Matthew 23:2-4: Does Jesus recognize the authority of the Pharisees and does he endorse their halakhah?

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2003 by Rabbinowitz, Noel S

Despite more than two centuries of scholarship, Matt 23:2-4 continues to vex many NT scholars. How can Jesus command his disciples to practice all that the scribes and Pharisees teach, while at the same time accusing the Pharisees of hypocrisy and of invalidating the word of God for the sake of their traditions? This dilemma leads Claude Douglas to conclude, "Either we must admit that here Jesus greatly exaggerates the facts or else he contradicts himself."1

There is, we believe, a better solution to this seeming contradiction. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that Jesus does affirm the authority of the Pharisees and that for this reason he endorses their exposition of the Torah and their halakhic teachings in principle. This is not a blanket endorsement of all their teachings, but a qualified affirmation of the Pharisees in their role as teachers of the Law of Moses.

I. DOES JESUS AFFIRM THE AUTHORITY OF THE PHARISEES?

Matthew 23:2 is indeed remarkable in light of the fact that throughout Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is clearly in opposition to the Pharisees. he rebukes them for invalidating the word of God for the sake of their traditions (Matt 15:1-7) and calls them "fools" (Matt 23:17), "hypocrites" (Matt 15:6; 23:29) and "blind guides" who lead people astray (Matt 15:14; 23:16, 24).

How are we to square Jesus' clear and unequivocal repudiation of the Pharisees and their teachings with Matt 23:2? We are faced with the difficult but important task of reconciling these two apparently conflicting realities.

1. The "Seat of Moses." Our first order of business must be to determine the meaning of the phrase "the Seat of Moses" ([tau][eta][final sigma][upsilon][sigma][epsilon][omega][final sigma] [kappa][alpha][theta][epsilon][delta][rho][alpha][final sigma]). The precise meaning of the term remains a subject of much debate among scholars. Resolving this question is important, because it has direct bearing upon our understanding of the Pharisees authority and influence in second Temple judaism. If Jesus uses "the Seat of Moses" pejoratively, this weakens the argument that the Pharisees exercised any real, or at least any legitimate, authority within the religious and social life of Israel. If, however, he uses the term positively, or as a statement of fact, this strengthens our conviction that the Pharisees had become the authoritative interpreters of the Torah and that their halakhic decisions were accepted by most people within Israel.

No less than four interpretations of "the Seat of Moses" have been proposed: (1) the Seat of Moses was an actual piece of synagogue furniture upon which authorized interpreters of the Torah sat;2 (2) the expression is a metaphor referring to the fact that the Pharisees had assumed the role of being the Law's interpreters;3 (3) "the Seat of Moses" was a specially designed chair (used as a stand) upon which the Torah scroll was placed when not in use during the synagogue service;4 and (4) the expression refers to the social position of the Pharisees as those who control access to the Torah.5

Davies and Allison conclude that it is impossible to determine what "the seat of Moses" means with any degree of certainty.6 In our opinion, however, this conclusion is unwarranted. The evidence seems to indicate that our first suggestion is correct-the seat of Moses was an actual piece of synagogue furniture upon which teachers of the Torah sat.7 Stone seats, which were positioned so that their occupant sat facing the congregation, have been found in synagogues at Chorazin, En Gedi, and Hammat Tiberias, and in Diaspora synagogues at Delos and Dura-Europos.8

In an important study published in 1934, Eleazar Sukenik identified the structures found at Hammat, Chorazin, and Delos as synagogues and identified the stone chairs found in their ruins as the seat of Moses referred to in Matt 23:2.9 Sukenik later reversed himself regarding the Delos structure, but many within the academic community remain convinced that this first-century structure was in fact a synagogue.10

The discovery of these three chairs, in addition to the two unearthed at En Gedi and Dura-Europos, bolsters our conviction that the "Seat of Moses" was a physical seat upon which the Pharisees sat. While the archaeological evidence is modest, it nevertheless supports a literal interpretation of Jesus' statement.

This view is, of course, not without its critics. Cohen disputes the identification of these stone chairs as physical symbols of Pharisaic authority. He points out that few of these objects have been found and notes that they all post-date Matthew's Gospel by at least 150 years.11 In our opinion, these arguments do not cast sufficient doubt upon the evidence.

All archaeological evidence for synagogues of this period is minimal.12 In addition to the fact that later building projects destroyed many of the buildings from this period, the synagogues of this era were likely housed in unadorned rooms. Moreover, the Seat of Moses, along with the Torah shrine and the rest of the synagogue's furniture, was probably made of wood. It is unlikely that any of these objects would have survived the test of time.13