In the days of Jesus there were four “tombs of the prophets” near Jerusalem, and they were just beyond the eastern gate of the Temple, at the base of Mount Olives. Today, they are called the tombs of Zechariah, Absalom, Jehoshaphat, and Saint James, but these names can’t be supported in history, besides which there is only one prophet named among the four. David was, in fact, both a king and a prophet and his tomb may have been one of the four (Acts 2:29). We know they were there in Jesus’ day, and built up near the time of his birth, perhaps still under construction during his ministry, because their “architecture …led archaeologists to assign them to the period of the Herodian dynasty.”[1]
“They appear to be quite extensive, consisting of winding or semicircular galleries, passing under the mountain more than one hundred feet from east to west, and terminating in a rotunda about eighty feet from the entrance.”[2]
In fact, as Jesus berated the scribes and Pharisees that day, he may have pointed eastward in their general direction from the Temple, saying “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous” (Mathew 23:29). But… how did building the tombs of the righteous make the Jewish authorities of Jesus’ day hypocrites?
Perhaps the most damning of all the woes, which Jesus pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees that day was his exposing their sect to be powerless in so much that it couldn’t make them righteous. Jesus attacked them at their most central being, vis-à-vis their most precious identity. It was who they were, who they claimed to be. The dye in which they were cast was powerless to make them, what they aspired to be. They called themselves Pharisees, some of them being scribes or rabbis, meaning they were well educated in what they believed and held to be true. They held to their righteous clothing, which they believed would cover their nakedness, while they built up and beautified the tombs of the prophets, telling all who would listen to them, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets” (Matthew 23:29-30).
In other words, the Jewish authorities of Jesus day confessed that their fathers had wickedly slain the prophets, whom the Lord had sent unto them to help them to repent and save themselves and the nation from destruction. “Had **we** been in their day, **we** would not have been guilty!” Yet, they were guilty; the text condemns them, because they planned to destroy Jesus (John 11:45-53). In fact, throughout Jesus’ public ministry, the Jewish authorities sought to have him arrested and slain (Mark 3:6: John 5:18; 7:25, 30; 8:59; 10:31, 33, 39). So, although they confessed that their fathers were wicked and guilty of slaying the prophets, in an effort to be considered righteous themselves, they were no better than the fathers, they condemned (Matthew 23:31). They sought to slay Jesus, whom they knew was sent by God (John 3:1-2).
Therefore, Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees to go ahead with their wicked plans to destroy him (John 11:56-57), vis-à-vis fill up the vessel of wickedness that contained the deeds of their fathers, for these men were exactly as their fathers had been. How, then, could they escape the same judgment? The fathers were responsible for both their own destruction and the destruction of the nation and their national religion (the Temple). How could they, vis-à-vis these first century AD Jewish authorities, these serpents, this generation of vipers, keep from inheriting the same reward (Matthew 23:32-33)? As far as Christians today are concerned, how does Jesus’ seventh woe speak to us? Consider for a moment, who among us actually believes he or she couldn’t, and wouldn’t if we could, commit the same mistakes that our Christian forefathers made, being so drunk with power that they used violence to curb sin in their brethren? Such things are not very good WWJD acts! Our history is filled with men, who sought to curb sin in others by wickedly persecuting and torturing folks, who wouldn’t cooperate with mainline demands/teaching! Our thinking, the end justifies the means, isn’t a Christian principle. Yet, we go to the state, the law, to demand satisfaction for the things, we believe are sinful (cp. 1Corinthians 6:6-10). When is it ever good for the law to replace the Gospel?
[1] See Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers at Matthew 23:29.
[2] See Vincent’s Word Studies at Matthew 23:29.
Leave a Reply