extortion or was used for excess. And, ala s for the blindness which perceived not, that
internal purity was the real condition of that which was outward!
113. Keim, with keen insight, characterises the Woes which contrasts their proselytising
with their resistance to the progress of the Kingdom; then, the third and fourth which
denounce their false teaching, the fifth, and sixth their false attempts at purity, while the
last sets forth their relations to those forerunners of Christ, whose graves they built.
Woe similarly to another species of hyp ocrisy, of which, indeed, the preceding were but
the outcome: that of outward appearance of righteousness, while heart and mind were
full of iniquity - just as those annually-whited sepulchres of theirs seemed so fair
outwardly, but within were full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Woe, lastly, to
that hypocrisy which built and decorated sepulchres of prophets and righteous men, and
by so doing sought to shelter itself from share in the guilt of those who had killed them.
It was not spiritual repentance, but national pride, which actuated them in this, the same
spirit of self-sufficiency, pride, and impenitence which had led their fathers to commit the
murders. And were they not about to imbrue their hands in the blood of Him to Whom all
the prophets had pointed? Fast were they in the Divine judgement filling up the measure
of their fathers.
And thicker and heavier than ever before fell the hailstorm of His denunciations, as He
foretold the certain doom which awaited their national impenitence.114 Prophets, wise
men, and scribes would be sent them of Him; and only murder, sufferings, and
persecutions would await them - not reception of their message and warnings. And so
would they become heirs of all the blood of martyred saints, from that of him who m
Scripture records as the first one murdered, down to that last martyr of Jewish unbelief
of whom tradition spoke in such terms - Zechariah,115 stoned by the king's command in
the Court of the Temple,116 whose blood, as legend had it, did not dry up those two
centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the
Temple, and at last avenged it.117
114. vv. 34 -36.
115. We need scarcely remind the reader that this Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada.
The difference in the text of St. Matthew may either be due to family circumstances,
unknown to us, which might admit of his designation as 'the son of Barachias' (the
reading is undoubtedly correct), or an error may have crept into the text - how, we know
not, and it is of little moment. There can be no question that the reference is to this
Zecharias. It seems scarcely necessary to refer to the strange notion that the notice in St.
matt. xxiii, 35 has been derived from the account of the murder of Zacharias, the son of
Baruch, in the Temple during the last siege (Jos . War. iv. 5. 4). To this there are the
following four objections: (1) Baruch (as in Jos .) and Barachias (as in St. Matt.) are quite
different names, in Greek as in Hebrew - K:w@rb@af, 'blessed,' Βαρουχ, and hyafk:reb@e
'Jehovah will bless,' Βαραχιας. Comp. for ex. LXX., Neh. iii. 20 with iii. 30. (2) Because
the place of their slaughter was different, that of the one 'between the porch and the
altar,' that of the other 'in the midst (εν µεσ--) of the Temple' - either the court of the
women, or that of the Israelites. (3) Because the murder of the Zacharias referred to by
St. Matt. stood out as the crowning national crime, and as such is repeatedly referred to
in Jewish legend (see references in margin), and dwelt upon with many miraculous
embellishments (4) Because the clumsiest forger would scarcely have put into the mouth