TEXT [Commentary]

17. Jesus’ prophetic woes against the religious leaders (23:13-36)

13 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.[*]

15 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell[*] you yourselves are!

16 “Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ 17 Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. 19 How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. 21 And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. 22 And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne.

23 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens,[*] but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. 24 Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel![*]

25 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence! 26 You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish,[*] and then the outside will become clean, too.

27 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. 28 Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. 30 Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

31 “But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started. 33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

34 “Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. 35 As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.”

NOTES

23:13-14 These verses are the first of seven prophetic denunciations against the Pharisees (23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29; cf. 11:21; 18:7; 24:19; 26:24). Each woe, except that of 23:16 which refers to the “blind guides,” is spoken to the “teachers of religious laws and you Pharisees. Hypocrites!” The general pattern seems to be (1) pronouncement of woe, (2) reason for pronouncement, and (3) explanation of the reason for the pronouncement. The stark contrast between Pharisaic “righteousness” and Kingdom norms is reminiscent of the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in 5:21–6:33.

What sorrow awaits you. This renders the words “woe to you,” a phrase that reminds the reader of prophetic oracles in the OT. See the commentary below for discussion of this motif.

you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. The first woe goes right to the heart of the matter with the ironic charge that the scribes and Pharisees who claim to open the door actually keep people out of the Kingdom. The scribes and Pharisees “are not leaders but misleaders” (Davies and Allison 1997:285). Not only do they not enter the Kingdom, they prevent others from doing so. This language is similar to that of Jer 23:2 and Ezek 34:2-8, which likens the wicked leaders of Israel to shepherds which feed themselves and scatter the flock rather than feed them.

The textual authenticity of 23:14 is extremely doubtful; thus, it is not included in the NLT text (see mg). Many early and diverse manuscripts ( B D L Z 33 ita syrs copsa) do not include it, and those manuscripts that do include it have disparity in placement (some place it after 23:12). The verse was likely interpolated from Mark 12:40 and/or Luke 20:47 (Metzger 1994:50). Whatever its textual authenticity, 23:14 resonates with the prevalent prophetic theme of justice for widows (cf., e.g., Isa 1:23).

23:15 cross land and sea to make one convert. The second woe builds on the theme of the first. The efforts of the scribes and Pharisees to convert others (lit. “to make proselytes,” cf. Acts 2:10-11; 6:5; 13:43) are tragically ironic. It is not certain whether this refers to efforts to convert Gentiles to Judaism or efforts to convert Jews to Pharisaism. Possibly both are in view. McKnight (1991:106-108) concludes that the Pharisees did not actively pursue new converts from among the Gentiles, but that they urged that “God-fearing” Gentiles (cf. Acts 10:22; 13:16, 43; 16:14; 17:17; 18:7) become full converts to Judaism and observe the Pharisaic halakha. The description of the extent of their efforts (“land and sea”) recalls Jonah 1:9; Hag 2:6, 21.

then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are. Since they themselves were not entering the Kingdom, their efforts only result in others not entering it. Far from their converts becoming children of the Kingdom (18:3), they become children of hell (8:12).

23:16-24 While the first two woes deal with the general matter of preventing access to the Kingdom, the next two (23:16, 23) speak of specific legal rulings or halakhot (Heb. plural of halakha). This woe regarding oaths (cf. 5:33-37) is the most extensively developed of the seven oracles. It takes the form of pronouncement of woe (23:16a), description of the two acts that occasion the woe (23:16b, 18), two rhetorical questions underlining the falseness of the Pharisaic distinctions (23:17, 19), and three concluding statements on oaths (23:20-22).

23:16-19 Blind guides. The bitingly sarcastic reference to the Pharisees as “blind guides” is repeated in 23:24 (cf. 15:14).

you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ This casuistry of the Pharisees amounted to an evasion of duty before God and was roundly condemned. Two different loopholes involving empty distinctions are exposed, one in 23:16-17 concerning the Temple and gold within it, and another in 23:18-19, involving the altar and what is sacrificed on it. Although the scribes and Pharisees viewed some oaths as binding and others as non-binding, Jesus taught that this distinction was meaningless and that all oaths are valid (23:20-22). He totally rejected their halakhic distinctions on valid and invalid oaths. Previously in this Gospel, Jesus flatly denied the need for any oaths at all (5:33-37). It is well known that the halakha on oaths and vows was very important in Second Temple Judaism (m. Nedarim and CD 15).

23:20-22 These verses draw three conclusions from the preceding two examples. When it comes to oath-taking, there is no valid distinction between the altar and what is offered on it (23:20, against 23:18). There is also no difference between the Temple and him who dwells in it (23:21; against 23:16). Finally, there is no difference between heaven and the throne of God and the One who sits on it (23:22; cf. 5:34). A person may not reduce his obligation to be true to an oath by constructing facile distinctions between the objects mentioned in that oath. Personal integrity means that one does what one says one will do (cf. 5:33-37).

23:23 you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens. Lit., “you tithe the mint, the dill, and the cumin” (so NLT mg). For the Pharisees, only food that had been tithed was ritually pure and lawful to eat. Cf. m. Avot 1:16; Demai 2:1.

but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. Here the Pharisees were condemned not for tithing herbs, understood as a crop (Lev 27:30; Deut 14:22-23), but for tithing herbs without attending to the weightier matters of the law (cf. Luke 11:42). M. Shevi’it 9:1 exempts certain herbs from the tithing requirement. NLT’s “important aspects” might be taken to imply that tithing herbs is not important. But Jesus did not say this—he said justice, mercy, and faith are more important than tithing herbs. Jesus did not support a hierarchical ethic but cut through the external observance to the central value or ethic which supports that observance: justice, mercy, and faithfulness (cf. Hos 6:6, cited in Matt 9:13; 12:7, and also Mic 6:8; Zech 7:9-10).

23:24 You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel! In terms of hyperbolic metaphor, the Pharisees were scrupulous in straining out gnats (tithing herbs), but they should have been more concerned to guard against swallowing camels (omitting the weightier matters). It is interesting to note that the Aramaic words for “gnat” (qalma) and “camel” (gamla) are quite similar, so Jesus’ hyperbole was also a pun. Additionally, this language speaks to the inconsistency of the Pharisees, since both gnats and camels were unclean and could not be eaten (Lev 11:4, 23).

23:25-26 The fifth and sixth woes together address the Pharisees’ neglect of heart piety in favor of mere outward piety.

you are so careful to clean the outside . . . but inside you are filthy. In the fifth woe, the scribes and Pharisees are described metaphorically as those who clean the outside of tableware but neglect the inside (cf. Luke 11:39-41). Despite their zeal for the Torah and their traditions, they were people characterized by extortion and self-indulgence. Davies and Allison (1997:296-299) are probably correct in saying that Jesus was not disputing existing Pharisaic tradition here but was simply using the washing of tableware metaphorically (cf. Blomberg 1992:347). Pharisaic fastidiousness about such matters renders the metaphor fitting, but Jesus was not attacking that fastidiousness per se.

23:27-28 you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones. Jesus turned from the metaphor of cups and dishes to the macabre simile of tombs (cf. Luke 11:44). Tombs are made beautiful on the outside, but on the inside there are only bones and decaying corpses (which, by the way, ritually defile the Pharisees). It is not clear whether the whitewash on the tombs was intended to further beautify their architecture or to indicate that the bones inside were a cause of ritual impurity (Davies and Allison 1997:300-302; Garland 1979:152-157).

Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. The scribes and Pharisees appeared to men as righteous, but their hearts were full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. For Jesus the law must be obeyed from the heart. Outwardly lawful behavior may conceal a lawless heart (5:20, 22, 28; 6:1; 7:22-23; 12:34; 13:41; 15:7-9, 19; 18:35; 24:12, 48).

23:29-30 you build tombs for the prophets. The simile of tombs from the sixth woe becomes the transitional motif which links the sixth to the seventh. But here the tombs are those of the prophets, which the Pharisees adorn while claiming that they would never have taken part with their ancestors in killing the prophets. This seventh woe is climactic in that it addresses the root problem of all the others. If Israel had listened to the prophets whom God sent to them, they would not have faced the consequences of God’s judgment announced by the prophets. This theme is developed in the commentary below. For references to well-known tombs in ancient sources, see Acts 2:29; 1 Macc 13:27-30; Josephus Antiquities 7.392; 13.249; 18.108; 20.95; War 4.531-532.

23:31 you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Jesus pointed out that their disavowal of complicity in the murder of the prophets unwittingly implicated them in the guilt of their ancestors (cf. Luke 11:47-48). Jesus was using the word “descendants” to imply inherited character traits, not just physical descent. Modern sayings such as “a chip off the old block” or “an apple does not fall from the tree” speak to the same point.

23:32 finish what your ancestors started. Jesus’ ironic imperative (cf. Amos 4:4-5 in light of Amos 5:5) is lit. “fill up the measure of your ancestors,” and should be viewed in the context of Matthew’s characteristic motif of OT fulfillment. (See the discussion in the Major Themes section of the Introduction.) Jesus was speaking of his impending crucifixion as the culmination of Israel’s historical pattern of rejecting its own prophets. The motif of sin coming to its full measure is found elsewhere (Gen 15:16; 1 Thess 2:16). Stephen, Paul, and the author of Hebrews also reflect on Israel’s sad history of rejecting its own prophets (Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Heb 11:32-38).

23:33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell? Jesus’ epithets recall 3:7; 12:34. The sobering “judgment of hell” recalls 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15.

23:34-35 This section takes Israel’s rejection of God’s messengers one step further to the persecution of Jesus’ disciples after his death. This continues the seventh woe but also forms a sort of summary of all seven woes. Just as the murder of Jesus was anticipated by that of the prophets, so the murder of Jesus augurs the persecution and death of his followers, who succeed him in the ministry of the Kingdom (cf. 10:16-33; 20:23; Acts 7:52; 12:1-3). The murder of Jesus will bring horrible judgment because it is the ultimate atrocity in an atrocious sequence which began when Cain murdered his brother Abel (Gen 4:8ff).

righteous Abel to . . . Zechariah son of Berekiah. The final woe and its development concerning Zechariah assumes that Jesus is the climactic prophet of God. Abel and Zechariah were the first and last martyrs of the Heb. Bible, which ends not with Malachi but with 2 Chronicles. The mention of the martyrdom of Zechariah son of Berekiah (cf. Zech 1:1) causes some problems in identification, but clearly Matthew has in mind the murder of Zechariah the son of Jehoida, whose martyrdom is recorded in 2 Chr 24:21. (For discussions of this problem see Blomberg 1987:193-195; Gundry 1967:86-88; Hagner 1995:676-677.)

23:36 this judgment will fall on this very generation. Jesus solemnly reaffirmed that the wicked generation which rebelled against his words and works will bear the brunt of the woes he has just uttered (11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 24:34). Since they are in solidarity with those who murdered Zechariah, it is as though they did it themselves. Though the woes are directed against the leaders, the entire generation that followed the leaders gave tacit approval to the leaders and became implicated in their guilt.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Prophetic Oracles of Woe. The Old Testament prophets frequently cried woe against Israel’s sins. For example, see Isaiah 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22 (a series of six woes); Amos 5:18; 6:1, 4; Habakkuk 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19 (a series of five woes); Zechariah 11:17. These oracles spoke with a blend of anger, grief, and alarm about the excruciating consequences that would come upon Israel due to her sin. After the pronouncement of woe, such oracles contain a description of the persons upon whom the woe will come. This description amounts to the reason why the woe is merited. Thus, a woe oracle states the conclusion before the premises on which it is based. Woe oracles may have developed from covenant curses (Deut 27:15) or even from funeral lamentations (Jer 22:18). The New Testament contains oracles of woe in other places besides Matthew 23 (Luke 6:24-26; Rev 18:10, 16, 19). Woe oracles are also found in Second Temple Jewish literature. The Qumran literature has notable woe oracles, including some against Jerusalem and its leaders (2Q23 1:2; 4Q179 1 i 4, 1 ii 1; 4Q511 63 iii 4-5). 1 Enoch contains four series of woes (1 Enoch 94:6-95:7; 96:4-8; 98:9-99:2; 100:7-9). 2 Enoch 52 contains a series of alternating blessings and cursings (cf. Luke 6:20-26). The Talmud also contains exclamations of woe.

It is important to note that the prophet’s attitude in oracles of woe is not simply one of anger. Clearly the prophet’s anger at Israel’s sin is tempered at times by his grief and alarm at the horrible price Israel will pay for that sin. The prophet speaks for God against sin and this explains his anger. But that anger is directed toward his own people, and this explains the grief. The palpable pathos of woe oracles was due to the prophet’s dual solidarities. Isaiah, for example, pronounced woe upon himself, not only because he himself was a person of unclean lips but also because he lived among a people of unclean lips. The prophet must speak for God, but in announcing oracles of judgment, he knew that he was announcing the doom of his own people.

Two important conclusions flow from this brief sketch of prophetic woe oracles. First, Jesus’ pronouncements of woe upon the religious leaders were not innovative. His severe language must have sounded familiar to the religious leaders, given their ostensible acquaintance with the Old Testament. To the extent that these leaders were aware of Second Temple sectarian literature, Jesus’ woes would have sounded rather contemporary. Second, Jesus’ pronouncement of woe oracles was not merely an exercise in spiting his enemies. Rather, as is made clear in 23:37, his words come from at least as much grief as anger.

The Charge of Hypocrisy. Matthew spoke explicitly of hypocrites thirteen times in his Gospel (6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; 24:51). All but one (23:16) of the seven pronouncements of woe in Matthew 23 speak of the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites, and even 23:16 portrays the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites—“blind guides.” The various words related to “hypocrite” come not from the Hebrew Bible but from the Graeco-Roman world, describing someone who gave an answer, interpreted an oracle, mimicked another person, or acted a part in a drama. At times, the idea of pretending in order to deceive is present, but the word itself does not have a negative connotation (BDAG 1038). In Matthew hypocrites are more specifically those who live for fleeting human applause rather than for eternal divine approval (6:2, 5, 16). Hypocrites honor God outwardly, while their hearts are far from God (15:7-8). A hypocrite pretends to have sincere religious interest while questioning Jesus with evil intent. Further, such a person says one thing but does another (23:3; cf. Rom 2:21-24). Thus, in Matthew, hypocrisy involves religious fraud, a basic discrepancy or inconsistency between one’s outwardly godly behavior and one’s inner evil thoughts or motives.

Isaiah 29:13 may be the most important prophetic text condemning religious fraud. This passage, cited by Jesus in 15:7-9, concerns the religious leaders (Isa 29:1, 10, 14, 20-21) of Jerusalem (“Ariel”; Isa 29:1, 2, 7). The fraud described there involves seemingly pious words and traditional rulings which in reality disguise hearts that are far from God and plans that are thought to be hidden from God’s sight (Isa 29:15). Israel’s charismatic leaders, the prophets, were mute (Isa 29:10-12) and its judges were corrupt (Isa 29:20-21). But in spite of this, Israel’s outward religious observances went on (Isa 29:1). Jesus applied this passage to certain Pharisees and scribes, who insisted on the ritual washing of hands before meals but dishonored their parents by the fraudulent claim that what might have been given to the parents had already been promised to God (15:5). For Jesus, this “corban” practice, evidently sanctioned by the “tradition of the elders,” violated and set aside God’s law (15:6). Additionally, the practice of ritual washing of hands made the fundamental error of viewing defilement as coming to humans from external sources rather than coming from humans due to an internal problem, an evil heart (15:11-20).

Jesus’ rebuke of hypocrisy is not only deeply rooted in the Old Testament (cf. Ps 50:16-23, 78:36-37; Isa 48:1-2; 58:1-9; Jer 3:10; 7:4-11; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-33; Mic 3:11; Mal 1:6-10), it is also similar to rebukes found in Second Temple Jewish literature. For example, Psalms of Solomon presents a withering critique of hypocritical religious and political leaders, including the wish that crows would peck out their eyes and that their corpses would not be buried (4:19-20). Assumption of Moses 7 predicts the demise of hypocrites who behave unjustly and sensuously while at the same time being concerned for ritual purity. Rule of the Community, from Qumran, divides humanity into the righteous who will be eternally rewarded and the deceitful who will be eternally punished, and includes hypocrisy in a list of the vices of the deceitful (1QS 4:10). The later Rabbinic literature was also sensitive to the problem of hypocrisy, even among the Pharisees. The Talmudic discussions of seven types of Pharisees, of whom only the one who acted out of love was approved, is illuminating (y. Berakhot 14b; y. Sotah 20c; b. Sotah 22b). The “shoulder” Pharisee, who conspicuously carries his good deeds on his shoulder so that people can see them, is particularly relevant to the charge of hypocrisy in Matthew 23. See also b. Sotah 41b and 42a which affirm respectively that hypocrites will go to hell and never see the Shekinah.

The Charge of Rejecting the Prophets. The charge that Israel had rejected its own prophets (23:29-31) is perhaps the most serious accusation found in Matthew 23, since it addresses the root cause of the other problems confronted there. If Israel had listened to its prophets, the Pharisees would not have prevented people from entering the Kingdom. If Israel had listened to its prophets, casuistry in oaths and the elevation of trivial duties over basic duties would not have become commonplace. If Israel had listened to its prophets, matters of the heart would have remained primary, not the external appearance of righteousness. But Israel had rejected its prophets throughout its history, and that rejection would reach its horrible culmination in the rejection of its Messiah (23:32) and his messengers (23:34). This would bring all the guilt of the innocent blood shed from the first to the last book of the Old Testament upon Jerusalem (23:35-36).

This is not the first time Matthew pointed out that Israel had rejected its prophets. The genealogy of Jesus stressed the exile to Babylon, which of course was due to rejection of the prophets (1:11-12, 17). The ministry of John the Baptist is presented in terms of prophetic rebuke (3:7-12), and Israel’s rejection of John is explained as the rejection of an Elijah-like figure who is more than a prophet (11:7-18; 17:12; 21:32). When Jesus’ disciples are persecuted, they are to be encouraged because the prophets were similarly persecuted (5:12). Rejection or reception of the ministry of Jesus’ disciples is described as that of a prophet (10:41-42; 25:35-45). Jesus also repeatedly cited prophetic literature, sometimes with an introduction that stressed his incredulity at the religious leaders’ ignorance of the prophets’ message (9:13;12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; 21:13, 16, 42). All these factors combine to make it clear to the reader of Matthew that Israel had rejected its prophets.

Jesus’ charge that Israel has rejected its prophets clearly echoes many similar charges in the Old Testament itself. The Chronicler’s sad commentary on the end of the southern kingdom stresses Israel’s obstinacy in not only ignoring but even mocking God’s messengers. It had come to the place where there was no remedy, and the exile to Babylon ensued (2 Chr 36:15-16). Daniel’s great prayer of confession is centered on the admission that “we have refused to listen to your servants the prophets” (Dan 9:6, 10; cf. Neh 9:26, 30; Jer 25:4; 26:5). Israel abandoned the Torah and rejected the prophets whom God sent to remind her of her obligations (Deut 28:15-68; 1 Kgs 8:46-51). Notable examples of the rejection of the prophets include Ahab and Jezebel’s rejection of Elijah and Micaiah (1 Kgs 19:1-3; 22:7-38), Amaziah’s rejection of Amos (Amos 7:10-17), Pashhur’s persecution of Jeremiah (Jer 20:1-6), Jehoiakim’s murder of Uriah son of Shemaiah (Jer 26:20-23), and Zedekiah’s imprisonment of Jeremiah (Jer 37:11–38:28). Even Jesus’ “ironic imperative” telling the religious leaders to fill up the measure of their ancestors’ guilt by killing him (23:32) has a prophetic ring to it (Jer 7:21; Amos 4:4-5; Nah 3:14-15). His allusion to the murders of Abel and Zechariah effectively sums up the entire history of the murder of God’s prophets in the Old Testament, which in its Hebrew text ends with 2 Chronicles (23:35; cf. Gen 4:8ff; 2 Chr 24:21).

Israel’s rejection of the prophets is also mentioned in Second Temple literature. The book of Jubilees, probably to be dated around 150 BC, predicts the judgment which will come to Israel when they refuse to listen to the prophets (here called “witnesses”) and instead kill them (Jubilees 1:12-14). 4 Baruch (a.k.a. Paraleipomena of Jeremiah), which is probably a Jewish work with Christian interpolations or a Jewish-Christian work, mentions at the outset that the prophet Jeremiah must leave Jerusalem before God can allow the Babylonians to destroy it due to its sins. This is because Jeremiah’s prayers buttress the city against its enemies (4 Baruch 1:1-8). This same work ends with a note about the desire of the people to kill Jeremiah as they had previously killed Isaiah (4 Baruch 9:19-31). The Jewish work of the first century AD, Lives of the Prophets, recounts how 23 prophets died. Most are reported to have died peacefully, but seven are reported to have been martyred (chs 1-3, 6-7, 15, 23). The composite Jewish-Christian book, Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, is relevant here also. The deuterocanonical book of Tobit describes Tobit’s belief in the words of the prophets, and his conviction that the Second Temple would be destroyed and Israel scattered, and then finally that Israel would be restored, the Temple rebuilt, and the nations converted (Tob 14:3-7).

Materials from Qumran also refer to Israel’s rejection of the prophets. 4Q166 2:1-6, commenting on Hosea 2:10, states that Israel forgot the God who gave them commandments through his servants the prophets and blindly revered false prophets as gods. 4Q266 3 iii 18-19 states that Israel despised the words of the prophets (cf. CD 7:17-18). 4Q390 2 i 5 predicts a coming time of evil when Israel will violate the statutes given to them by God’s servants the prophets.

The mention of the martyrdom of Zechariah son of Berekiah in Matthew 23:35 causes some problems in identification, but clearly Matthew had in mind the murder of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles 24:21. This murder is recounted in Lamentations Rabbah (Proems 5, 23; cf. 1.16.51; 2.2.4; 2.20.23; 4.13.16) and in other Rabbinic works (Midrash Tanhuma Yelamdenu on Lev 4:1; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:16; 10:4; Targum Lamentations 2:20; y. Ta’anit 69a; b. Gittin 57b; b. Sanhedrin 96b). Matthew’s use of this story is not unlike that of the Rabbinic materials in that the murder of Zechariah is a particularly egregious sin, one for which the victim implored God’s retribution. For Matthew, as well as for the rabbis, that retribution was put into the context of lament over the destruction of Jerusalem.