Instruction and Inconsistency: Literary and Theological Context of Matthew 23:3
Matthew 23:3 — πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν τηρεῖν, τηρεῖτε καὶ ποιεῖτε, κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε· λέγουσι γὰρ, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσι.
(“Therefore, all that they tell you to observe, observe and do; but do not do according to their works, for they say and do not do.”)
This verse introduces Jesus’ denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, a chapter often labeled the “Seven Woes.” It encapsulates Jesus’ critique of religious hypocrisy: verbal instruction without practical obedience. The syntax of Matthew 23:3 juxtaposes imperative obedience to authoritative teaching with prohibition against imitating hypocritical behavior. The grammar—particularly the use of conditional clauses, imperatives, and explanatory conjunctions—frames a rhetorical structure that exposes the contrast between word and deed. It offers not only moral admonition but a theological commentary on authority and authenticity.
Grammatical Feature Analysis: Conditional Clauses, Imperatives, and Conjunctions
The structure begins with the correlative phrase πάντα οὖν ὅσα (“therefore, all that”), introducing a generalizing principle. The embedded clause ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν τηρεῖν is a present general conditional using ἐὰν with the aorist subjunctive εἴπωσιν (“they might say”). The infinitive τηρεῖν (“to observe”) is its object, and ὑμῖν marks the indirect object: “whatever they might tell you to observe.” This construction refers to their teaching authority, likely referencing the Mosaic seat mentioned in v. 2.
The main clause follows: τηρεῖτε καὶ ποιεῖτε—two present active imperatives (“observe and do”), reinforcing active obedience to legitimate instruction. Then comes the adversative clause: κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε (“but do not do according to their works”), where μὴ ποιεῖτε (present active imperative with prohibition) urges the listener to reject imitation of their lifestyle.
The final clause λέγουσι γὰρ, καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσι (“for they say and do not do”) is explanatory, introduced by γὰρ. It contains two coordinated present indicative verbs forming a rhetorical antithesis that drives home the charge of hypocrisy: their speech is disconnected from their behavior.
Exegetical Implications of the Imperatives and Antithesis
The imperatives τηρεῖτε and ποιεῖτε underscore that even flawed leaders may transmit authoritative teaching—Jesus does not repudiate the Mosaic instruction. Rather, he distinguishes between the legitimacy of the law and the illegitimacy of hypocritical conduct. The verb τηρέω in Matthew often connotes faithful adherence (cf. Matt. 19:17), while ποιέω reflects active obedience.
The clause μὴ ποιεῖτε introduces the moral boundary: the works of the Pharisees are not worthy of imitation. The use of κατὰ + accusative (“according to”) indicates a standard or pattern, which Jesus explicitly rejects. This makes the verse a key text for understanding Jesus’ hermeneutic of the Law: respect for the Torah, but critique of its false performance.
Cross-Linguistic Comparisons and Historical Context
In Classical and Koine Greek, conditional clauses introduced by ἐὰν + subjunctive are used to express potential or habitual action. The present general sense in Matthew 23:3 highlights the ongoing instruction offered by the scribes and Pharisees. Their role as teachers is not denied—what is condemned is their failure to live what they teach.
The closing clause λέγουσι… οὐ ποιοῦσι uses antithesis, a common rhetorical figure in both Greek and Hebrew traditions. In Jewish wisdom literature and prophetic texts, such duplicity is frequently condemned (cf. Isa. 29:13, Ezek. 33:31). Jesus’ Greek here taps into that tradition through pointed syntax.
Theological and Literary Significance of Hypocritical Speech
Theologically, the verse critiques religious leadership that separates instruction from integrity. Jesus does not dismiss the Law or the role of those who teach it, but he reorients the community to judge leadership by deeds, not words. The imperative structure, balanced with prohibitions and explanation, delivers an authoritative pastoral message: listen to true instruction, but emulate only faithful practice.
Literarily, the rhythm of the sentence—imperative, contrastive clause, and explanatory punchline—creates a tight rhetorical unit. It stands as a thesis for the woes that follow in Matthew 23. The grammar reflects the very hypocrisy it condemns: smooth, balanced phrases masking internal contradiction.
Doing What They Say, Not What They Do: Syntax as Moral Discernment
Matthew 23:3 reveals how grammar can embody ethical critique. The interplay of conditional clauses, imperatives, and antithetical statements forms a linguistic parallel to Jesus’ moral vision. The people are to listen—but not blindly. Grammar becomes a tool for discernment: one must distinguish the message from the messenger’s example.
The syntax of the passage serves not merely to instruct but to expose hypocrisy and call for integrity. The grammatical structure itself becomes a vehicle of prophetic critique—demanding alignment between words and actions, and presenting the kingdom of heaven as something pursued not through eloquence but through faithful embodiment of truth.
