Have you ever been accused of breaking the law? I know for a fact that you have. When that accusation comes from the lips of men, it may sting like a gun-shot wound. When it comes from a police detective, a district attorney or a judge, it may feel like a ton of bricks. But what is more important is that you have been accused of breaking the Law by God Himself. If you are saint, you heard that accusation down in the depths of your heart, spoken by the Holy Spirit. And if you have not heard that accusation, then I am reasonably sure that you are not a child of God. Before someone can be saved, he must know that he is unsaved. Have you ever heard that you have broken the Law of God? Amen, and praise the Lord.

Very sadly, and very unjustly, there were people saying that Jesus of Nazareth had broken God’s law. They will be saying that throughout His life and for a variety of reasons, none of which were true. Through the miracle of the virgin birth, He came into this world without sin in His heart, or His soul or veins. And throughout His life, He never even came close to transgressing a single principle of the moral law. Not in deed, thought or imagination. And yet the accusations still flew around Him, simply because some wanted Him to die. And others said it simply because they misunderstood either Christ – or the Law – or both. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” The Son of God became incarnate, proving to us all, what perfect righteousness really was. “He did no sin, not so much as even to speak a word of misdirection or deceit.” And He became incarnate, so that the demands of the Law could be laid upon Him – in same way that the High Priest laid his hands on the sacrificial goat, imputing Israel’s sins to the sacrifice, and receiving the innocence, or righteousness, of the animal on behalf of the nation.

After that introduction, Christ Jesus essentially says that He expects His disciples to be like Himself, as much as our sinful natures will allow. “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” It appears to me that this is a reference to some future, eternal aspect of the kingdom of Heaven. If you like, you may think of it as “Heaven.” If your righteousness doesn’t exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, “ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” The word “exceed” refers to “going above and beyond.” Robertson, a Greek expert, says that the word speaks about overflowing like the Jordan River flooding.

At this point, there is a serious danger of soul-damning heresy. It is easy to take Jesus’ words and teach that it is by obedience to the Law of God that souls enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Mind you, your obedience and personal righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, but some say that if you are really, really good – awfully, awfully good, then by your obedience you’ll be promoted to angelic status – or something like that. But dozens of other scriptures remind us that no matter how good our personal righteousness might be, it will never be good enough for the Holy God. All of the best of our personal righteousnesses are as filthy rags before the eyes and nostrils of God. In order to really exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, we must have God’s righteousness imputed to us. Humanly speaking, by repentance and faith, we lay our best and worst upon Christ, and the righteousness of Christ is, by the grace of God, wrapped around us. As the Lord Jesus says in another place, “Ye must be born again.”

But this doesn’t explain why we read, “except your righteousness exceed” that of the scribes and Pharisees. Apparently, the Lord still demands that we live a more holy life than the great separatists of Jesus’ day. Even though we are saved by grace through faith, we are still expected to be outwardly righteous. And the standard of that righteousness is God’s moral law.

Does your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees?

Generally speaking the Pharisees believed Moses’ Law but with one of several interpretations of that Law. To many of them the Oral Law was more important than written Deuteronomy, because the Oral law made the general precepts more practical. Because there were various editions of the Oral Law, some Pharisees were more strict than others. We could spend considerable time examining some of the details of their Pharisaic righteousness, but it is easier just to think about what Christ said of them in Matthew 23. For example, they wore the outward indications of their religion – fringes on their clothing AND phylacteries. Phylacteries were boxes, often strapped to their arms or their foreheads, in which Hebrew scriptures were written and stored. Apparently some Pharisees made them as big and obvious as possible, to declare to the world that they were extremely holy people. They elevated their rabbis to almost divine status. They attacked widows and orphans unmercifully applying the laws about debt and foreclosure. They tithed on the most minute things which came into their lives; things like grains of salt and spices. Their application of the Sabbath laws reached ridiculous proportions – never intended by God.     Their observance of the Sabbath didn’t just set them apart from the nations. It made them ridiculous and obnoxious. And their fear of contamination put them in the camp of the very worst obsessive compulsive. But essentially it was all outward; for show, for status. As we shall see, if the Lord gives us the time, Matthew 23 condemns these people and these attitudes to the nth degree.

And still, the Saviour says that our righteousness must exceed theirs. What if we really, really try hard to live more perfectly than the most perfect of the Pharisees? From what I have read, having never met any of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, I don’t think that any of us could live more religiously than they did. There is a family of hard-line, traditional Roman Catholics, up the street from where we live. From what I have seen they are about as religious and Catholic as humanly possible. They are the people, whom I’ve mentioned who have not one, but two, statues of Mary in their front yard, and if I’m not mistaken they have a recessed, lighted shrine to her in their living room as well. They dress as conservatively, or even more conservatively and religiously, as anyone in our church. But they are not the best of neighbors, and their idolatry tells me that they are certainly not Christians. If there are Pharisees in our world today, that family would be among them. In some ways they are far more religious than any of us – but that is not what God wants. The only one way that our righteousness could exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees or my neighbors, is if it were handed to us from God. And, amen, that is what we have in salvation. “Ye must be born again.”

In that light what is that Christ is telling us in verse 19?

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Despite the ease with which I was able to make my earlier statement – Ye must be born again, because your outward righteousness will never be greater than the Pharisees – Verse 19 contains a lot of mystery and confusion – at least to me.

Is the Kingdom of Heaven in this verse the same as it is in the next verse? As I’ve said, in the Kingdom of Heaven in verse 20 appears to me to be “Heaven,” “Glory,” the future. “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” But most of the respected experts say that the kingdom of verse 19 is referring to today’s rule of Heaven over earth, and I lean towards agreement without really having any strong arguments to defend myself. “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, he shall be considered to be little and maybe even worthless by God and God’s holy people.” That is a terribly serious statement. (By the way, notice that the Lord refers to doing and then to teaching – or not doing and then to teaching. In Matthew 23, that was one of His criticisms of those people – “They say, and do not”).

In order to understand this, we have to understand what it is to “break the least of these commandments.” Some people think that when Jesus said, “these least commandments” He stressed the word “these.” They say that Christ was thinking about the beatitudes. But the beatitudes are not expressed as commandments. This interpretation is wrong. Others say, for reasons beyond me, that Jesus was speaking of the New Testament. Wrong again. Isn’t it obvious that He was still talking about the law which He brought up in verse 17? “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Our Saviour is saying that He expects us to keep and teach the Old Testament Law – as it was meant to be kept and taught.

But please notice that He clearly says that some of the commandments are “littler” than others. Some are not as important, or perhaps we should say, they do not apply to us the same way that they applied to Israel. Many of Moses’ commands, such as circumcision, dietary laws, phylacteries, long forelocks, the Sabbath laws and some ceremonies were designed to set that nation apart from the rest of world. Their importance and relationship to us, are not the same as it was to them. Most of the ceremonial laws, even though they have things to teach us today, are now among the “least” of the commandments. And Paul clearly tells us that the man who strives to by saved by them is condemning his own soul.

“Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments … shall be … least in the kingdom of heaven.” What is it to “break” these commandments whether little or great? Here we get into some interesting subject matter. The Greek word is translated in descending order “loose,” “break,” “unloose,” “destroy” and “dissolve.” As you think about these words, the idea doesn’t seem to be either the inadvertent or even the deliberate choice of doing something contrary to God. The idea is that of erasing these edits of God from the stone tablets themselves. With Jesus’ denial that He had come to destroy the law still in the ears of the disciples, He pointed toward the Pharisees – implying that is exactly what they do.

John Gill, spent a few lines of ink describing one of the precepts of the Pharisees. “However gross and absurd this may seem to be, that there should be any such teachers, and they should have any hearers, yet such there were among the Jews; and our Lord here manifestly strikes at them: for notwithstanding the great and excellent things they say of the law, yet they tell us, that the doctors of the sanhedrim had power to root anything out of the law; to loose or make void any of its commands, for a time, excepting in the case of idolatry; and so might any true prophet, or wise man; which they pretend is sometimes necessary for the glory of God, and the good of men; and they are to be heard and obeyed, when they say, transgress anyone of all the commands which are in the law. Maimonides says, that the sanhedrim had power, when it was convenient, for the time present, to make void an affirmative command, and to transgress a negative one, in order to return many to their religion; or to deliver many of the Israelites from stumbling at other things, they may do whatsoever the present time makes necessary: for so, adds he, the former wise men say, a man may profane one sabbath, in order to keep many sabbaths. And elsewhere he affirms, “if a prophet, whom we know to be a prophet, should order us “to transgress anyone of the commands”, which are mentioned in the law, or many commands, whether light or heavy, for a time, we are ordered to hearken to him; and so we learn from the former wise men, by tradition, that in everything a prophet shall say to thee transgress the words of the law” … hear him, except in the case of idolatry.” And another of their writers says, “it is lawful sometimes to make void the law, and to do that which appears to be forbidden.” Nay, they even say, that if a Gentile should bid an Israelite transgress anyone of the commands mentioned in the law, excepting idolatry, adultery, and murder, he may transgress with impunity, provided it is done privately.”

In this light, one very good interpretation of verse 19 is that Christ is not talking about disobedience to the command of God, but to the attempt by some to completely disannul it. I’m not sure that we can ignore the idea of personal disobedience, but I’m not sure that this is the primary way to understand Jesus’ statement. Both disobedience to God’s law and the attempt to destroy God’s law, incur the wrath of God.

But we still have one question – what is the difference between greatness AND leastness in the Kingdom?

That there are degrees of punishment in the eternal judgment of God, I have no doubt. And that there are degrees to the blessings of God for the righteous in eternity, again I have no doubt. But is verse 19 referring to the future or to today? And at this moment, I am leaning towards the Kingdom of Heaven as it exists on earth today. The pastor, the father, the example, the teacher, who either minimizes or magnifies God’s Law, and I think that we can extend that to God’s Word generally, will be esteemed by God in same way in which that man esteems the Word of God. Little esteem produces little esteem; love and respect for the law of God, means respect in the Kingdom of Heaven.

And that means ultimately, that it doesn’t matter which interpretation is the most precise. I would rather not be little in the eyes of God today, tomorrow or in eternity. My respect for, perspective of, and teaching of God’s Word is a major part of that equation. And that applies to you as much as it does to me.