I’ve performed a couple of dozen wedding ceremonies. Almost without exception, what causes some of the greatest anxiety for the couple is the wedding vow. Couples take great care to choose the right vows or write the perfect vows. And they are often concerned that they’ll mess the vows up. There are few times in our lives when we put as much thought into a few words as we do at a wedding.
We call those words a vow. And in Christian weddings, it’s not just a vow between two people but a vow between two people and God. We believe there’s something holy about that moment when the man and woman pledge themselves to one another. Sometimes we talk about the couple being joined in “holy matrimony.” We describe the vows as “sacred vows.” The couple is being married “in the sight of God.”
Wedding vows are a way of sanctifying that promise which is made between man and woman. To sanctify something literally means to make it holy. To make something holy is literally to set it aside for God’s purposes. The vows are a formal way for us to take a specific relationship and set it aside for God’s purposes. We make a verbal commitment to God that this relationship will be unlike any other relationship. It is sacred. It is holy.
A wedding vow is an example of the way in which we try to sanctify certain behaviors. Through vows we say, “This behavior—getting married—is especially important. So I’m going to invite God into it. I’m going to do in the sight of God. This is something that is sacred.” We sanctify that behavior.
Something similar happens in a courtroom. A witness may be asked to respond to this question: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.” We recognize that giving testimony in a courtroom is very significant. So we sanctify it. In a formal way we recognize that what’s taking place here is taking place in the sight of God and the behavior we are about to engage in is a behavior that is not just between us and others, but between us and God.
I’ll illustrate with this large candle. This candle will symbolize God. Sometimes a behavior is so important that it’s like we want to draw it closer to God. We want to do something to indicate that this behavior is going to take place in the light of God. Thus through a vow, or through being sworn in, we move that behavior closer to God. We pull that behavior closer to the candle. And that behavior then takes place in the full light of the holiness of God.
In our text this morning we find the scribes and Pharisees doing this very thing. We are in our second week in a series called Masquerade. Jesus’ first major speech in Matthew begins in Matt. 5 with what are called beatitudes, statements of blessing. Jesus’ last major speech in Matthew begins in Matt. 23 with what are called woes, statements of condemnation. In Matt 5 Jesus describes what authentic and genuine Christianity looks like. In Matt. 23 Jesus describes what fake Christianity looks like. Jesus contrasts the religion of the real with the faith of the frauds.
Last week we listened as Jesus addressed the spiritual heroes of the day—scribes and Pharisees—and told them that their superficial faith was having a terrible impact on other people. This morning we listen as Jesus addresses another aspect of fraudulent faith: 16″Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. (Matt. 23:16-22 ESV).
Jesus takes up the issue of swearing oaths or making vows to God. Oaths or vows were an important part of the Jewish faith. The word translated “oath” most frequently in the Old Testament literally means “curse.” It indicates that the person making the oath is asking God to curse him if he breaks the oath.[1] In an oath the person was indicating that God was witness to what was being promised and that if he broke his vow, God would punish him. In this way the promise became a commitment to God, not just to another person. This was a way of sanctifying the promise.
Here’s an example of a vow in the Old Testament: 22At that time Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his army said to Abraham, “God is with you in all that you do. 23Now therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my descendants or with my posterity, but as I have dealt kindly with you, so you will deal with me and with the land where you have sojourned.” 24And Abraham said, “I will swear.” (Gen. 21:22-24 ESV). Abimelech wants to make sure Abraham will not harm him so he asks Abraham to swear “by God.” Abraham does. He sanctifies his promise by formally acknowledging that it occurs under the watchful eye of God.
When Joshua goes to Jericho, a woman named Rahab asks for a vow: 12Now then, please swear to me by the LORD that, as I have dealt kindly with you, you also will deal kindly with my father’s house, and give me a sure sign 13that you will save alive my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death.” (Josh. 2:12-13 ESV). Rahab wants to make sure they are telling the truth so she asks them to promise “by the LORD” that they will spare her. Sometimes when a behavior is especially important, we sanctify it. And that’s what oaths were all about.
But because of the way the Pharisees and scribes made vows, they did just the opposite. They didn’t sanctify that behavior. They desanctified that behavior. In this text, Jesus indicates that the Pharisees and scribes are swearing by the temple, by the gold of the temple, by the altar, by the gift of the altar, by heaven, and by the throne of God in heaven. What’s going on? At some point, Jewish worshippers began removing the name “God” from their vows and replacing it with other religious words. Instead of saying, “I swear by God” or “I swear by the LORD,” they started saying, “I swear by the temple” or “I swear by the gold of the temple.” This practice was called kinnuyim. Say that out loud: kinnuyim. Kinnuyim allows a person to replace the name of God in a vow with another word. This was a way of showing reverence for God’s name.[2] Rather than saying the holy name of God, the person could swear by something else that was holy: the temple, the altar, or heaven, for example.
In the South, there is a practice similar to kinnuyim. In the South you don’t’ have to swear “by God.” You can swear on something else. What is it? In the South you can swear “on your mama’s grave.” Instead of swearing “by God” or “so help me God” it is acceptable in the South to swear “on my mama’s grave.” In a courtroom in the South you could probably swear in a witness with these words: “Do you swear on your mama’s grave that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” There are few things in the South as holy and sacred as “mama’s grave.” If you want to make a particular behavior significant, you can invoke “mama’s grave” instead of invoking God.
This is similar to what the Jews did. On the face of it, there was nothing wrong with it. As a sign of respect to God, instead of saying the name of God a person could swear by the gold of the temple or by the gift on an altar, or by heaven.
But what may have started out as a way of showing reverence ultimately became a religious loophole. Because the farther the thing sworn by in the oath was from the actual name of God, the less danger a person faced for violating the oath.[3] You might swear “by heaven” and thus be obligated to keep the oath because heaven is very close to God. But if you swore “by the gold of the temple,” maybe you weren’t as obligated to keep your oath because the gold of the temple wasn’t as close to God. The father the thing sworn by in the oath was from the actual name of God, the less danger you faced for breaking your oath. These substitutions became ways that people avoided sanctifying their promises. They could still sound pious when they said, “I swear by the temple that I’ll have this job done in two weeks.” But because they did not swear “by God,” they were not obligated to keep that promise. Kinnuyim became a way of desanctifying these promises.
Kinnuyim allowed you to have the appearance of taking a behavior and dragging it close to God, close to this candle. But in reality, you were actually doing the opposite. You were taking a behavior that should have been near the candle—making a promise—and you were actually dragging it back so that it had the status of all the other behaviors in your life. Because you swore “by the gold of the temple” instead of “by God,” you believed that behavior was not done in the sight of God and you didn’t have to keep your word. What appeared sanctified was really not. Through kinnuyim they found a way to desanctify behaviors.
I can’t think of any modern practice that is so explicitly hypocritical. However, there are less explicit ways in which we do the same thing. There are ways in which we desanctify behaviors. One of the greatest ways in which we do this to do is through what I’ll compartmentalization. We desanctify certain behaviors through compartmentalization. I’ll explain using three stories.
In 2004, a father named Rob Smitty donated one of his kidneys to a stranger.[4] It was a noble sacrifice. Smitty had noticed that there were a lot of people in the country waiting for a kidney. So, he decided to something. He gave his kidney to a stranger. Why? He said he wanted to make his children proud of him. But his 10-year-old daughter wasn’t impressed. In an interview, Amber said her father never comes to see her and never calls, not even on her birthday. State records show that Smitty has not made child support payments to Amber’s mother in nine months. “I don’t think he’s much of a hero,” Amber said. Smitty compartmentalized his life. He took one area—his physical body—and he dragged it close to the candle. He made a sacred sacrifice in donating a kidney. But he took his family life and kept it far away from the candle. He never called or visited his daughter and didn’t even send in his child support payments. Externally his life had the appearance of being holy because of that donation of a kidney. But in reality he wasn’t holy because he withheld that family part of his life from God.
Mark Galli writes about a friend:[5] I had a friend some years ago who would simply not let Jesus in, at least not all the way. He was a good Christian by all outward appearances. He was a faithful elder in his church and a devout husband and father. He had a reputation for honesty, courage, and integrity. But he once confided in me that he was conflicted about his use of pornography. He said he wasn’t addicted, and there was no reason not to believe him. He could go weeks without indulging, he said. It didn’t affect his relationship with his wife. It didn’t interfere with his church work or prayer life. It was to him a little recreational pleasure that he indulged in now and then, especially when he wanted to reward himself after working long and hard for his company or his church. “I’ve justified it in my mind a thousand times,” he explained. This man had compartmentalized his life. There were several behaviors which he had dragged close to the candle. In many parts of his life he was a good Christian. But he kept this one area, his sexuality, far away from that candle. He did whatever he wanted with that part of his life. He had the appearance of a sanctified life. But in fact he had desanctified his sexual life.
James Emery White writes about Robert Philip Hansen. [6] Hansen was the FBI agent who caused one of the worst intelligence breaches in history. Hansen considered himself a devout Christian. Throughout his 25-year career, Hansen told friends and colleagues that without religion, people were lost. When FBI agents held going-away parties at strip clubs near the bureau’s headquarters, Hansen refused to attend. Thus, when he was charged with spying for the Russians, those close to him were astonished. Friends and coworkers could only guess why a person with such a strong faith would engage in such unkind behavior. One colleague, Philip Shenon, speculated that he “must have been able to compartmentalize his life, deluding himself into thinking that espionage was simply an exciting intellectual challenge that had nothing to do with leading a good, moral Christian life.” Hansen had dragged many behaviors close to the candle. But he kept his entire work-life out of that light. He had all the appearances of being a holy and godly man. In fact, he had desanctified some very key behavior in his life.
I suspect that’s where some of us are this morning. We don’t do anything as explicit as the Pharisees—piously promising to do something and then taking it back because we didn’t swear “by God” and only swore “by the temple.” But like the Pharisees, we take certain behaviors thought ought to be sacred and we drag them away from the candle. We keep enough compartments of our life close to the candle that we maintain the illusion of being sacred and holy. But there are key components of our lives that we keep far from that candle.
I’m going to ask you to do something right now. Look at that small pie-chart we gave you this morning. It’s got 8 major components of life. Look at that right now and identify which of those components you have kept away from that candle. In which of those components are you pretty much just living the way you want? You may appear sacred because the other components are close to the candle. But which one have you kept largely in the dark? Recreation? Spirituality? Romance? Family? Friends? Health? Finances? Work? School? Right now, in your mind, just silently name that area…
Let’s listen one more time to Jesus’ words: 16″Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. (Matt. 23:16-22 ).
Notice what Jesus does. Jesus resanctifies all behavior. First, Jesus draws attention to the illogical reasoning the Pharisees and scribes have been using. They say if you swear “by the temple” you don’t’ have to keep your word, but if you swear “by the gold of the temple” you do have to keep your word. Why? Because the gold of the temple is more sacred and thus closer to God than the temple itself. Jesus blasts that logic. The temple is what makes the gold sacred, Jesus says. The gold of the temple and the temple have equal holiness. Swearing by one is as good as swearing by the other.
But ultimately Jesus puts an end to this type of thinking. He draws us to the image of “the throne of God and him who sits upon it.” Jesus brings to our mind a throne in heaven. God is seated on that throne. And what’s under that throne? Jesus doesn’t say it outright, but it’s clear what he’s thinking. What’s under that throne? All of life. All of our behaviors.
Jesus envisions a new situation. In this situation every behavior is brought close to the candle. God is on his throne in heaven. And he reigns supreme over all of life. All of life is done in his sight. Every piece of the pie-chart is brought close to the candle. We no longer just sanctify a marriage promise or testimony in a courtroom. We no longer try to appear holy by sanctifying one component or two. Now we sanctify all of our behaviors.
C. S. Lewis writes,[7] “Christ says, ‘Give me all. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want you. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don’t want to cut off a branch here and a branch there. I want to have the whole tree down. I don’t want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think are innocent as well as the ones you think are wicked—the whole outfit.’”
It’s time to stop compartmentalizing life. It’s time to stop appearing sacred because one or two pieces of the pie-chart are pretty close to God. It’s time to hand over the whole outfit. Every component. All of life. Jesus did that very thing for us. He withheld nothing. He gave everything. And now he asks the same. Hand over the whole outfit.
We’re going to stand and sing in just a moment. As we do, I want you to think of one area of your life that needs to be brought back closer to God. Getting it closer to God may take some time. But there’s something you can do right now. As a symbol of your desire to move that area closer to God, I urge you to take that pie chart and bring it to the front and place it right by the candle. Bring that pie chart and place it close to the candle as a symbol of your desire to let all of your life be done in the sight of God.
[1] Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (967). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
[2] Craig S. Keener A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1999), 194.
[3] Keener, 194.
[4] Bill Poovey, “Child-Support Issue Clouds Man’s Organ Donation,” The Courier Journal (11-15-04).
[5] Mark Galli, Jesus Mean and Wild (Baker, 2006), 45.
[6] James Emery White, Long Night’s Journey into Day; reprinted in Men of Integrity (January/February 2004).
[7] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperOne, 2001), 196-197.
