It was not a break in the Discourse, [5258] rather an intensification of it, when Christ now turned to make final denunication of Pharisaism in its sin and hypocrisy. [5259] Corresponding to the eight Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount with which His public Ministry began, He now closed it with eight denunciations of woe. [5260] These are the fourthpouring of His holy wrath, the last and fullest testimony against those whose guilt would involve Jerusalem in common sin and common judgement. Step by step, with logical sequence and intensified pathos of energy, is each charge advanced, and with it the Woe of Divine wrath announced.
The first Woe against Pharisaism was on their shutting the Kingdom of God against men by their opposition to the Christ. All knew how exclusive were their pretensions in confining piety to the possesion of knowledge, and that they declared it impossible for an ignorant person to be pious. Had they taught men the Scriptures, and shown them the right way, they would have been true to their office; but woe to them who, in their positions as leaders, had themselves stood back with their backs to the door of the Kingdom, and prevented the entrance of others.
The second Woe was on their covetousness and hypocrisy. They made long prayers, [5261] but how often did it only cover the vilest selfishness, even to the devouring' of widow's houses. We can scarcely expect the Talmud here to furnish us with illustrative instances, and yet at least one such is recorded; [5262] and we recall how often broad phylacteries covered fraudulent minds.
The third Woe was on their proselytism, which issued only in making their converts twofold more the children of hell than themselves. Against this charge, rightly understood, Judaism has in vain sought to defend itself. It is, indeed, true that, in its pride and exclusiveness, Judaism seemed to denounce proselytism, laid down strict rules to test the sincerity of converts, and spoke of them in general contempt [5263] as a plague of leprosy.' [5264] Yet the bitter complaint of classical writers, [5265] [5266] the statements of Josephus, [5267] the frequent allusions in the New Testament and even the admissions of the Rabbis, prove their zeal for making proselytes - which, indeed, but for its moral sequences, would neither have deserted nor drawn down the denunciation of a woe.' Thus the Midrash, commenting on the words: [5268] the souls that they had gotten in Haran,' refers it to the converts which Abraham had made, adding that every proselyte was to be regarded as if a soul had been created. [5269] [5270] To this we may add the pride with which Judaism looked back upon the 150,000 Gibeonite converts said to have been made whem David avenged the sin of Saul; [5271] the satisfaction with which it looked forward to the times of Messiah as those of spontaneous conversion to the Synagogue; [5272] and not the unfrequent instances in which a spirit favourableto proselytism is exhibited in Jewish writings, [5273] as, also, such a saying as this, that when Israel is obedient to the will of God, He brings in as converts to Judaism all the just of the nations, such as Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, &c. [5274] But after all, may the Lord not have referred, not to conversion to Judaism in general, but to proselytism to the sect of the Pharisees, which was undoubtedly sought to the compassing of sea and land?
The fourth Woe is denounced on the moral blindness of these guides rather than on their hypocrisy. From the nature of things it is not easy to understand the precise allusion of Christ. It is true that the Talmud makes the strangest distinction between an oath or adjuration, such as by heaven' or by earth,' which is not supposed to be binding; and that by any of the letters of which Divine Being, when the oath is supposed to be binding. [5275] But itseems more likely that our Lord refers to oaths or adjurations in connection with vows, where the casuistry was of the most complicated kind. In general, the Lord here condemns the arbitrariness of all such Jewish distinctions, which, by attaching excessive value to the letter of an oath or vow, really tended to diminish its sanctity. All such distinctions argued folly and more blindness.