Whited Sepulchres
(Matthew 23:27-33 and Luke 11:47-51)
In the passage in Matthew we have Christ inveighing against the Pharisees because
they appeared to be one thing (righteous) on the outside and were quite another inside
(lawless). He compares them to sepulchres which look alright on the outside (whitewashed),
but are full of what is revolting inside. This much is clear, but the next section
superficially is puzzling. It reads as follows:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye build the sepulchres of the
prophets and adorn the tombs of the just, and ye say, If we had been in the days of our
fathers we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. So
that ye bear witness of yourselves that ye are sons of those who slew the prophets: and
ye, fill ye up the measure of your fathers.” (verses 29-32).
It may be said: “What is wrong with building the sepulchres of the prophets ?” Certainly there
is nothing in Scripture to say we should do so or not do so. However, the deceased does not
benefit from such monuments. The rich man in Luke 16:19-31 had a burial, but Lazarus, so far
as the record goes, did not. Nevertheless, Lazarus was much better off than the rich man after
his death. The Egyptian practice of building pyramids for the burial of their dead did not
benefit the deceased. Building and adorning sepulchres savours of ancestor veneration.
Normally Jewish burials were simple affairs and not like those of the heathen which
involved leaving artefacts in the tombs. The prophets inveighed against heathen practices
(Deuteronomy 18:9; Psalm 106:35; Jeremiah 10:2). The Christian archeologist, Ron Wyatt,
found what he had reason to believe was the cave of Machpelah and this contained no artefacts,
though there appeared to be the remains of a monument (shrine ?) that had been built over it.
There were no bones in it. This may have been because the family of Abraham were amongst
those raised as recorded in Matthew 27:51-54. The purpose of burial, incidently, is the putting
of bodies out of sight (Genesis 23:4).
The point was that the scribes and Pharisees were trying to make out that they were
different from their forefathers and would not have persecuted the prophets. However Christ
was pointing out that in reality they were just as bad as their forefathers and part of their
hypocrisy was to say that they were on the side of the prophets whilst all the time doing the
things the prophets condemned. To bring the matter more up to date one would refer to the so-
called Exclusive Brethren. They make exaggerated claims for their past leaders calling them
men of God, apostles and such like, whilst at the same time teaching and doing the things that
they would have abhorred. If we go on to verses 34 and 35 Christ tells us what would be done to
his disciples in the future and this includes crucifixion, a Roman method of execution and not
one we hear of mentioned by name in the Old Testament. Further, Christ speaks of persons
being persecuted “from city to city”. What Paul speaks of in Acts 26:11 was on that line.
If we go to Luke we have a similar passage, though the sentence as to not being
partakers in the blood of the prophets is omitted (Matthew 23:30). Luke speaks of prophets and
apostles being persecuted (verse 49). Clearly this points to the future as apostles are not
mentioned in the Old Testament. Christ often uses the language of the Old Testament without
actually quoting it. For instance what He said on the cross - Matthew 27:46 and Luke 23:46 and
compare this with Psalm 22:1 and 31:5. In the passage we are considering He may well have
had in mind Jeremiah 7:25 and 26:5.
In fine, Christ could see through the scribes and Pharisees. Their facade did not hide from
him the evil that was underneath. We need to take all this to heart, for we are by nature no better.
March 2006