And yet the question is not fully answered; for tithes, which Christ places inferior to judgment and mercy, were a part of divine worship, and some part of them was usually bestowed on the poor, so that tithes contained a double sacrifice. I reply: Tithes are not simply compared to alms, and faith, and judgment, but the pretended holiness of the scribes is compared with the sincere and pure feeling of charity. Why were they so ready and willing to pay tithes, but in order to pacify God a, the least expense and trouble? For they did not regard the principal point; and therefore those light matters, by which they attempted to deceive God and men, ought not to be reckoned along the duties of charity.

Matthew 23:23. The former you ought to have done. This is intended to anticipate their calumny; for they might have put an unfavorable interpretation on his discourse, and charged him with setting no value on what the Law of God had enjoined. He therefore acknowledges that whatever God has enjoined ought to be performed, and that no part of it ought to be omitted, but maintains that zeal for the whole Law is no reason why we ought not to insist chiefly on the principal points. Hence he infers that they overturn the natural order who employ themselves in the smallest matters, when they ought rather to have begun with the principal points; for tithes were only a kind of appendage. Christ therefore affirms that he has no intention to lessen the authority even of the smallest commandments, though he recommends and demands due order in keeping the Law. It is therefore our duty to preserve entire the whole Law, which cannot be violated in any part without contempt for its Author; for He who has forbidden us to commit adultery, and to kill, and to steal, has likewise condemned all impure desire. Hence we conclude that all the commandments are so interwoven with each other, that we have no right to detach one of them from the rest. Wherefore it is also written,

Cursed is every one that performeth not all things that are written, (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10;)

by which words the righteousness of the whole Law, without exception, is enforced. But this reverence, as we have said, does not take away the distinction between the commandments, or the true design of the Law, to which those who truly observe it direct their mind, that they may not merely amuse themselves on the surface.

24. Blind guides. This is s proverbial saying, by which he beautifully describes the affected scrupulousness of hypocrites about trifling matters; for they utterly shrink from very small faults, as if a single transgression appeared to them more revolting than a hundred deaths, and yet they freely permit themselves and others to commit the most heinous crimes. They act as absurdly as if a man were to strain out a small crumb of bread, and to swallow a whole loaf.

Straining out ¹ a gnat, and swallowing a camel. We know that a gnat is a very small animal, and that a camel is a huge beast. Nothing therefore could be more ridiculous than to strain out the wine or the water, so as not to hurt the jaws by swallowing a gnat, and yet carelessly to gulp down a camel. ² But it is evident that hypocrites amuse themselves with such distinctions; for while they pass by judgment, mercy, and faith, and even tear in pieces the whole Law, they are excessively rigid and severe in matters that are of no great importance; and while in this way they pretend to kiss the feet of God, they proudly spit in his face.

25. For you cleanse the outer part. Our Lord follows out the same statement, and employs a figure for reproaching the scribes with being eagerly bent on this single object of making a brilliant appearance before men. For by the outer part of the dish he metaphorically expresses the outward appearance; as if he had said, “You give yourselves no concern about any cleanness but what appears outwardly, which is quite as if one were carefully to wash off the filth of the dish without, but to leave it filthy within.” That the expression is metaphorical is evident from the second clause, in which the uncleanness within is condemned, because within they are full of intemperance and extortion. He therefore reproves their hypocrisy, in not endeavoring to regulate their life, except before the eyes of men, in order to procure for themselves an empty reputation for holiness. Thus he recalls them to the pure and sincere desire of a holy life. Cleanse first, he says, that which is within; for it would be ridiculous to feast your eyes with outward splendor, and yet to drink out of a cup full of dregs, or in other respects filthy. ³

27 You are like whitened sepulchers. This is a different metaphor, but the meaning is the same; for he compares them to sepulchers, which the men of the world ambitiously construct with great beauty and splendor. As a painting or engraving on sepulchers draws the eyes of men upon them, while inwardly they contain stinking carcasses; so Christ says that hypocrites deceive by their outward appearance, because they are full of deceit and iniquity. The words of Luke are somewhat different, that they deceive the eyes of men, like sepulchers, which frequently are not perceived by those who walk over them; but it amounts to the same meaning, that, under the garb of pretended holiness, there lurks hidden filth which they cherish in their hearts, like a marble sepulcher; for it wears the aspect of what is beautiful and lovely, but covers a stinking carcass, so as not to be offensive to those who pass by. Hence we infer what I have formerly said, that Christ, with a view to the advantage of the simple and ignorant, tore off the deceitful mask which the scribes held wrapped around them in empty hypocrisy; for this warning was advantageous to simple persons, that they might quickly withdraw from the jaws of wolves. Yet this passage contains a general doctrine, that the children of God ought to desire to be pure rather than to appear so.

---

← 181. Matthew 23.16 · Contents · 183. Matthew 23.29-39 →

Footnotes

1. In rendering the words, οἱ διυλιζοντες τὸυ κύνωπα, Campbell resorts to a circumlocution, who strain your liquor, to avoid swallowing a gnat; and he adds the following note:— E.T. Who strain at a gnat. I do not understand the import of this expression. Some have thought that it has sprung originally from a mere typographical error of some printer, who has made it strain at, instead of strain out.” — The conjecture mentioned by Campbell is strongly confirmed by the earlier English versions. “Blinde leders; clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel.” — (Wyclif, 1380.) “Ye blinde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammyll.” — (Tyndale, 1534.) “Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a camell.” — (Cranmer, 1539.) “Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel.” — (Geneva, 1557.) “Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel.” — (Rheims, 1582.) The coincidence of those versions in supporting the true reading is very remarkable, and the substitution of at for out is more likely to have been the effect of accident than of design. — Ed. ↩

2. “Et cependant ne faire point de difficulté d’engloutir un chameau tout entier;” — “and yet make no difficulty about swallowing a whole camel.” ↩

3. “Plene de lie et de bourbe, ou autrement orde et sale;”—full of dregs and of mud, or otherwise nasty and filthy.” ↩