Matthew Chapter 23 verse 16 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 16. - 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 (Matthew 15:5, 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 therein - he is a debtor (ὀφείλει); 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.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(16) Whosoever shall swear by the temple.--On the general teaching of the Pharisees as to oaths, see Notes on Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 mediaeval 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 Matthew 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.