differed from some Gentile
believers in Jesus living outside Syria-Palestine. Research into Jewish-Christian relations in the
early church has shown that the boundaries between church and synagogue were not fixed and
impermeable. Christians and Jews were attracted to each other's communities all through this
period, even as late as Chrysostom in the fourth century. See Chrysostom's Logoi kata Ioudaiõn,
most recently translated into English by Paul W. Harkins, Discourses Against Judaizing Chris-
tians (FC 68; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1979). Also striking is the
interpretation of A. P. Hayman ("The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti- Jewish Polemical
Literature," M To See Ourselves as Others See Us" 440); "I would like to emphasize . . . Sergius
the Stylitě 's testimony that ordinary Syrian Christians, even in the eighth century, could still not
distinguish clearly between Judaism and Christianity. We can trace this uncertainty about the
exact boundary between the two religions virtually from the emergence of the Syriac-speaking
Church right down to its effective demise as a major cultural force in the Middle East. . . . [The
ordinary laypeople] appear to have taken a more tolerant attitude to the differences between the
two religions despite all the attempts of the Christian elite to create an image of the Jews which

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 665

Pharisees and scribes strongly support the thesis that the author of Ma
is engaged in lively and serious controversy with the dominant lead
group in his Jewish community and that this leadership is strongly influ
or partly constituted by a rival reform movement which was on its way
becoming rabbinic Judaism. Matthew's text is filled with tension concer
the correct interpretation of biblical law and with attempts to justi
particular interpretations of Jewish tradition against those of others.
Contrary to Matthew's aspirations, his group of believers in Jes
still a minority reform movement which has not succeeded in convincin
majority of the community to accept Jesus as Messiah and is incre
being perceived as deviant and marginal.20 His group has lost a power st
gle and is not welcome in the community assembly (synagogue), as is sh
by a number of passages which refer to "their/ your synagogue."21 Mat

would frighten laypeople from having any contact with them." In the late first century
the Christian interpretations of Scripture, nor their modification* ^f biblical law and
nor their community existence and structure could be taken for granted.
20 For a fuller exposition of the relationship of Matthew to Judaism, see Anth
Saldarmi, "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in Galilee," Studies o
in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary; Atlanta: Scholars, forth
idem, "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict," Social History of the M
Community: Cross- Disciplinary Approaches (ed. D. L. Bale h; Minneapolis: Augsbu
tress, 1991) 36-59. Matthew's community might be called a Jewish sect if a sect is und
not as withdrawn, but as a politically and socially active group seeking to change or rep
prevailing pattern of society or its leadership. Classically sects have been contrasted with
e.g., by Troeltsch. For a differentiated typology of sects which stresses their interactio
society, see Bryan Wilson, Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious
ments of Protest Among TYibal and Third-World Peoples (London: Heinemann, 1973
extended analysis of the sectarian characteristics of Matthew, see Overman, Matthew '5
6-34, 141-49. For the nature of movements and movement organizations, see John D. M
and Mayer N. Zaid, "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory,
ican Journal of Sociology 82 (1977) 1212-1241, and Hans Toch, The Social Psychology of
Movements (Indianapolis: Bobbs, 1965).
21 See 4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; 23:34. For an analysis of these passages, see
Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendo
110-11. Kilpatrick shows that the usage "their/ your synagogues" is characteristically M
(The appearance of this phrase in Mark 1:23,39 is textually suspect and may have or
from Matthean influence on copyists.) The Matthean usage probably derives from h
between Matthew and the synagogue authorities. It is commonly held that the expressio
synagogues" indicates the estrangement or total separation of the Matthean communit
the Jewish community. However, hostility and tension do not bespeak separation but
This is contrary to the position of, e.g., G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Unter
zur Theologie des Matthäus (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971; orig. ed
30. Luz ( Matthew 1-7 , 203) says that the Matthean community has its own place outs
synagogue and (p. 88) posits a complete break with the synagogue. Douglas R. A. Ha
Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew [S

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 666 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

does not accept this expulsion as legitimate and so he alternates between

exhortations to endure unjust suffering as Jesus did and Aeree attacks against
those rival leaders who impugn the legitimacy of his and Jesus' teaching and
authority. Against the program of emerging rabbinic Judaism the author of
Matthew sought to establish and legitimate his form of Christian Judaism by
a two-pronged attack, a detailed and lengthy exposition of his outlook and
way of life, and a denigration of his opponents' type of Jewish thought and
practice. It is the latter we find in chap. 23 and to which we now turn.
In chap. 23 Matthew specifically attacks a rival leadership group
through the polemic against the scribes and Pharisees. Both here and in the
other parts of his Gospel, the author of Matthew does not deny the funda-
mental legitimacy of Israel, its law and its community structures, as many
commentators have claimed.22 To do so would be to destroy the basis for his

6; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967] 104-5) argues that Matthew's inconsistency in his
usage indicates that the synagogue has become a separate institution. But community relation-
ships are complex and cannot be covered by the categories "united" and "separate." Two pas-
sages claim that Jesus' followers and the Matthean community (symbolized by Jesus' disciples
in 10:17 and as prophets, wise men, and scribes in 23:34) will be flogged in their/ your syna-
gogues. These passages probably refer to official community discipline inflicted by the Jewish
elders and authorities in various cities and villages on members of the Matthean community.
Paradoxically, the infliction of community discipline requires that members of Matthew's com-
munity be members of that same Jewish community and so subject to its discipline. Hare's
argument that the infliction of punishment was in the past and now the Matthean community
is completely separate from the Jewish community is unnecessary and unlikely.
The view that Matthew's community is the new or true Israel and that the mission to
Israel is in the past and is now closed is usually linked to a salvation history interpretation of
Matthew, specifically the view that Matthew periodizes history in such a way that Jesus was sent
to Israel, was rejected, and sent his disciples to the Gentiles. See Strecker, Weg, 184-88; Rolf
Walker, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (FRLANT 91; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967); Hare, Persecution, 147-48; William Thompson, "An Historical Perspective on
the Gospel of Matthew," JBL 93 (1974) 243-62. It is based on understanding ethnē in 28:19 as
referring exclusively to non-Jews, on a periodization of chaps. 24-25 which associates the
destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the Jewish mission, and on a reading of chap. 10 which
places the Jewish mission in the Palestinian past. For a similar position, see J. Lambrecht, "The
Parousia Discourse. Composition and Content in Mt., XXI V -XW^ L'Evangile selon Matthieu:
Rédaction et Théologie (BETL 29; ed. M. Didier; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972) 309-42. For recent
acceptance of the thesis that Israel has been rejected, see Lloyd Gaston, "Messiah of Israel as
Teacher of the Gentiles: The Setting of Matthew's Christology," Int 29 (1975) 32; Wayne Meeks,
"Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish
Communities," "To See Ourselves As Others See Us ," 112-13, and Freyne, "Vilifying," 123.
Other recent interpreters hold that the Jewish mission is still open, or at least not closed in
principle. See John Meier, "Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19?," CBQ 39 (1977) 94-102;
Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 154; Kenzo Tagawa, "People and Community in the Gospel of
Matthew," NTS 16 (1969-70) 160; and A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimension of
Matthean Salvation History (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1988). Levine argues that Matt 28:19 does

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 667

own claim to legitimacy. Rather he attacks the legitimacy of Israel's lea

by attacking their personal integrity and the accuracy of their interpr
of Jewish law and the divine will. That Matthew's attack on the Jewish
leaders is not a mere preservation of older Jesus traditions or only a way of
solving inner-Christian community problems can be seen in the way he has
structured some early traditions, added his own material, and given them all
an original and striking context. The final product, chap. 23 with its seven
woes, its mocking of Jewish practices, and its exaggerated accusations
against the Jewish authorities, is an attempt to delegitimate them in the eyes
of the whole Jewish community.

II. Legitimation
Before an analysis of Matthew 23, a brief word on the process of legit-
imation and the inelegant neologism, delegitimation, is appropriate. In the
sociology of knowledge, as synthesized and developed by Berger and Luck-
mann,23 society is created and experienced as an objective reality through
processes of institutionalization. The objective and necessary nature of these
institutions is justified, explained, and passed on to new generations by the
processes of legitimation.24 The meanings attached to disparate social insti-
tutions are integrated into a symbolic universe which is a coherent and compre-
hensive explanation for all of life in a given society. "Legitimation 'explains'
the institutional order by ascribing cognitive validity to its objectivated
meanings. Legitimation justifies the institutional order by giving normative
dignity to its practical imperatives."25 Note that knowledge and values are
inextricably linked. First we become convinced of the way things are and
then we affirm certain values appropriate to reality as we perceive it.26
When two groups conflict with one another, usually their irreconcilable
symbolic universes and institutional structures come into conflict. When a
large group is faced with a dissident small group (a sect or heresy in the

mean "Gentiles," but that the Gospel as a whole leaves the Jewish mission open. Hummel
(Auseinandersetzung, 156 n. 72, 157-61) correctly stresses the integral connection and close
relationship between Matthew's community and other Jewish communities.
23 Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A TYeatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1967) 92-128.
24 Berger and Luckmann, Construction, 61-62, 93. Berger and Luckmann effectively de-
scribe the social processes of legitimation at a very abstract level. The neo-Kantian presupposi-
tions of their epistemology are not being utilized or espoused here to draw ultimate conclusions.
25 Ibid., 93.
26 This is not to deny that the opposite process also occurs.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 668 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

religious sphere), it responds by rearranging its legitimations in order to

reaffirm its symbolic universe and institutions.27 It also attacks the other
group by a process called nihilation in which it rejects the other group by
assigning it a lower ontological status, or it tries to explain it away through
apologetics, by accounting for its deviance through the cognitive terms of the
larger group's symbolic universe and by ascribing the disagreement to the
misunderstandings and bad faith of the smaller group.
Matthew seeks to modify the symbolic universe of his opponents and the
theories which legitimate their various institutions.28 Matthew is not denying
the whole Jewish symbolic universe and system, as many hold, but proposing
an alternative understanding of it and its actualization in life. Consequently
he reduces the plausibility of his opponents' symbolic universe by creating
contradictions in it as well as conflicts in the values underlying it, specifically
a different symbolic center (Jesus instead of Torah) and a modified under-
standing of God's will (the kingdom of heaven instead of a nation sanctified
by observance of temple purity, tithing, Sabbath, and festivals). Matthew,
unlike some other NT writers, affirms the purity laws, tithing, and Sabbath
observance which were especially stressed by the Pharisees and early rabbis;
but he reinterprets and deemphasizes them to distinguish his group from
them. Finally, Matthew delegitimates the Jewish leaders and their interpre-
tation of the Jewish symbolic universe and institutions by accusing them (the
leaders, not the people whom he hopes to attract) of bad faith, misunder-
standing of Scripture, malfeasance in their duties, and finally murder. He
attributes to himself and his group a true appreciation for "justice, mercy, and
faith" (23:23).

III. Analysis of Matthew 23

The author of Matthew has taken a brief Marcan denunciation of the
scribes (Mark 12:37-40) and expanded it into a major polemic against the
integrity and authenticity of the scribes and Pharisees, using Q material
preserved in another place in Luke (11:37-52). In contrast to Matthew's
all-out assault on rival leaders, Mark ended Jesus' Jerusalem ministry with
a simple warning against the scribes who desired prestige and honor and yet
devoured widows' houses, a warning which he contrasted with the edifying
story of a widow giving to the temple out of her poverty (Mark 12:38-44).
Matthew has joined to the sparse Marcan material five woes taken from a set
of six found in Q. The Lucan version is probably closer to the source: three

27 Berger and Luckmann, Construction , 106-9.

28 Ibid., 94-95.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 669

woes addressed to the Pharisees and three addressed to the lawyers.2

takes care to separate the Pharisees' interest in tithes and synagogue
the lawyers' concern with public decision-making, leadership, and in
tion. Luke places the denunciation of the Pharisees and scribes within J
journey to Jerusalem in order to illustrate the continuing hostility of
opponents (11:53-54) and to instruct the disciples concerning hypocr
confessing Jesus. By contrast, Matthew amalgamated the scribes and
isees and made them into a symbol for his opponents in his own
community.30
The author of Matthew begins chap. 23 by acknowledging the autho
of the scribes and Pharisees and then undercutting it with attacks o
titles, laws, and intentions and by proposing an alternative model o
munity leadership.31 His introductory acknowledgment of the authorit
the scribes and Pharisees is strikingly contradictory to the argument o
chapter and has long troubled NT commentators: "The scribes and Ph
sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not
they do; for they preach but do not practice" (23:2-3). 32 Even if this s
is a pre-Matthean, Jewish-Christian tradition,33 its use by Matthew mu

29 Luke seems to use lawyers synonymously with scribes. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer
Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.; AB 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-8
Fitzmyer (2. 945) suggests that the lawyers in Luke are Pharisees.
30 In reality scribes were found at every level of society and did not form a cohesive
Some of them were surely officials and teachers and thus had contact and conflict wi
The Pharisees had a program for reform of Jewish society and had won influence and so
power in society since the Hasmonean period. Neither group was in control of soci
Roman government, the chief priests and families in Jerusalem, and Herod Antipas in
had that role. The author of Matthew describes the scribes and Pharisees as lower-level
that is, as just the type of Jewish leaders who would have interacted with Jesus and a
a deviant group of Jews who followed Jesus in the late first century. These leaders had
nized power and status and sought to preserve it by receiving public honor and tit
23:1-12) and by controlling the interpretation of community custom and justice. F
discussion of the scribes, see Anthony J. Saldarmi, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadd
Palestinian Society (Wilmington: Glazier, 1988) 159-66 and chap. 11.
31 The attack on the scribes and Pharisees is made by Jesus in Jerusalem as a clim
his attack on the Jerusalem authorities in chaps. 21-22. The narrative place, Jerusalem,
time of the attack, just before Jesus* arrest, indicate that Matthew is opposing the highes
authorities in their entirety.
32 Note that at the beginning of the sermon on the mount, in which Jesus teach
thoritatively, he sits.
33 Commentators typically assign these verses to the Jewish-Christian stratum of tra
and then depict Matthew as preserving but disagreeing with them. In this type of inter
commentators have difficulty showing why Matthew would preserve the verses and wh
makes of them. See Joachim Gnilka ( Das Matthäusevangelium [2 vols.; HTKNT 11; F
Herder, 1986-88] 2. 271-72) for sharply differing views on the tradition history of 23:1

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 670 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

explained. Why does he acknowledge his opponents' authority and what

authority might they have? In citing this affirmation of the authority of the
scribes and Pharisees, Matthew is acknowledging either the official position
of his opponents in the Jewish community or their influence on those in
power. As noted above, the emerging coalitions seeking power after 70
contained elements of the Second Temple Pharisaic and scribal groups. It
seems that these groups had attained some power or important influence in
Matthew's area. Faced with this kind of competition and especially with a
wholesale rejection of Jesus and his interpretation of Scripture and law,
Matthew attacks the rival leaders and those who have followed them. In one
sentence he acknowledges their power and influence in the community and
attacks their conduct of their office. He levels against them the usual charge
of hypocrisy (w 4-7) and introduces the discussion of a new model of
leadership (w 8-12), which he supports with an attack on the traditional,
institutional forms of Jewish leadership. He moves quickly to an ad hominem
argument, accusing the scribes and Pharisees of failing to practice Judaism
sincerely and of misguiding others away from a correct (Matthean) under-
standing and living of biblical teaching. The scribes and Pharisees are used
as negative examples of how a community leader should act (23:4-7) and
contrasted with proper community leaders who should not use titles such as
"rabbi" and "master" and should be characterized by lowliness (23:8- 12).34
The titles which Matthew rejects for his community, "rabbi," "father,"
and "master," were in common use in the Jewish community. "Rabbi" (lit-
erally "My Great One") had long been a title of honor and after the destruc-
tion of the Temple in 70 was used by the emerging group of teachers who
produced the Mishna.35 Matthew reflects this later usage by proposing
"teacher" ( didaskalos ) as a synonym. "Father" Cabbā ^ was a title of respect
for an elder.36 The Greek for "master" ( kathēgētēs ) means a guide and was
used of founders and heads of philosophical schools. Thus, this title comes
from a Greek milieu and implies the same role as rabbi, that is, teacher.
Matthew uses the scribes and Pharisees as negative examples to define
true leadership. He also denounces them in order to legitimate his authority

34 Garland, Intention , 53-54. Both the attack on rivals and the use of them as negative
examples is common in Greco-Roman polemics among philosophical schools (Johnson, "Slan-
der," 433-34). Attacks on unfaithful leaders are common in Second Temple Jewish writings
(Johnson, "Slander," 434-41; Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 16-19).
35 See H. Shanks, "Is the Title 'Rabbi* Anachronistic in the Gospels?," JQR 53 (1962-63)
337-45; idem, "Origins of the Title 4Rabbi'" JQR 59 (1968) 152-57. See also Schürer, Vermes et
al., History, 2. 325-27.
36 J. Jeremias notwithstanding, "Abba" was not an idiomatic Aramaic intimate diminu-
tive symptomatic of Jesus* special relationship to the Father. See James Barr, "3Abba Isn't
Daddy," JTS 39 (1988) 28-47.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 671

against the more influential or established authorities in the Jewish com

nity. The powers and status of the established authorities are graph
portrayed (w 4-7): they impose burdens, wear special insignia, claim
leged positions, and seek public honor. Against this common Near E
social hierarchy, Matthew forbids the use of titles and the exercise of hi
authoritative roles (w 8-12). Honorific titles are to be avoided because
is the one leader and all his followers are brethren. The members of the
community are to be "servants" to one another. This resistance to hierarchi-
cally structured roles plus the emphasis on equality is typical of sects and
reform movements. All the members have begun a new life together and are
to participate fully and equally in the emerging community. The Matthean
group, which is being rejected by a broad constituency in the Jewish com-
munity, is being forced into the role of a sect which defines itself by differing
from the traditional mode of community organization. Usually, the elders of
established families and officials appointed by the government oversaw the
application of community laws and customs, adjudicated disputes, and main-
tained public order. The members of Matthew's community have been cut off
from their network of family and friends and begun a new, nontraditional
association. Matthew's attack on the established authorities intends to
weaken their legitimacy and to establish the authority of his group and its
claim to be the genuine leaders of Judaism.
Matthew's attack on his opponents in chap. 23 is part of an ongoing
confrontation throughout the Gospel. Here and in many other polemical
passages Matthew exhibits the characteristics of a sectarian group protecting
itself from the dominant social institution and from rival sects. Matthew
attacks the community norms proposed by rival leaders, including several
cited in chap. 23, and modifies many points of law and practice to conform
to the teachings of Jesus and the way of life which derives from his teaching.
Like any good sectarian leader, the author of Matthew claims to have the only
legitimate interpretation of the practice of many Jewish customs, all of which
he interprets in relationship to Jesus.
The immediate literary context of chap. 23 throws further light on the
author's purpose. He proposes to elbow aside the traditional leaders of the
Jewish community and draw the bulk of the Jewish people to Jesus. Chaps.
21-25 cover the period between the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and his last
meal with his followers. This section is filled with disputes and conflicts
between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, the high priests, elders,
and scribes. Judgment against those who reject Jesus and the God who sent
him (on the model of prophetic condemnations) is common to these chapters.
Chap. 24, speaking of the end of the world, deals with the destruction of the
temple and the conflicts which will break out then. Anti-Christs and false

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 672 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

prophets are excoriated with the same vigor as Pharisees and scribes (24:5,10-
11). The deviant Christian Jewish leaders in chap. 24, the scribes and
Pharisees in chap. 23, and the high priests and elders in chaps. 21-28 are
condemned as misleaders of the people. Chap. 23 summarizes the previous
conflict between Jesus and his opponents and prepares for the arrest and
death of Jesus which follow in the narrative. This final public teaching of Jesus
is wholly devoted to a rejection of the leadership of the Jewish community
in favor of Matthew's understanding of Israel's call through Jesus the Christ.
The intent of Matthew is clear: because the members of his group have been
authorized by God and instructed by Jesus and thus have the true interpre-
tation of Scripture and the Jewish tradition, they, not other Jewish teachers,
should be listened to. They, not the established rulers, are the legitimate
guides of Israel.

IV. The Seven Woe Oracles

Matthew's attack on the Jewish community leadership is contained in

seven woe oracles,37 in which Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees seven
times (23: 13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29).38 His opening formula, "Woe to you, Phar-
isees, scribes, hypocrites" (used six times), drives home the contrast between
inner attitudes and outward behavior, a contrast found also in the sermon on
the mount.39 The central charge that the Jewish leaders are insincere and of

37 Woe oracles are found frequently in prophetic literature, either individually (Amos 5:8;
6:1; Isa 1:4; 3:11; 10:5) or in series (Isa 5:8-24). The woe is usually followed by a participle
describing the criticized action or by a noun giving a negative characterization of the person.
Appended to the woe may be a variety of forms, such as rhetorical questions, threats, etc. A woe
oracle is a mild form of curse which functions as a public denunciation. Woes may have been
adapted from wisdom literature. Lief E. Vaage ("The Woes in Q [and Matthew and Luke]:
Deciphering the Rhetoric of Criticism," SBL Seminar Papers 1988 [Atlanta: Scholars, 1988]
603, 605) relates the woes to Greek rhetorical contrasts between appearances and reality and
shows how this type of critique of human blindness and untempered zeal has been transformed
into a polemic which serves to justify Matthew's community.
38 The "woe" in 23:14 is rejected by most textual critics. It is missing from many mss,
interrupts the topical arrangement of the woes, and increases the number of woes from seven
to eight.
39 The sermon on the mount (chaps. 5-7) and the woes against the scribes and Pharisees
are respectively the first and last lengthy public teachings of Jesus. In both, Jesus is said to teach
both the crowds and disciples (5: 1 ; 23: 1). The beatitudes, like the woes, stress the inner attitudes
of the community and the patterns of its behavior. Its members should be merciful, meek, pure
of heart, and peacemakers; they mourn and seek justice; they know suffering, for they are poor
in spirit and persecuted (the beginning and end of the series). The sense one has of this com-
munity is that it is neither powerful nor established. It seeks to make the best of its minority,
deviant status. The reward offered both at the beginning and end of the beatitudes (5:3,10) to

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 673

ill-will and the image of blindness, repeated five times, undercut their
ship authority (see also 15: 14).40
The woe oracles are not a random selection of complaints, but a s
tured series of charges aimed at key aspects of the leadership roles exer
in the Jewish community. The first two woes concern rival interpretat
community identity. According to Matthew, the Jewish leaders both pr
their members from following Jesus' teachings and attract Gentiles to
way of life in the Jewish community, thus frustrating the major g
Matthew's community, teaching all nations to observe Jesus' comm
Matthew charges that his rivals' teachings frustrate God's purpose embo
in Jesus' message of the kingdom of heaven. The next three woes, conce
with oaths, tithes, and purity, attack prevailing interpretations of the
economy, and customs which hold the Jewish community together and
it identity and boundaries. Matthew suggests an alternative underst
and practice of Jewish law. Finally, the last two woe oracles bring to a
the attack against the personal ethics and intentions of the leaders with
charges of lawlessness and murder. Let us look at the import and int
these seven woe oracles in detail.
The first woe accuses the leaders of gross malfeasance: "You shut the
kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow
those who would enter to go in" (23:1). The image of shutting alludes to the
shutting of a door and recalls that Matthew claims for his assembly the keys
to open the kingdom of heaven (16: 19).41 The leaders of the Jewish community

those who adhere to this code is the kingdom of heaven, that is, life under the rule of God rather
than the unreliable Jewish authorities excoriated in chaps. 6, 23, and elsewhere in the Gospel.
They will see God, possess the land, and enjoy justice, mercy, peace, and comfort. This is in
direct contradiction to the society promoted by the scribes and Pharisees which, according to
Matthew's tendentious view, neglects justice and mercy (23:23), places burdens on people (23:4),
keeps cups and dishes pure, but not hearts (23:25), appears just but is hypocritical (23:28), and
kills God's messengers (23:31-32) rather than creating peace and harmony. Thus Matthew
brackets his account of Jesus' deeds and teaching with a vision of a new society (chaps. 5-7) and
an attack on an alternate program (chap. 23). It should be noted that both have succeeded quite
well for almost 2000 years.
40 The term "hypocrite" originally referred to a mask used in the theater. It then becomes
used for insincerity and pretense. It also is used of the misplaced and mistaken zeal of the scribes
and Pharisees (sec Garland, Intention, 96-116). This kind of an attack on the hypocrisy of
Jewish leaders is found in Pss. Sol. 4. Hypocrisy makes it difficult to know the actual commit-
ment of a person to a culture, religion, or system and so it inhibits strong relationships among
people. Hence it is despised. See Hans Mol, Identity and the Sacred: A Sketch for a New
Social- Scientific Theory of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell; New York: Macmillan/ Free Press,
1977) 216-17.
For a complete exposition of Matt 16:18-19 against its apocalyptic background, with
attention to the teaching authority claimed for the community by Matthew, see J. Marcus, "The
Gates of Hades and the Keys of the Kingdom (Matt 16:18-19)," CBQ 50 (1988) 443-55.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 674 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

try to prevent their members from accepting Matthean teaching about Jesus
and thus stand in diametrical opposition to Matthew, who has the keys with
which to enter the kingdom. This first woe oracle contains a blanket charge
which sets the theme for the rest of the attack on the legitimacy and com-
petence of his rivals for leadership of the Jewish community.
The second woe testifies to Jewish success in attracting Gentile members
and attacks the conversion of Gentiles to the form of Judaism opposed by
Matthew.42 In Matthew's view the missionary activities of his rivals threaten
to cut off both the bulk of Gentiles from Jesus' teaching. Since the Gospel
of Matthew ends with a command to preach to all nations, this would
frustrate the commands of Jesus. The author's desperation can be seen in the
hyperbole of his charge: "When [a Gentile] becomes a proselyte, you make
him twice as much a child of Gehenna as yourselves" (23: 15).43 In the view
of the author of Matthew, by moving to mainstream Judaism Gentiles re-
moved themselves even farther from salvation through Jesus than they had been.
In attacking oaths, tithes, and purity rules in the third through fifth woes
the author of Matthew attacks his opponents' views on the law, economy, and
customs which hold the Jewish community together. He had already rejected
the popular ancient custom of taking oaths as inconsistent with Jesus' teach-
ing (5:33-37); though he does not deny the validity of tithes and purity rules,
he deemphasizes the importance of these important boundary-setting mech-
anisms and thus changes the nature of the community. In each case a biblical
law has been actualized in the community through custom and interpretation
and forms part of the recognizable texture of the Jewish community. The
author of Matthew rejects these established customs and accuses his com-
munity leaders of perverting the true meaning of Scripture.

42 Though Judaism ceased trying to win converts during the Byzantine period because of
Christian laws and the development of rabbinic Judaism, during the Roman period Judaism was
very attractive to many members of the Empire (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2 §39; J. W. 7.3.3 §45). Greeks
and Romans admired Jewish monotheism, its strict sexual ethic, and its ritual, especially Sab-
bath observance and synagogue worship. Roman writers parodied and attacked Jewish customs
which were adopted by Romans (e.g., Juvenal, Satire 14). The limited evidence available sug-
gests that synagogues welcomed converts and those interested in Judaism. Male converts had to
be circumcised, and they and female converts perhaps had to undergo immersion (as later
regulations required). Other non- Jews participated in some Jewish rituals and practices. It is
doubtful that there was a recognized, named category of "God-fearers" (or semiproselytes [Acts
13:16,26]), but the phenomenon of Gentiles attached to synagogue communities in some way is
very probable. See A. Thomas Kraabel, "The Disappearance of the God-fearers," Numen 28
(1981) 113-26; J. Andrew Overman, "The God-Fearers: some Neglected Features," JSNT 32
(1986) 17-26.
43 "Child of Gehenna" is the opposite of "sons of Heaven" (8: 12; 13:38), that is, those who
have not and have believed in Jesus.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 675

In the third woe Matthew mocks rules concerning oaths and vows.44
mocking tone stresses what he judges to be hypocrisy and inconsiste
deciding which vows are valid and which are not. In the fourth and fift
he does not reject or omit Jewish laws concerning tithing herbs4
preserving ritual purity in the consumption of food,46 but he relativizes

44 Oaths and vows were very common in ancient society and were taken seriously
the threat of divine punishment for broken oaths and vows was perceived as a present
An oath or vow was secured by a curse on the speaker in case of nonfulfillment. Tradit
an oath (Heb. šěbucá ) was a commitment to do something and a vow (Heb. neder; Latin
was the dedication of something to the divinity and thus a commitment not to use or
from it. However, the two were often used interchangeably. Both Greek and later t
literature testify to the variety of oaths and vows sworn by all classes of people. Great eff
expended on (1) preserving the sanctity and seriousness of oaths; (2) preventing people
swearing frivolous oaths or making imprudent vows; and (3) distinguishing valid from
vows. Some of the distinctions Matthew mocks, e.g., between a vow by the temple (see
1.3 for this oath) or by the gold of the temple, are found in other literature (e.g., an oath
by the king is distinguished from one by the life of the king [Sipre Num. 153]). The rea
these distinctions are often unknown, except that some less sacred object might be
preserve the sanctity of the more sacred. In rabbinic literature these substitute oaths a
handles. See Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Man
Jewish Palestine in the II-IV Centuries (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942)
45 A tithe is one-tenth (or some other determinate portion) of produce, animals, m
etc., which is to be given to the god, usually through a temple. Biblical tithes were on grain
oil, fruit, and animals (Deut 14:22-23; Num 18:12; Lev 27:30). The Mishna, like M
reflects an expansion of tithing to include all growing things, including vegetables and her
Afacas. 1.1). "Mint, dill, and cummin" are herbs used as spices in food. Dill and cummin
also used for medicinal purposes. Tithing of dill is mentioned in the later m. Ma^as. 4.5.
is transliterated into Greek from Hebrew (Isa 28:25). Matthew selected three commonly
herbs. See D. Correns, "Die Verzehntung der Raute. Lk xi 42 and M. Schebi ix 1," NovT
110-12. Tithes were a form of tax to support the temple, and through it the central govern
institutions of Israel. The rules for tithes found in the Bible show evidence of developm
change in tithing practices (Leviticus 6-7; Numbers 18; Deuteronomy 18). The latest
redaction reflects postexilic practices when there was no king to support the temple and
and when the Levites had been subordinated to the priests. In the Hasmonean and
periods the Pharisees made scrupulous tithing of their food a distinctive characteristic
program for reform, testifying to general laxity in this area (as is often the case in the pa
of taxes). The Mishna Order on Agriculture continued the Pharisees* interest in tit
devoting ten treatises to working out ambiguities in the rules for tithing. Paying tithe
not be pictured as a pious religious practice. Tithes were a tax used to support the
religious and political institution of Israel, the temple, and its priests. Both the Pharisaic
of tithing and the early Christian (and Jesus*?) deemphasis on tithing were fraught w
nomic and political consequences for Jewish society. The Pharisees desired a strong tem
an anchor for Jewish identity and society. The early Christian communities were in conflic
the leaders and institutions of Judaism.
46 Disputes over the ritual cleanliness of the outside and inside of cooking and eating
dishes and utensils and over the various sources of impurity were based on biblical injunctions

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 676 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

importance and changes their meaning. The contributing of tithes to the

temple, even on herbs, is affirmed but subordinated to "the weightier matters
of the law, justice and mercy and faith." The ritual cleanliness of cups and
plates remains a valid concern, but it is subordinated to the contrast of the
inner and outer human being and the cleansing of the inner self from extortion
and intemperance. Matthew's distinction of inner and outer and adjudication
of more and less important laws viciously caricatures and attacks the self-
understanding of one type of Judaism. He proposes "justice, mercy, and faith"
as central criteria for community membership, ignoring the fact that all
first-century Jewish sects and movements supported these virtues in their own
ways. The Pharisees and early rabbis stressed the purity laws as a way of
articulating Israel's sanctifying relationship with God and supporting the
community's commitment to "justice, mercy, and faith." Matthew is not only
arguing fine points of Jewish law, but rejecting the fabric of his opponents'
interpretation of their common tradition. He also accuses the established
leaders of bad faith and lack of integrity.
The sixth woe uses the contrast between the inside and outside of tombs
to charge the scribes and Pharisees with hypocrisy and lawlessness.47 The
charge of lawlessness against the scribes and Pharisees who interpret, create,
and promote a distinctive set of Jewish laws is noteworthy. They are accused

(Lev 11:29-35; 15:1-12; Num 31:19-24). According to J. Neusner ("'First Cleanse the Inside':
Halakhic Background of a Controversial Saying," NTS 22 [1976] 486-95), the earliest layer of
the Mishna contains a dispute over distinguishing the outer part of a dish or cup from the inner
part and the handles; the schools of Hillel and Shammai are presented as disagreeing about
whether the inside and outside could affect one another (m. Kelim 25. 1 , 7-8). Thus Matthew is
taking a position on a live first-century controversy, not just making a metaphoric point.
47 Since contact with corpses and tombs was a source of ritual impurity (Num 6:6; 19: 16),
the later Mishna says that graves were marked with whitewash, especially at times of feasts, so
that people would not stray over them and become ritually unclean (m. Ma^as. S. 5.1; m. Šeqal.
1.1). The suggestion that decorated ossuaries are being referred to is less probable. The white-
washing of tombs and the building of monuments to the dead are two elements of Jewish
funerary practices. Each culture has rituals and customs for dealing with the death of loved ones,
the disposal of the corpse and the remembrance of those who have died. Because the corpse was
considered ritually impure, burial took place the day of death. Burial in trench or shaft graves
was the common mode of burial; it is these types of graves which had to be marked by white-
washed stones so that people would not walk on them and contract ritual impurity. Another
common form of burial in the first century was cave burial; usually the body was placed in a
wall niche; after the flesh had decayed, the bones were gathered in a box (ossuary). The famous
or wealthy deceased might be buried in a stone sarcophagus or in a monumental tomb, such as
those found in the Kedron Valley east and south of Jerusalem. Though these tombs are Hel-
lenistic and Roman, they were preceded by tombs to kings and prophets referred to by Matthew.
For a later but similar use of inside-outside imagery, see b. Ber. 28a concerning genuine and false
rabbinical students.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 677

of lawlessness because in the eyes of the Matthean community they

discern and do the true will of God.48
The hypocrisy and lawlessness, symbolized by the grave full of bones and
uncleanness in the sixth woe oracle, come to full flower in the seventh woe.
The scribes and Pharisees build tombs to prophets and martyrs whom they
(through their ancestors) killed.49 This charge leads to a prophetic and
apocalyptic judgment oracle (w 32-36) which foreshadows Jesus' death and
predicts the persecution of his followers. The references to the blood of Abel
and Zechariah condemn all the unjust killings in the whole of biblical history
and compare the deaths and persecution of these just and faithful prophets,
priests, and leaders to the fate of Jesus and his followers.50 The charge of
killing the prophets functions like the historical reviews in apocalypses, as a
preparation for divine intervention and judgment to bring evil to an end. The
final verse (36) warns of imminent judgment, as do the apocalypses. As in
many apocalypses, the leaders of the community come in for special con-
demnation since they have failed to lead the people in the correct direction.

48 The Greek word anomia means literally "lawlessness" but in its various forms connotes
wickedness and godlessness and generally the opposite of justice. For example, those who do not
do the will of God are designated, in the words of Ps 6:9, "doers of lawlessness" (cf. Matt 7:23).
G. Barth ("Matthew's Understanding of the Law," in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held,
TYadition and Interpretation in Matthew [NTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 159-64) held
that Matthew was polemicizing against antinomian Christians. This view has been effectively
refuted by A. Sand ("Die Polemik gegen die Gesetzlosigkeit' im Evangelium nach Matthäus
und bei Paulus," BZ 14 [1980] 112-25) and J. E. Davison (" Anomia and the Question of an
Antinomian Polemic in Matthew," JBL 104 [1985] 617-35). Davies and Allison {Matthew, 1.
718-19) stress the eschatological dimensions of this word and Overman ( Matthew's Gospel, 98)
associates its Matthean usage with the sectarian language in Matthew. Matthew accuses of
anomia those who do not do God's will and who are not bearing fruit (7:21-23).
49 The mention of tombs links this woe oracle with the previous one. Tombs in honor of
leaders and heroes were common. For David's tomb, see Josephus, Ant. 7 §393-94; 16 §179-83.
The prophets and the righteous (Matt 13:17) designate those who are faithful to God and are
likely to be persecuted and killed (Matt 23:30). Matthew's apocalyptic heightening of Jesus'
death has the tombs of the "saints" opening and the saints walking about (27:52).
50 Abel is the first "martyr" and Zechariah, who is associated with prophets, is the "last"
in the Bible (2 Chr 24:20-22). Abel is designated as just ( dikaios ). The identity of Zechariah has
long been a problem. The text says "Zechariah son of Berachiah," one of the minor prophets
(Zech 1:1), but Matthew probably means to refer to Zechariah son of Jehoiada, the priest (2 Chr
24:20) who along with the prophets (2 Chr 24: 19) opposed the leaders' and people's idolatry. By
the king's order he was stoned in the court of the temple (2 Chr 24:21). Matthew may also have
had in mind Zechariah son of Baris, murdered by two Zealots in the temple during the Roman
War (Josephus, J.W 4 §334-44). For the use of this theme in early Christian literature, see O.
H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überliefer-
ung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Tkstament, Spätjudentum und Urchrist-
entum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener V., 1967). For later Jewish interpretations
see S. H. Blank, "The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature," HUCA 12-13 (1937-38)
327-46.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 678 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

The ironic curse "Fill up the measure of your fathers" may also point in the
same direction. "Fulfill" ( plêroõ ) is used often by Matthew to describe Jesus'
relation to the Bible and Jewish history and to legitimate his views and
standing on the basis of the Bible. Here he uses the same word to reject the
legitimacy of the Jewish leaders.
The climactic seventh woe oracle with its accusation of murder against
the scribes and Pharisees reflects Matthew's view that the Jewish leaders
convinced the people to reject Jesus (27:20) and have continued to influence
them to reject his followers. The disciplinary measures taken against the
Jewish leaders who have accepted Jesus (the prophets, wise men, and
scribes),51 namely, scourging and expulsion (23:34), fit synagogue practice
and were mentioned previously by Matthew (10: 17). Local communities were
normally given broad responsibility for their own internal affairs, including
keeping order, adjudicating disputes, punishing crimes, and maintaining
community customs and laws. Paul received thirty-nine lashes at the hands
of synagogue authorities (2 Cor 1 1:24).52 Matthew links these common disci-
plinary measures to the death of Jesus by accusing the scribes and Pharisees
of also killing and crucifying the messengers of Jesus, a charge which is
historically improbable but symbolically powerful.

V. Conclusion

Matthew's vitriolic tone and numerous, detailed accusations suggest

strongly that he was attacking the Jewish leaders in his city. These leaders
had disciplined and finally expelled from their assembly (synagogue) Mat-
thew and other followers of Jesus. Matthew attacked them in order to legi-
timate his teaching and status and to delegitimate theirs in the eyes of his
followers and hopefully the whole Jewish community. The position of some
scholars, that Matthew's community had no dealings with the Jewish com-
munity and merely used earlier polemic materials, is unlikely. The construc-
tion of this long and sophisticated attack bespeaks strong and immediate
provocation. The expulsion of Matthew's community from the synagogue
would not have ended the conflict. The dispute was not about private reli-
gious preference, but public control of society. Community leaders had wide

31 The author is referring to the missionaries and teachers of his own movement when he
speaks of prophets, wise men, and scribes. His community uses traditional terms for its officials,
but not rabbi, master, and teacher, rejected earlier in the chapter (w 8-12). Matthew contrasts
Jewish scribes in the seven woes to true scribes. See the earlier rejection of "their scribes" (7:29)
and praise of the scribe trained for the kingdom (13:52).
32 Deut 25:3 limits lashes to forty; in order not to exceed this number, one less lash was
given (see m. Mak. 3:10).

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW 23 679

powers to regulate society and the members of Matthew's community

dissident Jewish troublemakers who had to be disciplined. Matthe
assembly ( ekklēsia ) responded by seeking recognition as legitimate te
of Judaism and as faithful leaders of the community.
The frequency of pejorative epithets like "hypocrite" and "blin
smirches the morality of the scribes and Pharisees, undermines their
ity, and leads to the ironic charge that they are "lawless" (v 28), t
opposite of what they claim to be. The charge that they are murderer
prophets and righteous (w 30-31,35) seeks to explain and condem
persecution of Matthew's community (v 34) and subvert their legitima
sarcastic command to "fill up (fulfill) the measure of your fathers" co
their way of life with the Christian Jewish way of life which, accord
Matthew, fulfills Scripture. This sarcastic command followed by the t
in v 36, the lament in w 37-39, and the eschatological discourse (chaps.
all invoke eschatological judgment as the final resolution of the con
The "success" of Matthew's polemic can be measured by the m
English use of the word "Pharisee" to mean hypocrite. Such polem
"normal" in religious and political disputes. Matthew's epithets and
find many parallels in political and religious circles throughout h
Dissidents and sects deviate and finally are driven out or break aw
the larger, "normative" community, claiming to be the true guardians
tradition and attacking the dominant power as evil, misleading, and a
Why then the apparent twosidedness of Matthew: his instruction t
one's enemies and persecutors and his excoriation of the Jewish comm
leaders? Matthew's community can love its enemies if they are far
near at hand. That is, if the oppressors are the officials of the Em
community can, and has no choice but to, patiently suffer misunderst
and hostility while waiting for divine vindication. If the enemies are
hand, that is, members of the group who believe in Jesus, then expre
of love rather than hostility may effect a reconciliation (chap. 18).
leaders of the Jewish community fall between these two neat categor
are close to Matthew and have effective authority over all Jews, i
those who believe in Jesus. Matthew's group is still functionally Jewis
after it has been expelled from the public assembly. The blame for the
is placed by Matthew on the leaders and spokespersons of the Jewi
munity, represented by the scribes and Pharisees. They have led the J
community to reject Jesus' teachings and followers by disputing Matt
interpretation of Scripture, law and the divine will. So, it is on them
author's anger and judgment fall. Note that the author continues to di
with these leaders , arguing harshly concerning concrete Jewish l
customs about which they disagree. Note also that the author of M
does not call for their death (as some antisemitic Christians have

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 680 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 54, 1992

centuries following). As the Matthean attack reaches its climax at the end of
chap. 23, divine apocalyptic judgment, expounded at length in the following
two chapters, is invoked; no hostile action is taken by rival community leaders
against each other.
As many have noted with distaste in recent years, Matthew's anti-Jewish
rhetoric is dangerous and needs careful interpretation in a post-Holocaust
world. This is true. However, careful study of this chapter reveals that the
author of Matthew focuses his attacks on the Jewish community leaders with
precision, taking issue with laws, leaders, and institutional structures which
threaten his views and practices, in order to delegitimate the established
Jewish leaders from whom he has broken and to establish securely his own
legitimacy on the basis of Jesus' teachings as an authentic interpreter of God's
will and community leader. The rhetoric is harsh, but the argument is Jewish
and serious.

This content downloaded from

89.79.141.151 on Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:13:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms