The phrase "Chair of Moses" that Our Lord refers to in Matthew 23 is without question part of the Jewish Oral Tradition, or "Oral Torah". This phrase alone refutes the heretical idea that Jesus condemned all tradition not written in Sacred Scripture. And he clearly tells His disciples that they have to obey them in "all things whatsoever", no ifs, ands or buts about it. One can only imagine how numerous Protestants would react to this had they been the shoes of the Apostles upon hearing this. What I'm wondering about, though, is how Our Lord condems their tradition of telling devout Jews that if they take a money offering that is supposed to be for their parents, and give it to the Temple instead, this fulfills their obligation to their parents. Our Lord clearly condemns this practice. Yet, according to His words in Matthew 23, I assume that a devout Jew would still be required to obey the Pharisees in this "tradition", even if Our Lord condems it. Am I right, or is there something more to it?
ell, in essence, Matthew 23 is directed to the overall authority of the
"scibes and Pharisees
" themselves – that is, the authority of the assembled Sanhedrin which, in doctrinal matters, consisted of scribal Sadducees/priests (e.g. Matthew 2:4, Nehemiah 8:9, etc.) and the Pharisees themselves, who were lay scholars. All that Jesus is saying here in Matthew 23 is that the Sanhedrin itself is the legitimate final authority of Israel, and this is because it holds the Chair of Moses, with the ultimate authority to
"bind
" and
"loosen
". Ergo, it must be obeyed. However, what Jesus is not saying, and where a distinction between Matthew 23 and Matthew 15 must be made (esp. Matthew 15:12-14), is that the isolated traditions (theological opinions or practices) of any one
"party
" in the Sanhedrin is fully binding on Israel. That is not the case at all. For example, notice how in Acts 23:6-10 Paul very shrewdly divides the Sanhedrin (which was previously united against him) by invoking his belief in the resurrection of the dead – a doctrine which the Pharisees accepted but which the Sadducees rejected, and which had no binding force upon Israel via the authority of the Sanhedrin itself, which maintained it as an unsettled issue. The same is true of the doctrine described in Matthew 15:3-7, which was apparently a Pharisaic tradition (see v. 12-14), and not the official position of the Jerusalem hierarchy as a whole. That is an important distinction. For, what we really see happening in Matthew 15 is BOTH the Pharisees and the scribes (i.e., priest-scribes: Sadducees) coming from Jerusalem (i.e., the Sanhedrin hierarchy) to condemn Jesus and His disciples for not washing their hands (Matthew 15:1-2). However, in response, Jesus does precisely what St. Paul does in Acts 23. He divides the Pharisees from the Sadducees, but pointing out how what was apparently a Pharisaic tradition (Matthew 15:3-7) is contrary to the
Torah, but tolerated all the same by both the Pharisees who practice it (Matthew 15:12-14) and the Sadducee scribes who permitted the Pharisees to practice it (because, as priestly custodians of the Temple, they would get the money that should have gone to supporting one's parents!
Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that Jesus' instruction to obey the Sanhedrin in Matthew 23 frees the obedient Jew from all personal guilt or error, even if he obeyed a Pharisee telling him to follow the unsound tradition of Matthew 15:3-7. The point of Matthew 23 is that, whether they were right or wrong, the Sanhedrin STILL had final binding authority AS LONG AS the Old Covenant was in effect as the ruling Covenant. This is why Jesus Himself is obedient to the Sanhedrin and allows them to condemn Him to death at the hands of Pilate. However, once the Old Covenant was violated and ceased to reign (e.g. Matthew 27:51), the followers of Christ were no longer obliged to obey the Chair of Moses in all things (e.g. Acts 5:29-32), because the reign of Christ and the Chair of Peter (i.e., the earthly vicariate of Christ) had succeeded to the Chair of Moses and supplanted it.
Mark Bonocore
January 15, 2005
his was apparently a matter under discussion at the time of Jesus. It is interesting that the
Talmud later on took up this very question and echoed Jesus' condemnation. Fr. Fitzmeier gives the references for this in his commentary on St. Luke.
But there is also a larger issue here than meets the eye. Making something CORBAN means that it is dedicated to God. In essence the real question is whether our allegiance to God can supercede our responsibilities to our fellow man. The commandment about honoring your parents was the first of the Ten Commandments which did not deal with man's responsibility towards God. Hence it was perceived as the most important of the commandments having to do with our fellow man. If our loyalty to God trumps all human responsibilities, then acts of charity are not necessary for salvation.
Jesus deals with this in several parables. In the Good Samaritan the priest and the Levite leave the man for dead on the side of the road because if he was dead, touching him would render them ritually unclean. In the story of the wicked servant, the man had been forgiven a great debt and so he thought that he was favored of his master and above reprisal so he acted uncharitably towards his fellow servant. In the Prodigal Son, the elder brother thought that his loyalty to his father did not require him to forgive his brother. In the Pharisee and the Publican, the Pharisee thought that he was blessed of God while the Publican was beneath contempt.
Jesus emphasized that there were two great commandments: loving God with your whole heart mind soul and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. What is often missed is that the two commandments are interdependant. Loving your neighbor is loving God as Jesus taught (Matthew 25:31ff). Since every human bears the image of God (Genesis 9:25) failure to love your neighbor is a direct attack on God in whose image that person is made.
The CORBAN question therefore goes to the heart of what it means to be righteous. It is not sufficient to be righteous merely before God. One must acknowledge our obligations towards our fellow man as a necessary extension of our allegiance towards God.
Art Sippo
January 15, 2005
