Matthew 23:1–3 – Biblical Authority & Modern Church Leadership

[Chief]

In Matthew 23:1–3, Jesus delivers a striking instruction:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, so you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

Here, Jesus acknowledges the authority of religious leaders when they faithfully teach God’s Word, but warns against imitating their hypocrisy.

This passage has shaped Christian understanding of leadership for centuries, but it has also been misused. Many leaders today still appeal to these words to demand blind obedience, while avoiding accountability for misconduct. From financial exploitation and sexual abuse to spiritual manipulation, history shows how Matthew 23:1–3 can be twisted to protect leaders rather than guide God’s people.

Key Study Points​

1. Historical Context – The “seat of Moses” symbolized recognized authority to teach God’s Law. Jesus respects that office, but not their corrupt example.
2. Teaching vs. Practice – Jesus separates true teaching (valid when it aligns with Scripture) from false living (hypocrisy).
3. Modern Distortions – Some leaders stress “do what they tell you” while ignoring “do not do what they do,” creating spiritual abuse.
4. Accountability in Scripture – James 3:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19–20 remind us that leaders face stricter judgment and must be corrected when in sin.
5. The Heart of Jesus’ Rebuke – Leadership is service, not domination. True authority comes through humility and faithfulness (cf. Mark 10:45).

Discussion Prompts​

• Authority vs. Abuse: How can we honor God-given teaching authority without enabling abusive leadership?
• Discernment in Practice: What practical steps can churches take to evaluate both the teaching and the lifestyle of leaders?
• When Leaders Fail: How should congregations respond when misconduct is exposed - towards both the leader and the victims?
• Personal Reflection: Have you ever seen (or experienced) this passage misused to silence or control believers? How did it affect faith and community life?
• Healthy Leadership Models: What examples have you seen of pastors or elders leading with humility, accountability, and transparency?

Takeaway​

Matthew 23:1–3 doesn’t grant leaders unchecked power; it calls the church to discernment, accountability, and care for the flock. Jesus Himself models servant leadership, reminding us that authority is always derivative and must align with God’s Word.

Over to you, friends:

How should this passage shape the way we view pastors, priests, and other church leaders today?

 

[Chief]

Further exposition on this topic...

Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance​

Matthew 23:1-3 represents a critical passage in Jesus' teachings that addresses the relationship between religious authority and personal practice. In these verses, Jesus acknowledges the legitimate teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees while simultaneously warning against emulating their hypocritical behavior. This paradoxical instruction - "do what they say, not what they do" - creates a theological tension that has been exploited throughout church history, particularly by religious leaders seeking to demand obedience while evading accountability for their own misconduct. The enduring relevance of this passage becomes painfully evident in contemporary contexts where clergy sexual abuse, financial exploitation, and spiritual manipulation have caused profound harm to congregants worldwide.

The historical setting of Matthew's gospel reveals a community navigating complex relationships with religious authorities. Jesus delivered this teaching during Holy Week, just days before his crucifixion, representing his most direct public confrontation with the religious establishment. The "seat of Moses" mentioned in verse 2 refers to the recognized teaching authority possessed by the scribes and Pharisees, deriving from their study and interpretation of the Law of Moses. Jesus neither fully endorsed nor completely rejected their authority but created a distinction between valid teaching and invalid living that would become foundational to Christian understanding of spiritual leadership .

Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 23:1-3​

Literary Context and Structure​

Matthew 23 stands as the culmination of Jesus' public teaching ministry, immediately following a series of confrontations with religious leaders (Matthew 21-22) and preceding the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25). This chapter functions as both a prophetic denunciation of hypocritical leadership and a warning to the crowds and disciples about the dangers of following such examples. The structure of the passage moves from a general principle (v. 1-3) to specific examples of hypocrisy (v. 4-12), then escalates to seven "woes" pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees (v. 13-36), concluding with a lament over Jerusalem (v. 37-39).

The opening verses establish a crucial distinction that informs the entire chapter:

• Verse 1: Jesus addresses both "the crowds" and "his disciples," indicating that this teaching has relevance for both general followers and committed leaders.
• Verse 2: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat" - This acknowledges their official teaching authority derived from their position as interpreters of the Law.
• Verse 3: "Therefore do whatever they tell you and keep it" - This validates their teaching role when they accurately convey God's commands.
• Verse 3: "But do not do as they do" - This creates the critical distinction between authoritative teaching and hypocritical practice.

Theological Implications​

Theologically, this passage establishes several crucial principles for understanding religious authority:

• The validity of teaching depends on its alignment with God's Word, not the moral character of the teacher. Jesus commands obedience to what the Pharisees teach when they accurately expound Scripture, regardless of their personal failures.
• Spiritual leadership requires greater accountability. While Jesus affirms the teaching office, he condemns the failure to practice what one preaches, establishing the principle that those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
• The ultimate authority remains God's Word, not human interpreters. By distinguishing between the message and the messenger, Jesus preserves the authority of Scripture while rejecting the automatic authority of religious leaders.

This passage does not provide carte blanche for abusive leadership but rather establishes a critical framework for evaluating teaching separately from teacher. The subsequent verses (4-36) demonstrate that Jesus' acknowledgment of their teaching authority did not prevent him from exposing and condemning their abusive practices.

Modern Exploitation of Matthew 23:1-3​

Misapplication and Spiritual Abuse​

In contemporary religious contexts, unscrupulous leaders frequently manipulate Matthew 23:1-3 to demand unquestioning obedience from congregants while evading accountability for their own misconduct. This distortion typically takes several forms:

• Selective Application: Clergy emphasize the "do whatever they tell you" aspect while minimizing or ignoring the "do not do as they do" warning. This creates an environment where criticism of leadership is framed as disobedience to God Himself.
• Positional Infallibility: By equating their teaching office with personal infallibility, leaders claim that their authority derives solely from their position rather than their character or conduct. This creates a power imbalance where questioning leaders becomes tantamount to questioning God .
• Spiritual Gaslighting: When confronted with misconduct, abusive leaders may accuse their critics of "judging" or "touching God's anointed," effectively using Scripture to silence victims and avoid responsibility .

This exploitation represents a complete inversion of Jesus' intent. Rather than calling leaders to higher accountability, the text is twisted to immunize them from scrutiny. The passage becomes a tool for maintaining power rather than a warning against its abuse.

Psychological Dynamics of Exploitation​

The exploitation of Matthew 23:1-3 operates through specific psychological mechanisms that make congregants vulnerable to manipulation:

• Cognitive Dissonance: When leaders proclaim moral teachings while engaging in immoral behavior, followers experience psychological tension that they often resolve by denying or minimizing the misconduct rather than confronting the leader. Case point: leaders who misappropriate church funds only get transferred (no disciplinary action)- congregants are told to not worry/question the corruption but only encouraged to give more.
• Transfer of Authority: Religious leaders often represent God's authority in the minds of congregants, making it difficult to distinguish between divine and human authority. This confusion enables abuse when leaders claim divine sanction for their demands.
• Institutional Betrayal: When religious institutions protect abusive leaders rather than supporting victims, they compound the trauma and reinforce patterns of exploitation .

Research indicates that clergy sexual misconduct affects approximately 10% of congregants, with some studies suggesting even higher rates among vulnerable populations. The power differential between clergy and congregants creates an environment where authentic consent becomes impossible, as the spiritual authority figure holds significant influence over the congregant's religious, emotional, and sometimes material well-being .

Case Studies and Institutional Responses​

Documented Patterns of Abuse​

The widespread phenomenon of clergy exploitation is documented across multiple traditions and regions:

• Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Cases: Extensive investigations have revealed systematic sexual abuse of minors and adults by Catholic clergy, accompanied by institutional cover-ups that spanned decades. The 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report documented over 1,000 child victims abused by more than 300 priests, while similar patterns have emerged worldwide.
• Protestant Clergy Misconduct: Evangelical and mainline Protestant churches have also experienced significant scandals. A 1987 survey found that 23% of evangelical ministers admitted to sexually inappropriate behavior, while 12% acknowledged sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse.
• Structural Enablement: Patterns consistently show that institutional protection of abusive clergy often takes precedence over care for victims. Mechanisms include transferring offending pastors to new churches, discouraging victims from reporting to authorities, and using legal tactics to silence allegations.

Theological Distortions and Justifications​

Abusive leaders frequently develop theological frameworks to justify their behavior and maintain power:

• Hyper-Spiritualization: Claiming special spiritual status or "anointing" that places them above ordinary accountability structures. Critics are framed as "persecuting God's chosen."
• Twisted Hermeneutics: Using texts like Matthew 23:1-3 to argue that God approves of their teaching ministry despite personal failures, suggesting that divine blessing confirms divine approval.
• Victim Blaming: Framing resistance to abuse as "rebellion against authority" or "lack of submission," effectively spiritualizing the trauma experienced by victims .

These distortions illustrate how biblical texts become weapons in the hands of abusive leaders rather than tools for formation in Christlikeness. The very scriptures intended to liberate and heal are manipulated to control and damage.

Restoration and Accountability Models​

Biblical Foundations for Accountability​

Despite its misuse, Matthew 23:1-3 actually contains the seeds of accountability rather than its rejection:

• The Destination of All Authority: Jesus acknowledges the Pharisees' teaching role only insofar as they accurately expound Moses' law. Their authority is derivative, not inherent, and must be evaluated based on its alignment with Scripture.
• The Distinction Between Person and Office: By separating the teaching from the teacher, Jesus establishes that office does not sanctify person - rather, the person must be judged by their conformity to the message they proclaim.
• The Call to Discernment: Jesus' instruction presupposes that his followers will exercise discernment in distinguishing valid teaching from invalid practice .

The broader biblical witness reinforces these accountability principles. Passages such as James 3:1 ("Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness") and 1 Timothy 5:19-20 ("Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear") establish clear accountability structures for spiritual leaders.

Practical Reform Measures​

Religious institutions implementing genuine accountability demonstrate several key characteristics:

• Independent Reporting Mechanisms: Establishing clear pathways for reporting abuse that bypass potentially compromised institutional structures.
• Zero-Tolerance Policies: Implementing clear consequences for clergy sexual misconduct and abuse of power.
• Transparency Practices: Publicly disclosing allegations and their outcomes.
• Victim-Centered Approaches: Prioritizing care and justice for victims over protection of institutional reputation, including providing counseling services and financial support for recovery.

Toward Faithful Application​

Matthew 23:1-3 offers neither blind endorsement of religious authority nor cynical rejection of it, but rather a sober and discerning approach to spiritual leadership. Jesus acknowledges that God can work through imperfect vessels while simultaneously warning that those vessels remain accountable for their imperfections. The modern exploitation of this passage to protect abusive leaders represents a profound betrayal of Jesus' intent, which was to liberate people from hypocritical leadership rather than enslave them to it.

Faithful application of this passage requires several commitments from Christian communities:

• First, it demands discernment rather than naiveté in evaluating spiritual leaders. Congregants must learn to distinguish between accurate biblical teaching and flawed human messengers.
• Second, it requires accountability structures that take seriously the greater judgment awaiting teachers. Religious institutions must implement transparent, independent mechanisms for addressing allegations of misconduct.
• Third, it necessitates victim advocacy rather than institutional protectionism. When leaders fail, the community's first responsibility is to care for those harmed rather than protect the reputation of the organization.
• Finally, it calls for humility among leaders who recognize that their authority derives solely from their faithful representation of God's Word, not from their personal virtue or position.

The enduring challenge of Matthew 23:1-3 is to honor God's gift of teaching authority while resisting the human tendency toward abuse of power. Jesus' original intent, affirming truth wherever it is found while condemning hypocrisy wherever it occurs, was to create an environment where spiritual leadership serves rather than dominates, heals rather than harms, and reflects the character of the One who taught with authority yet "came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

Recommendations for Further Action​

• Congregational Education: Churches should incorporate teaching on spiritual abuse and healthy authority into their seminars and member education programs, helping congregants recognize the difference between appropriate submission and harmful compliance.
• Denominational Reform: Religious traditions should audit their disciplinary processes to ensure independence, transparency, and victim support.
• Support Systems: Institutions should establish and fund comprehensive care programs for victims of clergy abuse, including counseling, spiritual direction, and advocacy services.
• Research Initiatives: Continued study of clergy misconduct patterns and prevention strategies should be supported through academic and ecclesiastical partnerships to develop evidence-based best practices.

Religious communities can honor the full message of Matthew 23:1-3 by implementing these measures (including respecting teaching authority while maintaining appropriate accountability) and thus creating safer environments for all who seek spiritual guidance.